Yes.

In that biology course, how would you want the biology knowledge to be taught to the students? Like what form would the knowledge take? For example, would it be that you want students to simply memorize a sort of currently understood concepts in biology? Would it be something else?

Years in jail. […]

For clarity, are you saying that the more that people are incarcerated, the more money the private prisons and jails make?

If it had a definition, it wouldn’t be nonsense, would it?

It would depend on the definition in question. The term in a vacuum is just a collection of words — what those words mean is rather important, imo.

If you’re willing to believe a couple of random news outlets:

https://www.axios.com/2024/12/09/altoona-mcdonalds-luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare https://www.ibtimes.com/altoona-mcdonalds-flooded-angry-1-star-reviews-after-arrest-suspected-unitedhealthcare-ceo-3754683 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/9/altoona-pennsylvania-mcdonald-reviews-go-negative-/

Thanks for the sources! I wish that news articles would actually cite how they know things — it’s annoying to me that their statements regarding the reviews are essentially conjecture — I don’t want to have to feel like I need to just take their word for it.

Not hard to imagine thag G**gle would be on the case, deleting reviews by now.

Fair point.

[…] what do you think it is?

Note that your shifting of the burden of proof is not a sound argument for the veracity of your claims. At any rate, imo, exactly what it means depends on the context; however, it’s generally accepted as the theory that certain economic policies favoring those on the upper tier of the economic spectrum will trickle down to benefit the masses ^[1][2].

I’m not […]

What do you mean? Are you saying that you don’t have a definition for the term that you are using?

I don’t understand how signal intends to pay for servers forever with voluntary donations.

I think donations can be sustainable if the service in question is handled correctly. Imo, federation/decentralization would improve this, as it wouldn’t place the cost burden on a single entity.

I almost think that’s a pro. I don’t understand how signal intends to pay for servers forever with voluntary donations.

In the same vein, a privately owned service, to me, is rather suspect if it is free of cost — the money’s gotta come from somewhere.

What does your instance (I’m presuming redlemmy.com) offer that sets it apart from the rest?

Damn shame Linux is so unfriendly to anti cheats.

What about Linux do you think is “unfriendly to anti cheats”?

I feel that my point is still made regardless though.

Hm, well, the following point from your comment is currently conjecture, as there is no source for it:

Harris’ tax plan cut taxes on every bracket except the richest, and we still ended up with more income than we started.

I may just be blind — apologies if that turns out to be the case — but I can’t find where your source claims that net tax revenue would be higher under Harris’s tax plan.

average annual income means if you are poorer, you get punished more for stealing the same object. Not sure that’s a good idea

I’m inclined to agree.

Thank you for the clarification 😊.

Is that an “agree” as in you hadn’t considered what I said, or that you agree to that in addition? If it was the latter, I should clarify that I wasn’t adding supplementary information — I was outlining what I thought was a flaw in your rationale (eg argument from ignorance) for distrust in Signal.

Giving less and less means others have to work harder.

By “work harder” do you mean others pay more in tax, or do you mean that the providers of the service have to increase their productivity?

Taxation is giving back to the community that enables you to gain so much.

That depends on how the taxes are being used by the government. For example, if taxes are used to bail out corporations, is that giving back to the community?

But taxes going down year over year is a bad thing.

Why? What would be the alternative that you would prefer? I would think that the only preferable alternative would be taxes staying the same YoY (which, imo, is only viable in an ideal context), as the alternative to static taxation rates would be an increase, and an increase in taxation is, imo, far more divisive.

If you make the gigantic assumptions that the population doesn’t change, the use of services doesn’t change, the price of services only goes down, and the quality of services doesn’t change, then yeah, your very narrow scenario would result in reduced taxes.

I think it’s important for me to clarify the way that I’m viewing (ie my opinion) some of the things that you said: If the population changes, then the demand on the service could change — eg if the population increases, then the demand on the service could also increase by some factor which would also increase the service’s cost by some factor (not necessarily assuming a linear relationship). A change in population could also create a change in tax revenue in the same fashion. What’s important here is how I’m viewing the interaction between those 3 things: subject to real world conditions, I don’t think it’s entirely out of the realm of usefulness to analyze a scenario in which the increase in population could cause a balanced effect on the service — ie the net increase in revenue will perfectly cover the cost of the increase in demand of the service. So, to put all that together, if one is to make that assumption of balanced response, it doesn’t matter how the population changes; if the services operating efficiency increases, then the service’s cost-per-person will decrease. Essentially what I’m trying to say is that the meme is possibly a faulty generalization.