JayClay

You should vote for Labour. Because of the two genuine options, Labour is the only option that may eventually lead to proportional representation being implemented. Once PR is in place, you would then be able to vote for a candidate who better aligns with your views. Change takes time. You probably won't be around to see what you want happen (assuming those are serious desires) being implemented. But if you genuinely want those things to happen for future generations, then vote Labour. To get society to the left, first you need to bring them back through the centre.

Please try to understand the definition of the phrase "to some degree". Of course people in power tend to create rules that suit them. They do this by manipulating people to vote for them against their own interests. But generally people do have a voice, even if they don't usually have the reasoning skills to use it properly.

Incentive, by definition, cannot create a better living standard for more people than a redistributive society. Incentive creates the desire for some to have more than others. You can of course separately debate the various benefits or drawbacks for society allowing this practice, but you cannot claim that it improves the quality of life for more people than a society where the aim is for everyone to be able to enjoy a similar lifestyle.

Posters claiming that people follow rules because of "heard mentality", or that people who obey rules are "sheep/sheeple" are really showcasing their ignorance, if you ask me. Society creates a set of rules, usually by some form of democratic consensus. These are rules that we are all expected to follow, and all have to follow, to some degree. But we all have our own personal moral compass and we all have an individual opinion on what is and isn't acceptable. There will invariably be conflicts between what social deems acceptable, and what we personally deem acceptable. At this point we have to make either a conscious, or more often subconscious, decision on if we will follow our morals, or those dictated by society. These decisions will be based on a number of factors such as the risk of being caught, the legal or social severity of the consequences when caught, and the level of personal satisfaction for doing so. The process was nicely summed up in the post from @KhunLA This really applies to every single one of us, regardless of whether we're actually conscious of the process. It has nothing to do with heard mentality.

Again?

Exactly. Presumably @Chivas business is making money from selling, advertising or otherwise interacting with Twitter's userbase. Sure, $15 a month may be low to get access to all those users. But those users wont be paying the $15 per month so they won't be there to have access to in the first place.

Unless you have an extremely odd business model, I assume that it relies on the reach Twitter has to it's users. If there are no users, and there won't be any users at $15 per month (never mind $100), your business model then disappears.

I think he means that he entered on a non-ED and then has extended that annually on the basis of employment for the last 30 years. I'd be extremely surprised if he's beed getting extensions based on studying for the last 30 years.

If it's that much then you definitely won't continue to get work from it. Even if it's $0.50 a month, he'll loose a huuuge amount of users. A big drop off at the start, and then slowly declining from there as the reverse-snowball effect comes into play. Rightly or wrongly, people aren't prepared to pay for these kind of things. A fee of $15 per month would expedite that provess significantly. The site would be a graveyard within a couple of weeks.

It won't do for much longer if nobody else wants to pay the fee.

I agree. I used to like a Pad Krapaow from time to time. But now I'm not allowed to eat spicy food very often. Like most Thai dishes, Pad Krapaow is bland and flavourless without the chillies. They don't only provide heat, they add a slight bitter-sweet flavour which is a vital component of pretty much any dish it's used in. "Mai pet gor mai aroi".

Maybe. Maybe not. If he chooses to get stoned at the end of the day it's no big deal. Unlike alcohol weed doesn't slow you down and burden you with a hangover the following day. That is the big problem with alcohol. A night spent drinking doesn't just loose you that evening (which is probably not a big deal if you had no plans anyway), it can loose you the entire following day. That's a big price to pay for a few hours winding down in the evening.

It would be a little hypocritical of you to label somebody a drug addict if you yourself need a caffine hit to get through the day.

How are either of those a step down from cannabis. No... He could maybe step down from cannabis to a caffeine based high like coffee or cola. Two things which I presume you never touch?

So what if his excitement leads him to take a minor liberty with the English language? He's apparently making steps to improve his life and that should be encouraged. First replace harmful addition with a less harmful one. Then, if that less harmful addiction poses a problem in the future he can work on it further at that time.

I dunno. Everybody needs their vice. CBD is probably a lot less harmful than alcohol over all so it's progress.

This is not true. Neither Thailand nor your home country make money out of people in car accidents, unless they happen to pay additional money for private medical insurance.

Good luck Bob.

Unless regulated, that means more profit, not cheaper prices. Automation has been happening for decades. When has it ever really lead to any significant price drops?

If Elon Musk has said it, it must be true...

If the LED lights are too bright for you, then by smaller watt-equivalent rated bulbs! Or, even better, buy ones with variable brightness.

What?

Of course you do. This is known as confirmation bias. What generally happens with conspiracy nut jobs is that they blab their ridiculous theories to anybody who will listen (and often, unfortunately, people who don't want to listen) and for every 100 people they engage a couple will agree with them*. That is enough evidence for them to conclude that their theory holds some kind of scientific merit. As for "deeply regret it", how does that manifest itself? Are they sitting in their sofa every night, clutching their knees, sobbing away a river of remorse? How does one even "deeply regret" something that has no impact on their day to day life? *Often times this will just be to shut the nutjob up, not because they necessarily agree.

Sorry. I asked for a link confirming that people concerned for the environment normally claim that there's only 10 years left.... not a link showing that a single person has this view.

Why not?