Oooohhh, thank you

After the first 12 hours, as chaos is setting in, release a video demanding that all heads of state sign an agreement to limit the wealth of legal entities worldwide, something similar to the existing agreement on minimum 15% tax for corporations. However, this is a wealth-based tax, not income based.

Set minimum limits, e.g.

1. No single individual may own or control more than 0.01% of the world’s wealth (0.01% would currently equal around USD 40-50 billion).
2. No family may collectively own or control more than 0.05% of the world’s wealth (think the Saudi Royal family).
3. Similarly no company’s market capitalisation may exceed 0.05% of the world’s wealth.

If their annual tax submission determines that they exceed those limits, they have 6-12 months to reduce their wealth. Companies can achieve this through splitting the company into smaller legal entities. Individuals may make charitable donations (anywhere in the world) but only to organisations that they can prove they and their family have no financial ties to. Also, the value of any non-profit organisations that they manage will count to wealth controlled by them/their families, to limit options for simply shuffling wealth around.

If they don’t comply, the remainder is 100% taxable, with the tax collected globally based on the location of their wealth. I.e. if they have money sitting in 3 countries, each country can sieze their proportional share of the wealth in that country.

Any head of state that doesn’t comply within 12 hours is added to the hit list. After the first few heads of state drop, the rest will comply quickly.

Does Superman not age?

Also, sounds kinda lonely

Oooohhh personal attacks… yep, you have nothing of value to respond with. Byyyyyeee

Agnostocism? 😂 If you were truly agnostic, you wouldn’t have started pushing your view.

As for logic 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I don’t need to prove she definitely is working, that’s not how logic works. It’s sufficient that I can provide even one reasonable scenario under which she could be home earlier than him but still work full time, to disprove the statement that she doesn’t work. So here you go: maybe she works from home, so she cooked because she didn’t have to commute.

I get it - you interpret this scenario as evidence of her being lazy and/or incompetent. You want to buy into that, for whatever personal reasons of your own, so you ignore the facts:

1. The picture is misleading - the chicken is cooked, that colour is a sauce. You can tell if you look closely to the right of the chicken, and to the area below the chicken where the sauce comes onto the vegetables. So not only did she cook him chicken, she even made him a sauce with it.

2. The scenario is similarly presented in a misleading way to evoke an emotional reaction from the reader.

a) You only know about his coming home from work because that is what he chose to tell you. He wants you to identify with him, to remember that exhausted feeling after a hard day of work.

b) You know nothing about her circumstances. That allows the reader to inject their personal bias into the scenario, which you can see from the varied responses to the post. Your bias is toward a traditional provider/home maker relationship, which is why in your opinion such an opinion is “baked in” to the scenario. I don’t have that bias because I know too many women who work and still do the majority of the household work. My experience is not the exception - there is a tremendous amount of research on this topic.

We are a generation of young women who were told we could do anything and instead heard that we had to be everything.

Courtney E. Martin

So, maybe she works. Maybe she doesn’t work outside the home but recently gave birth to twins and hasn’t slept properly in weeks. Maybe she has a chronic illness that makes cooking difficult. Maybe she was never taught how to cook and is trying really hard to teach herself. Maybe that meal tastes amazing.

All I’m asking is that you see her as a human who maybe had a tough day too. To think critically and not just allow your emotions to be manipulated.

Skandal!

It doesn’t state the information either way. She may or may not work. Insisting that she doesn’t is YOU (and the original person I replied to) adding information. I accept that both options are possible. Can you?

No, your bias leans towards this. Careful, your misogyny is showing.

Maybe she goes into work earlier than he does, maybe she works from home, maybe she does shift work. There is nothing “baked in” to this scenario.

Where do you see it stated that she doesn’t work? Maybe that’s the best she can manage after a long day of work herself

I would absolutely support pre-funding a GrapheneOS phone

Awww, what a sweet baby. Thanks for sharing.

Mean! I was just coming to comment how cute they are 😍

The 4 chord song! I had totally forgotten about this

Elderly people will absolutely believe they need to buy a new computer. They don’t understand the tech, just hear Win 10 will no longer be supported and their computer can’t run Win 11, so new PC.

Source: Recent conversation with my mother-in-law.

I missed the last step going down the stairs in my own home, landed flat with all my weight on one foot, and managed to break the heel bone right where all the bones come together in the middle of my foot.

Thanks. Noom didn’t work for me 🫤

Do you mind sharing the app you used?

You have to sing to the object to make your power work, with the required pitch dependent on the mass of the object. The larger the mass, the deeper the tone, with really small objects requiring very high pitched tones. You’re tone deaf and spend most of your time badly singing scales at objects, trying to figure out the correct pitch.

This may be true but people with ADHD are significantly more likely to have car accidents. This is a well studied and documented phenomenon. Just because it happens to others doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious ADHD risk.