Sheesh guys, at least act like you’ve been there before. Bad look, but not unexpected considering the culprits

The set of environmental conditions is different in each country, and indeed for each individual human. The level of technological advancement only comprises a small piece of that picture.

Because of the recent rapid technological advances in the past century, essentially every society worldwide is struggling to adapt to the new technological landscape. But due to all of the other contributing factors, the struggle is slightly different for everyone.

Just looking at the average work hours is a miniscule people of the puzzle. How much money are people making in exchange for their time? Do they have to pay for Healthcare? What types of jobs are most common? What is the historical context of the population that has led them to this point? Were they working more or less 100 years ago? Did they have more wealth 100 years ago? What is the current rate of mental illness and disability? What is the historical and current prevalence of religion?

You could continue with questions in this vein more or less infinitely. And the answer to each question would vary substantially depending on the nation/community/individual that you chose to focus on. And each answer would potentially have an impact when trying to analyze how the current culture came about.

To answer your single hypothetical question, I think one of the primary contributing factors to the reduced working hours for many wealthy western European countries when compared to the US is the relative level of financial and social inequality along with the taxation rate. For France et all, the tax rate is significantly higher and the level of social support is correspondingly higher.

This reduces some of the necessity of working more hours, because the variability of income is reduced. If low-income people still make enough money and have enough benefits to make a decent life, they don’t need to work so many hours just to survive. Also, high-income people will have a reduced incentive to work so many hours because the overall financial benefit is relatively smaller when compared to the US where you can avoid taxation to a much greater extent.

Yeah sure, I can get on board with that. I just wrote a great 500 word response that I canceled accidentally. Fml I’m too tired, I’ll try to give a quick summary.

Basically, by framing it as a cultural issue that hinges on the decisions of individuals to reject the dominant culture, you’re putting the focus in the wrong direction. You’re essentially trying to change human nature, instead of trying to change the specific conditions that cause humans to behave this way at this specific point in time. Fighting aggressively against the entrenched cultural realities is brave but futile.

Instead of focusing on dismantling the culture that is already firmly in place, you need to change the conditions for future generations so they can have the opportunity to develop less problematic cultures. In order to do that, you need to analyze the dominant culture and understand it, but you don’t necessarily need to waste all your energy fighting its manifestations. Instead, you simply try to create spaces where people can construct subcultures which are protected from the dominant culture. Eventually, if the newer cultures prove to be elegant solutions to universal human problems, they will inevitably take over.

But again, I understand and agree with what you’re saying. It just only applies to a handful of people who are inherently revolutionary in mindset. For the vast majority of humans, they don’t have the ability to consciously and independently reject and disentangle from the dominant culture. Thus, the ultimate solution lies in altering the material conditions of society such that the dominant culture begins to change from the inside out.

Have you considered that culture is merely the collective reaction of a group of humans to a given set of environmental conditions? I don’t disagree with you, but you’re needlessly simplifying the problem.

You’re willing to work a job that is an hour’s drive away because you choose to take the job.

Why did I choose to take the job? One major reason is that I have an automobile. If I didn’t have the automobile, I wouldn’t have been able to take the job. Culture comes about as a result of a series of incentives and motivations that shape human decisions. Change the access to technology, and you would change the culture.

You seem to believe that a solution will come from people simply choosing not to do certain things. This is partially true, but its more accurate to recognize that you need to first create the material conditions that enable people to actually have a viable choice.

It is not the technology that is the problem in this case.

It’s the combination of the technology and the social structures that continually reproduce the culture that you’re complaining about. If you think the culture is going to magically change without altering the material conditions first, you’re gonna have a bad time.

And this goes on and on and back and forth for 90 or so minutes until the movie just sort of… ends.

It’s just realistic. Koreans aren’t having sex anymore, their TFR is down to 0.72. That’s mind-bogglingly low.

Wow, that’s a crazy experience. Somebody jumped in and saved you?

Freaking commie tumbleweeds rolling from town to town looking for handouts

Holy chrimbus! Nice activity bro. You’re like ThePicardManeuver of cats and anime

Good stuff, it seems that he probably has no chance with this lawsuit. But still

a false statement purporting to be fact

Leaves a lot of wiggle room. How is “a false statement” defined? It’s ultimately a matter of semantics.

I read this article which indicates that the truthfulness of the statement isn’t even the relevant legal issue, and even if it were partially false it would still not constitute defamation.

Erroneous statement is protected, the Court asserted, there being no exception “for any test of truth.” Error is inevitable in any free debate and to place liability upon that score, and especially to place on the speaker the burden of proving truth, would introduce self-censorship and stifle the free expression which the First Amendment protects. Nor would injury to official reputation afford a warrant for repressing otherwise free speech.

The fact that expression contains falsehoods does not deprive it of protection, because otherwise such expression in the public interest would be deterred by monetary judgments and self-censorship imposed for fear of judgments.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/defamation-and-false-statements-overview

This agrees with what you are saying about knowingly false statements. But I never meant to say he could prove defamation, I just thought it was easier to claim than falsehood, because the story is obviously true 😅

But I guess defamation is actually harder to prove than I thought.

I dunno about that, because many statements are unfalsifiable. If someone accuses me of being a witch, how can I be expected to “show it’s false”? If you can show that they

acted with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not

Then it’s not necessary to prove that it’s false.

I understand and agree that the burden for proving defamation in the US is quite high, but it’s not always possible or necessary to demonstrate that the accusation is absolutely false.

Source: my ass

It’s amazing how much my ass has taught me over the years.

Sure, but you don’t need to prove that it’s false to claim defamation. As long as the defense is unable to prove that the accusation is definitively true, it could still be considered defamation. If he were to claim the report was false, then he’d have to provide evidence to that effect. By saying that it was defamatory, he only has to demonstrate that there is a lack of 100% certainty as to whether it is true or false, shifting the burden of proof onto CNN.

True. Though if you read the original CNN article, the circumstantial evidence is fairly damning. I don’t think he has any chance of getting out from under this.

Also, in a legal context, I think there very well may be a distinction between claiming a report is defamatory versus claiming it is false. As per Wikipedia:

The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable

Nah, I bet he’s faking it. Continuity error

She took a plea bargain. Without her as a witness, SBF probably doesn’t get convicted of nearly as many charges. If you read the article, there was a distinct possibility that she wouldn’t do any jail time at all. The judge was relatively harsh with the 2 year sentence in this case.

So this sentencing has essentially nothing to do with her wealth.

This is some baby back bullshit.

The judges fucked up and didn’t give her the appropriate difficulty score for her routine. Her coaches realized this and challenged successfully, raising her score to win the bronze. And then they decided to revert to the original score because the coaches didn’t challenge within 60 seconds? Even though there’s video evidence showing that they actually did?

Ffs give her the medal already, she earned it fair and square.

I was only making a joke…

It’s all about the marketing. They probably wanted German audiences to know its a romantic comedy and not just an action movie

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man_(2023_film)

That one. Glen Powell actually showed some serious acting chops in that movie, I really enjoyed it.