I’m sure other people have brought up rich people taking a huge share of it already, but there’s also the sheer number of people determined to work in the arts. If there’s, say, ten billion dollars to go around, it sounds like a lot, but if it’s split between a couple of million artists it doesn’t go very far.

The classic “Buy a reputable brand, cut costs and coast along on the reputation until you can sell off all your shares and move on to another company”. Bonus points for using legalised embezzlement share buyback.

People talk a lot about the genericisation of brand names, but the branding of generic terms like this really annoys me.

I’ll use the example I first noticed. A few years ago, the Conservative government was under criticism for the minimum wage being well under a living wage. In response, they brought in the National Living Wage, which was an increase to the minimum wage, but still under the actual living wage. However, because of the branding, it makes criticising it for not meeting the actual living wage more difficult, as you have to explain the difference between the two, and as the saying goes, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”.

I only ever read one, and all I remember of that was some kids being chased into a church by some demons, who then burn it down to get to them. The kids are put on trial for “forcing” the demons to burn the church, and they have to convince their lawyer not to throw the case because he’ll be executed if he wins.

Not a danger in the UK.

They’re both problems.

Fission is based on the fusion that took place in ancient supernovae.

It’s not even psychology, it’s just the optimal strategy.

Individual constituencies are still two party, it’s just not necessarily always the same two.

Poe’s law in full effect here.