I noticed an increase in the variety of onscreen talent and more animatics, but I haven’t noticed a decrease in the production value

I’m a big fan of the b1m. youtube.com/@theb1m youtu.be/EruSZNI4th4 <- tunnel under the Faroe islands & world’s only undersea roundabout

Sorry, what?!

Oh, absolutely. I’m just trying to use it as a marker to try to figure out where the goal posts should be for what we are calling “middle class.”

I have a friend who works in central Ontario for a fortune 500 and they take home ~80k/year, and I’ve considered them and their family middle class for a while, but they also were telling me that they’re overextended and struggling to keep up on interest payments…while also being denied a consolidation loan. So maybe they are not really middle class…?

What qualifies as “middle class” these days? Roughly 24% of Ontario public sector workers are on the sunshine list. While this doesn’t give us a ton of insight into the private sector, this would still suggest that if we say the 19% is the middle class that to be middle class you have to be making more than $100k/year…

Not trying to argue, just trying to understand where the goalposts are.

The argument against inheritance tax seems to be that we don’t want to screw the inheritors out of the ability to own a family property or something, but it seems like it’s be REALLY easy to draw a line and make it such that the estate is taxable if more than $X value is going to a single recipient and/or if the estate is valued in excess of $XY that it’s taxable and/or if the recipients assets exceed $Z that entitlements exceeding $X are taxable. I’m sure there’d be a few edge cases that would miss the mark, but it seems like it would be a lot better than the current system of generational wealth building up with the new generations literally not needing to work a day in their lives and still pass on wealth to their kids.

Of course, the men’s room is just always covered in urine. Old men and young kids miss, even people with aim splash back out of the toilet enough to get it on the walls/floor/under the urinals.

I don’t know what happened to them, but it used to be where I live that the bathroom would have floor-to-belly-height urinals and the entire bathroom floor would be gently sloped towards them, and the walls would be tiled to the same height.
This meant that cleanup could be done by blasting everything with industrial detergent/disinfectant and literally power washing it all into the urinal drains. Now in New construction I only see the wall mounted urinals, and a floor drain in the middle to meet code requirements, but often the cleaners don’t know that they have to put water into that drain to prevent it evaporating out and letting sewer gasses flow into the room (ew.)

Overall a downgrade for both staff and visitors.

Nope. If someone is inside my home and is an armed & immediate threat, I think I should be able to use whatever force necessary to protect myself and my family from that threat. If that person leaves my home, they’re no longer an immediate threat to me, are they? In the example you gave, the person that died was no longer an immediate threat.

In any case, it’s pretty clear that you aren’t interested in discussing nuance for the topic at hand, but rather “winning.” I’m done here.

No. I think it’s not good faith because your argument was not in any way trying to determine what is reasonable and was instead resorting immediately to extreme edge cases.

No I do not think “any” level of force is justified.

Do I disagree with that ruling? With only the information you’ve provided, no I don’t.

I’m also not interested in adversarial debate, I’m interested in discussion. I’m not trying to win anything here, I’m trying to expand my point of view and better understand how others view the society in which we all live.

Lufthansa auch.