I literally just came from another post that was talking about this.

Unfortunately there’s a lot of products that most people don’t even know exist. Hell I keep finding new tools and wondering why I’ve been doing things the hard way for so long.

OTOH, fuck all the advertisers who use shady tactics to make sales, and especially fuck all the people who pray on the naivety of others to steal their money. I was just showing a customer an email I got the other day stating her domain hosting was past due and required immediate payment, and she asked how I knew it was a scam. Uh, hello, because —I— am hosting your domain and website (and this is exactly why I share this kind of stuff with people, to make them think before they blindly write a check).

I’m down voting you because I agree lol

I’m pretty sure ads don’t work on me. People tell me ‘ackshually they do, you just don’t notice.’ Nah, mate. They don’t. They just annoy me.

I hate ads as much as the next guy, but without ads get ready to start paying for things. You go to a news website, sorry you need to login and hand over your credit card to access anything. Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can’t sell you data to advertisers anymore.

Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.

Are there people who genuinely enjoy ads?

You really should be directing your angst at the bastards who respond to advertising. If it weren’t for them, there would be no advertising at all because it would be completely unfeasible. Nobody would be willing to pay for something that has no return on investment.

Marketing is only manipulation. It wants to manipulate me into doing something I otherwise wouldn’t have.

Since I don’t know how well their manipulation works, my only option is to only buy things that I have never seen an ad for.

To make sure I can still buy anything at all, I block/avoid ads where I can.

If I want your shit, I will find you. If I appreciate your shit, I’ll pay you for your time.

This literally won’t happen because you will never find my content without ads.

How do you reach people with a new product that didn’t exist before? Or a Service? Do you want monopolys that never change because smaller business cant advertise with their stuff.

I don’t like 99% of advertising either, especially online, but there are some exceptions.

I’m upvoting because this should actually be unpopular. Intrusive ads are bad but less intrusive ones let you know who the patrons are of the otherwise highly expensive services you enjoy. That all of this gets paid for with ad money is nothing less than a miracle.

If you don’t want to see ads then don’t give them your notice! I like being informed when new products go to market.

Too many places let you drive if you do the happy path stuff right: stopping at a stop sign, changing lanes safely, etc. But the most important time of your driving is when you’re about to hit a semitruck and you need to get your car out of the way, and there is no training material for this at all. People often panic and slam the brakes and aggressively turn the wheel, which is a perfect setup for understeer and losing control of your car. They are literally getting in a situation where they are about to die and they choose to greatly increase their risk due to negligence.

It’s cheaper to run simulators than purchase cars and hire trainers. Get em in nasty situations and teach them how to get out of it. For real, if mom and dad can’t evade sinking their freeway missile into a van full of kids, they shouldn’t be able to get behind the wheel and be presented with opportunities where this might happen any time they drive.

Germany’s driving test (and school) is fairly strict and will fail you for small mistakes which is good for beginners but after all, there is no test or reinsurance after some years of driving. After some time, people will see driving as a right not a privilege. This is the case for the vast majority of counties. This is the problem.

Problem is that there’s no other alternative for most people. Unless you live in a city, public transportation isn’t a valid option. Most people living in most locations (at least in the US) have to have personal vehicles to attend school/work, shop, and socialize.

Once self driving cars become commonly available, driving will no longer be a requirement and I think that driving licenses should be stricter on who’s allowed to drive.

Imo it’s kinda unavoidable. Humans make mistakes all the time. We could greatly reduce the risk however, if we simply reduced our reliance on independent vehicles. Unfortunately this depends on the place where you live as well but if possible, it would be much safer for the collective majority to bike/walk to areas or use public transport where applicable as it would drop the amount of traffic on the roads

This is why I personally am looking forward to fully self-driving cars. We’re a long way off, but when self-driving cars can completely replace the human element, I think the world will be a much safer place.

There’s a few places that didn’t get cars until later and “no thank you” was a very common reaction. We really ought to just ban private ownership.

People who die while driving are almost all die by accident.

People who get shot are far more likely to be killed intentionally.

Lol. What a tyrant.

I think updating the driving test to mandate proving you’re able to drive a stick would thin the herd quite a bit.

Especially in the USA

And, independently of their tax status, they shouldn’t promote political candidates.

I don’t disagree with you on principle, but in practice, allowing the taxation of religious groups would create massive opportunities for abuse. Tax code can be structured to promote one religion and punish another, and you know for damn sure that our elected officials won’t hesitate to put their greasy thumbs on the scale.

