That is a completely legitimate concern. It’s important to note that even if prisons are publicly run, there’s still a bunch of private actors in the prison system in the form of the people who work in it. Prison worker unions and police unions lobby for more laws already to protect their jobs. Private prisons might make that aspect worse, but it’s not like it’s perfect now.

Neither is obviously more efficient than the other overall, it depends on the structure and the incentives. People worry about private prisons for example. If you make it so the government sends people to prisons and you pay the prison a fixed rate per prisoner, of course you’re gonna get skimping on services by the prisons. If you instead give the prisoner a voucher for a prison and make them pick where they go and prisons get money per voucher they get from prisoners, you’re gonna get competition on quality so you’ll get high quality prisons. Opposite outcomes with just a change to incentives.

In this case it’s the definition of efficiency. Efficiency = (resources used up) compared to (resources taken in). How else would you even calculate it?

Omg, the Evermore one was so bad because it was so good but actually 4 hours long. I lost one whole day of free time to that video. Lol

Please see my comment here.

Maybe I can illustrate better. Imagine your boss goes to pay you your paycheck and gives you and your coworkers 75% of what you’re supposed to be paid instead of 100%. You say, “Hey, where’s my other 25%” and they respond, “I don’t have any more, we ran out of money to pay you. We had to adjust to stay sustainable. You’ll only get 75% until our finances change.” Would you say, “well, since there’s still savings maybe, and there’s gonna be a bunch of new money the next time you go to pay out, just not enough, you technically didn’t run out. That’s technically something else?” I don’t know, maybe you would. I’d call that running out, though.

For most of Lemmy, yes, that makes you a fascist.

Social Security is being slowly strangled.

The demographics are probably a bigger part of it. The ratio of people collecting to people paying in is much larger now and the length of time people collect on it is longer since people live longer now.

“I only robbed you of 25% of your income, what are you complaining about?”

What people mean when they say “run out” is that it won’t be able to keep up with its obligations. That is objectively bad. People will get reduced payments. There will be pain.

Had a coworker who used MMDDYY with no dashes. Unless you knew it was very hard to figure out, since it could also just be a number that happened to be 6 digits, too. At least YYYY-MM-DD looks like a date generally.

The information is out there if you wanna find it. The truth is most people don’t care, though. That’s on us.

He can decide, and his middle managers can decide, and you can also decide by choosing to shop from somewhere else.

On the other hand, if everyone in the world had your lifestyle the world would be much more wealthy and could make a lot of positive changes.

I think the answer is yes.

Amazon is very much not a monopoly. There are thousands of online retailers. There are also a lot of delivery services, no idea if there are thousands, but there’s a lot.

You certainly should do your best to not shoot through human shields, agreed. But can it still sometimes be better to shoot through human shields if that’s what it takes to get very dangerous people vs letting them escape and threaten again later? I don’t know, it’s a hard question.

For conflicts like this leadership that is planning attacks or otherwise leading forces that are doing attacking, simply existing anywhere outside a prison cell is threatening. Hamas leadership knows that, they’re the ones putting hostpitals at risk by being there.

Except Hamas is the government in Gaza and can setup pretty much whatever situation it wants to there, while it is hated in Israel outside of Gaza and would be prevented from taking an Israeli hospital and constructing elaborate tunnels under it. That’s kind of like saying “If Russia wants Ukraine so bad, why doesn’t it just take Kyiv?” Because it can’t. There’s a bunch of obstacles stopping it, otherwise it obviously would.

It wasn’t the giving money, it was the fast tracking in terms of regulations. Many people in Trump’s position would not have done that and would have waited the expected 18 months instead of the 11 that it actually took. Some in the industry were concerned as it was happening. Plenty of other countries dragged their feet in the approval process more than the US did.

Trump wasn’t single handedly responsible for the approvals. Far from it. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t know much of the details. But it still seems he was pushing for it where other people wouldn’t have. I’m not sure Biden would have. Trump likes to play fast and loose where Biden is a bit stuffier.

Basically I think my vote matters even if it doesn’t matter, so I vote for people I actually want. Lol. If there was a race where I had a strong preference between the two main party candidates and I thought my vote would have an impact, I’d ditch the third party for that race.