Maybe n Roblox. I haven’t bothered trying the games, but I know Adopt Me started as something like that.

It has to be given, otherwise there would be infinitely many solutions.

You would need some other information to link the line segment X to the rest of the figure.

It’s always going to be more difficult challenging the “winning” strategy.

Democrats seem to be more open to change and internal democracy.

Whatever shed of ideology is left in either party is also pointed in different directions. Roughly described, the ideologies are (supposed to be) that left wing is taking ideas from the masses and sending them upwards through democratic elections, while right wing only accepts top down decision making. Seeing the many “Trump regret” clips, it’s pretty clear that his policies did not originate from his voter base.

Another case of point is when politicians flip flop and change party. Democrats allow right wing politicians to infiltrate their party dragging them to the right, whereas you don’t see someone like Bernie Sanders joining GOP to drag them towards social democracy.

… that is why you need to join and elect other politicians.

I’m not American but I will promise to support you if it comes to that.

The workers unionisation in my country against land owners in the 1800s would not have succeeded without international support. I’d gladly chip in for anyone attempting to do the same.

So…if that’s your only option… when are you going to start a revolution?

I’ve seen a lot of similar comments lately. People wanting to start 3rd parties etc, because the Democrats suck so bad.

Yes, it’s true. They suck, but if you’re going to beat the Republicans, you’ll need to look at what Trump did. He didn’t start a 3rd party. No, he took the existing party and changed it into whatever the fuck it is now.

You need to change the democratic party from within too, because 3rd parties will always lose because of the first past the post. 3rd parties also have a tendency to branch out, because quite frankly, not being Democrat or Republican isn’t enough of a politic in itself, and you guys don’t get along well on anything else. The Republicans had this issue for a long time until Trump came along providing them with something that united their voters more than the previous politic of simply being not Democrats.

The democratic party already has a framework for running politics and they actually have some kind of democracy within that allows people to change it. Yeah, it will require a lot of work to get enough people engaged in politics to make the change, but it is absolutely much less than what is required to start a successful 3rd party.

That’s basically the answer to the opposite question: what is something that someone thinks isn’t obsolete, but really is?

Do his farts smell the same as mine? Then no, sorry dude you’ve gotta go live somewhere else.

Never heard them before either, but as soon as I did, I immediately knew that this would be on the Nettwerk label. In my book that’s a mark of quality.

Math is off.

He makes 30% more than her. If she makes 100, he makes 130. The total income is 230.

Her income is 43% of that (100/230) and his is 57% (130/230).

Why does it have to be static in the first place? Why not just let them contribute what they can, when they can, since the money’s not tight?

Who is to decide when and what they can pay then?

It’s also as much about determining the disposable income. If she has a different opinion on what is reasonable to spend on other things that could easily become a can of worms.

“This is what you need to contribute to the household, whatever you do with the rest of your money is not my issue” is much better than: “Hey, I know you’re low on cash but maybe if you cut back on lattes, avocado toast, gambling, booze and cigarettes, we would be able to pay the bills.”

In reality, the fixed amount isn’t very fixed anyway. If one part can’t pay, it’s still unlikely that the partner would kick them out. But as long as money isn’t that tight, it’s simply better to allocate a fixed amount to the household, so the money isn’t disposable for random spending, so they don’t risk overspending or increasing expensive habits.

This isn’t just to curb the costs, but also to avoid the situation in which one part becomes financially dependent on the other, which is also a recipe for disaster for both parts.

I prefer not having a meaning of life.

Imagine having a real purpose. Then the question would still be “why”, but you’d also have that obligation to do.