Do they tax income? Investments? Real estate? Spending? Endowments? Salaries? Each of those would create a disparity in how much a specific group owes. Consider how the Mormons collect and spend money vs Catholics, or how Quakers don’t have preachers, just elders, while evangelical preachers earn hundreds of millions.

Any tax gives a massive advantage to the religions of the wealthy. You’d end up with four mega churches and a bunch of underground religious communities meeting in secret and sharing holy books smuggled in from Canada.

While I’d love to see churches start paying their fair share, I also see the way our tax code works now. We can’t get economic elites and the well connected to pay their fair share, what makes you think that it will happen with the religious economic elites and the religious well connected? It’s always the little people who suffer the most.

My unpopular opinion is that people who keep throwing this stupid idea around have no clue what they’re talking about.

Religions / churches are non-profits. Their only revenue is post-tax donations. The people who work at the non-profit churches still pay income tax. The moment you start taxing a church, you allow them to function as a corporation. Not taxing churches is a fundamentally great thing.

I upvoted you, but do disagree with this a bit, there are a few religions which set up food for anyone willing to come inside, like I went to eat langar at a Sikh temple during my friend’s wedding, and all we have to do is cover our head out of respect. Grab a plate, sit on the floor, and eat.

I randomly went with my friend a couple days later, and they still had food out, so it’s not a wedding only thing, but they actually have cooks in the kitchen most of the day.

And regulated and inspected for abuses of power

Including climate and woke ideology religions! Yes!

I’d give loopholes for good works and define them specifically

If you really do mean no exceptions then that is genuinely an unpopular view.

And we’ve nowadays taken it even further, in spoken Finnish we’ve even got rid of the “hän” and mostly use “se”, which is the Finnish word for “it”. The same pronoun is used for people in all forms, animals, items, institutions and so on, and in practice the only case for “hän” is people trying to remind others they consider their pets human.

Context will tell which one it is.

I feel the same but with genders. To be clear if anyone identifies to a specific gender, I’ll respect that. However I don’t see why genders are necessary. We are all unique human beings and there’s no need to label everyone to a specific gender.

I’ll go one further: I get (and respect) the utility of they/them pronouns for a singular entity, but it IS clunky and confusing. English is ever evolving but when I hear a “they” it is still very much more abstract and plural than a more specific he or she.

Whatever: it’s my shit and I’ll gladly deal with a nanosecond of confusion and adjust if it allows people to maintain their dignity. Point is, by insisting that there’s nothing confusing about they/them in reference to a single entity feels disingenuous. I know moderate people who are otherwise live and let live as well as receptive to basic human dignity who are turned off by the confusing abstraction, switching tenses, etc.

They/them isn’t the elegant, seamless drop in that people say it is and it hurts the messaging. I get that being rigid and forceful is necessary with the rampant transphobia and “i’m just asking (bad faith) questions” going on, but I still fuck up semantics and tenses like whoa

That sounds like a solution that should make everyone happy. However, the crowd arguing against more pronouns would also argue against this, just because they’re impossible to appease.

That’s not an unpopular opinion.

Give em a “you won capitalism!” Participation trophy 🏆 too.

Just give people who reach $10m net worth a “Congratulations you won at capitalism” diploma and tax them 100% after that

Gonna need tons of capitals controls to prevent money from leaving, rich people are good at moving. To what end? So the federal government gets even more money to spend on subsidies, police riot gear & highways. They’d turn the Pentagon into an octagon before they’d meaningfully help their citizens.

Make that 100c. Fuck them. Nobody needs that much money.

If other nations can have billionaires and we can’t, and our country is vast and rich, we will be at a disadvantage.

The WANT of money is corrupting itself. Actually having the money itself is not needed. People who want money will destroy your little system, and throw your country into chaos, ruination and poverty, united by a conspiracy of common interests.

I would rather just regulate what needs regulating, within reason, with a gentle hand, and only a strong hand with the worst of violations. For the record, I would be much harsher than the us has tended to be when it comes to pollution, etc.

I would like 95% of your dollars, please. If we get to arbitrarily rob people who make more than we do, I’d like something from you!

I feel this would have been spot on, in the nineties.

Right now the problems plaguing nuclear are economic. There is no guarantee you can build and exploit a plant and get to break even before either it becomes irrelevant, or you fall victim to regulatory jostling.

Nuclear was a missed opportunity, but the window is closing fast and it will probably remain a missed opportunity forever.

Word

Not all Nuclear Power is equal. RBMK reactors are dangerous as fuck. Others not so much.

That’s the main opinion on reddit. This is pretty mainstream.