YouAreLiterallyAnNPC

@YouAreLiterallyAnNPC@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Chips aren’t improving like they used to, and it’s killing game console price cuts⁩ ⁨⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:

  That sounds kind of like a console, no?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Report: Apple CEO “cares about nothing else” Than Building Breakout AR Glasses Before Meta⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  So, just to be clear, that ‘something that can’t be overcome’ is… checks notes capitalism?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨German experiment gave people a basic monthly income – the effect on their work ethic was surprising⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ll humor this, even though I’m tired of answering this same question. I’ll do you a favor and give you the short version, first: Inflation has nothing to do with how currency is distributed and everything to do with the supply of currency in circulation. Now that we’ve established the basic concept, let’s break some of it down. If there’s $100 in circulation, it doesn’t matter if one person has all of it, or 100 people have $1. The value of $1 is the same. If $1000 is in circulation, then $100 is worth less than if only $100 is in circulation, even if one person has $901 and everyone else has $1. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why do you believe that money is somehow worth more if its distribution is unequal? If people buy more stuff, that’s called a healthy economy. If people buy ‘too much milk and the prices go up’ then someone will sell milk for less to undercut the competition in a healthy economic system. If you can’t sell it for less, you innovate. If you can’t innovate, or sell for less, then you can’t compete and you lose. Everyone being able to afford more milk doesn’t cause $1 to be worth less. Of course, this example isn’t realistic anymore, but that’s due to capitalism failing – the underlying principals of the example still hold true.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I'm sure dolphins will fuck it up in their own special way.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  On this note; given that it’s suspected that Earth has only a good ~800 million years or so left, that may not even be enough time for another sentient species to emerge with enough time to become technologically sufficient enough to … avert extinction – much less undo some of the damage that we have done. We have to grapple with the idea that if we fail as a species, we’ll be the only and last sentient species on Earth to have emerged. Or as I like to call it: Get filtered, nerd.