Marketing is truly the worst. A friend of mine studied psychology and his classes were inundated by industry trying to convince them to go into marketing.

You can’t interface fairly and honestly with people. No, you have to use how their brains work to trick them into buying your products!

/s

I’m the same way. I take like a quarter hit and I’m alright. The whole puff? Gone for hours.

It’s the classic conservative condition: I didn’t see it was a problem until it happened to me. So let’s start making it happen to them.

I think what they’re getting at is not every person on the Internet lives in the United States.

deleted by creator

I think what will DEFINITELY help is all the immature passive aggression, like this post, that manifests when anyone dares to suggest they might have an issue they need to fix.

/s, in case that wasn’t clear

I was coming to post the same. Those fucking clickers were so stupid and overpriced, all so my biochem professor could poll the class AND grade everyone on their results. Results to questions about material that was JUST taught in the same lesson. Good thing everyone benefits equally from lecture, right? Fuck that guy.

https://yourschoolgotwrong.com/ ?

Feeling this so hard as I trundle into my forties. I can’t get enough bitter gourd.

After first seeing the term trans femme, I was very sad trans homme wasn’t in use.

That’s pretty much what they did anyhow, just with way more steps.

Have you installed it on an NES yet? Because that kinda happened: https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/you-can-sort-of-run-linux-on-an-nes-demo-shows-a-unix-like-os-running-completely-on-the-nes

This is true. It can be strived for, though, and there are strategies to overcome bias, increase impartiality, and identify bias in others. If the United States supreme court (and really its legal system too) had any integrity, it would champion doing so.

No disrespect perceived, you’re fine. It may be a Southern thing too - my wife is from the South and she also associates it with the seemingly endless dog whistles of her life there.

I think of it as “taking number substitution back”, or 20-14-19-2. We can’t let fascists, Nazis, and general scum bags ruin everything.

“Fiscal conservative” was always just a reputable seeming veneer for “we’d rather let poor people die than tax the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else”.

Everyone knows that geese are never silly, only hateful.

Because the Overton window in the United States has many people viewing fascists as friends and anyone further left than center right as “extreme left wing socialist communist Nazi terrorists”.

Holy shit. I get it! That’s a great explanation and I really appreciate your taking the time to type it all out. I’m glad we don’t have Lemmy medallions to award but, if we did, I’d give you one. I now see how a 100% reserve requirement, i.e., all deposits completely backed in cash, would entirely change banking.

The only thing that feels weird to me is the virtual money the bank creates doesn’t seem go away once it’s paid back. For example, if a mini bank only had $1000 and lent $900 with a 10% reserve, they’d end up with $1900 once the loan is repaid (ignoring interest). Or does the $900 they lent create a -$900 for the bank that is cancelled through repayment?

I’ve been thinking about it and it still doesn’t make sense. I’m a scientist, not an economist, so it’s wildly out of my wheelhouse. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

Here’s where I’m hung up. Let’s assume a 10% fractional reserve and, for the sake of simplicity, just one bank and a dramatically simplified deposit/loan scenario, just to minimize the number of hypothetical people and transactions.

Person A deposits $1000. Bank lends $900 to person A which is sent to Person B.

Person B deposits $900. Bank lends $810 to person B which is sent to Person C.

Person C deposits $810. Bank lends $729 to person C which is sent to Person D.

Person D deposits $729. Bank lends $656 to person D which is sent to Person E.

Let’s stop there. So we have one initial deposit of $1000, which has resulted in an additional $2,493 in deposits ($3,493 in total) and $3,095 in loans. The bank is now receiving payments, plus interest, on over 3x the amount of actual money it was actually given. To me, it seems like the bank is figuratively “printing money” and gaining interest on it. Nothing I’ve read on fractional reserve lending has suggested this is incorrect.

Halp!