mechoman444

One goes in the left hole one goes in the right hole… Obviously.

Your distrust of the official source is irrelevant. Completely. That’s the information literally every single financial institution is using regardless of it being real or not.

https://share.google/7t3RegNapCQ2Awhkr - us congress

https://share.google/F2BIAgdWq9SC9IQwm - usfacts

https://share.google/YFvXxBKn6r8Er14XU - don’t remember.

It’s 3.4%. across the board. Believe it or not it’s a fact.

Diarrhea within diarrhea

So I don’t like dealing with “trust me bro” arguments but I think you’re confusing what inflation actually is.

Current U.S. Inflation Rates: 2000-2026 https://share.google/KYoH4YRuDcDl8tJje

But here’s an official link to what the inflation rate is and was.

The reason you’re feeling like things are significantly more expensive despite the relatively small inflation rate is that inflation works somewhat like compound interest.

For example, if a product cost $100 in 2025 and inflation was 5%, the price would rise to $105. If inflation is then 2.3% in 2026, that 2.3% increase is applied to the $105 not the original $100. The new price would be about $107.42.

That’s why a lower inflation rate doesn’t mean prices are going back down. It simply means they’re increasing at a slower rate.

Prices generally don’t go down just because inflation falls. They go up more slowly. The notable exceptions are things like gasoline and hand grenades.

And yet it still costs me 30 dollars to charge my car in Georgia and in a state like new York it’s 60 to 100 dollars.

Please take it. We don’t need it any more. Plus you get all the scientologists.

O shoot! We can do that? We can just do that? Alright. I call Ohio a mechoman444 territory!

Guges d. Is an asshole he owes me money.

What? You can be here when you get there.

The second movie is all about spies, which means there was a Cold War, and if there was a Cold War, there was a Russia, and if there was a Russia, there was a Stalin and a Lenin, which means there were communists, and eventually a Red Scare and a McCarthy, which means there was a nuclear scare and, naturally, nuclear weapons.

The Porsche girl character, I can’t remember her name because I’m 40, had one of those lower-back tattoos, which opens up a whole other series of “which means” implications that I absolutely do not want to get into.

This rabbit hole goes much deeper than Pixar intended.

Dude. I’m having violent diarrhea right now!

Inception

Ahhh. That makes sense. I’m assuming the airplane is also just a giant flying solar panel!

I sense sarcasm.

But seriously, inflation went up like 8%. Not 33%!

Then again inflation is just when they print more money.

I kid you not, the price of dumplings at the supermarket where I live went from $12 last year to $16 this year.

Four dollars! That’s a 33% increase in the price of dumplings! What the hell happened that they suddenly need 33% more money per bag?

Or take Dollar Tree turning into the $1.25 Tree—and sometimes even more! Some balloons cost five dollars at Dollar Tree. FIVE DOLLARS!

At this point, some of these companies are just making shit up.

One important caveat to this. It costs less than 17 cents to generate 1 kwh. Closer to 3 cents really. But that’s the cost of making the electricity, getting that electricity to a house or charger or what have you costs more. Since energy is a for profit industry they tack all the logistics costs to the client buying the electricity.

So your math is spot on but I fear the amount of markup on the electricity will be massive especially since it’s for a business let alone an airline.

Google (www.google.com) is a pure search engine - no weather, no news feed, no links to sponsors, no ads, no distractions, no portal litter. Nothing but a fast-loading search site. For now. Give it a decade.

The whole point is to avoid paying. It’s a special little club these fuckers belong to and they sit around with brandy and a monocle laughing maniacally about how they got away with not paying taxes.

They’ll spend more money on avoiding paying taxes then actually paying the taxes which in and of itself is… Evil.

I actually come across this argument fairly often when engaging with people on platforms like this: “No, actually, I was directly involved with forming/inventing the very thing you’re against.” It’s a remarkably convenient argument.

But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were, in fact, involved in forming some kind of DEI policy at the company level. You may very well have personally said, “We’re doing this to combat nepotism by design.” I’ll give you that.

But that’s not what DEI, broadly speaking, was intended to accomplish. I literally cannot find anything indicating that combating nepotism was the defining purpose of DEI. As far as I can tell, the stated purpose of DEI was to address discrimination based on race, sex, disability, and other characteristics and to increase inclusion and representation in the workplace.

Now, here’s where I think there is an important distinction. Some of the mechanisms used by DEI initiatives, such as standardized hiring processes, broader recruiting pools, structured interviews, and more objective qualification criteria, can absolutely have the unintended or secondary effect of reducing nepotism, cronyism, and favoritism.

I fully admit there is a connection there, and I would even argue that reducing those practices can be a significant benefit to society. But what something is intended to accomplish, how it accomplishes it, and what ultimately happens as a result are three different things.

A policy can have an outcome that wasn’t its primary objective. If DEI hiring practices happened to reduce nepotism by forcing companies to rely less on personal connections and more on standardized qualifications, that’s an observable outcome. It doesn’t mean combating nepotism was the original purpose of DEI.

And that’s where the “I helped create it, so I know what it was for” argument falls apart. Even if you personally designed a particular corporate DEI program with anti-nepotism objectives in mind, your individual intentions don’t establish the universal purpose of DEI as a concept. You could have designed your program differently from other organizations.

What could have happened and what did happen are also completely different questions. I have no idea what would have happened if these companies had implemented the exact same anti-nepotism and merit-based hiring reforms under a different, less politically charged name. Maybe the outcomes would have been similar. Maybe they wouldn’t have. That’s a counterfactual, and we can’t simply treat it as established fact.

You can sit here and yell at windmills until the cows come home, but changing the terminology doesn’t change the underlying distinction: intent is not outcome, and correlation is not purpose.

And finally, the constant comparison to gay marriage doesn’t really work. DEI and gay marriage are two completely different issues involving different historical circumstances, different policy mechanisms, and different desired outcomes. Whatever similarities exist in the political controversy surrounding them don’t establish that the two issues will, or should, follow the same trajectory.

Thank you sir. I certainly appreciate it, although I have a feeling that this comment is going to get severely downloaded anyway.