CrowdView expands the “add reddit.com to the query” idea to include many more sites, including ones that don’t platform extremists for a few more ad impressions.

Funny how you’re happy to admit how outlandish and unlikely the story sounds yet you still trust the police are telling the unembellished truth and were in the right when they killed him.

Whoever could have guessed that “red neoliberals” wouldn’t be the solution to decades of inaction by blue neoliberals?

It’s not “political correctness gone mad” to not scream slurs at children, it’s basic human decency.

Do you think if they decided it was too dangerous and let him drive off with his stolen items, that he would have turned around and gone back to run them down?

They could have kept themselves and the public safer by tracking him down later and tacking on a few more charges. Thet chose to kill him instead.

Unfortunately, that’s not a thought a lot of Americans like having.

There is no version of Earth where mining executives say “It’s fine, our profits are already profitable enough”.

Astro-turf is cheap and uranium is expensive – something you conviently left out to focus purely on tonnage, which bears little relation to profitability.

Has any communication system managed to do that? Once certain types of people catch the scent of profit, they tear the medium apart searching for every penny of it.

Letters became junk mail. Email became spam. Newspapers and magazines became mostly ads and shilled content. Television became for-profit news and reality content.

That authenticity is just going to make it more appealing to astro-turf.

An EIR covers the effects to the human environment as well as the wild. So the effect to land value and perceived fear of the neighbors are part of that, regardless of any actual risk

Yes, I am aware of what an EIR is and what it covers. I’m also aware of their shortcomings, but I’m also aware of exactly who would make hundreds of millions of dollars (and at whose expense) if they were scrapped.

I saw one article which said a company spent $500 million just on the design and bureaucracy to file an application. Before a single shovel of dirt was moved.

How much did that company spend on articles complaining about how much they spent?

The poor little things clearly had $500 million to spend and still believed they could profit from the building despite that.

You also danced around how much of that was actually spent on an EIR and what the context of it was, so deliberately that it makes me wonder if it’s in your self interest to spread FUD.

What exactly does “design and bureaucracy” mean? Site selection, zoning approval, architectural design, engineering, EIRs, geotechnical surveys, legal fees for contracts and submissions could all fall under that extremely broad category.

Okay, what conservative-but-not-evil things do your parents believe?

I understand that a lot of people vote how they’ve always voted, but the Biden administration should be as right-wing as anybody needs to go.

Beyond that just lies shameless greed, gleeful abuse, prideful stupidity and seething bigotry. Each day it gets harder to forgive people who support that because what… They want slightly more neoliberalism?

Unless there are dramatic political reforms, you’ll be waiting the rest of his life.

You can’t shame him out of office. If he felt shame, he wouldn’t have taken so many bribes in the first place.

It’s why lifetime appointments to powerful positions are a stupid idea.

Realising how precarious a pedestal the far right built him would be a rare moment of self awareness. He’s B-grade meat to them, so they’d Milo him in a heartbeat.

An incredibly tiny, performative, baby step away from a madman with a gun that absolutely isn’t enough.

It’s looks like it’s just turning the “gun show loophole” into the “this person is my close friend” loophole because apparently having to wait for a background check to clear before transferring a firearm to someone is a tragedy the pro-gun community simply couldn’t bear.

Other countries just have firearm licensing and registration. If someone has a license, they’ve inherently cleared any background checks, training and waiting periods. If someone can’t produce a firearm that’s registered to them, they’ve either lost it or illegally sold it, both of which need to be harshly punished.

But nobody arms criminals, abusive partners and mass murderers quite as enthusiastically as legal gun owners, so I’m sure they’ll be along any moment to spin us elaborate hypotheticals about some poor, innocent gun owner who might be inconvenienced by this change – something apparently worse than decades of mass shootings.

Okay sure, I can see how that would plausibly be true, even if I haven’t bothered to check it genuinely is.

But why were “environmental impact reports” lumped in with your criticism of the process?

Usually the only people throwing tantrums over those are property developers upset they can’t bulldoze forests full of endangered species or heritage buildings and replace them with high density housing.

Ah yes, the “it’s your fault I’m a bad person” excuse, loved by abusers everywhere.

Like every other piece of infrastructure. Are you actually advocating that people should just be able to build power plants wherever they want?

A lot of the anti-nuclear sentiment comes from the 80s when the concerns were a lot more valid (and likely before half the pro-nuclear people in this thread were born).

But blaming people on social media for blocking progress on it is a stretch. They’re multi-billion dollar projects. Have any major governments or businesses actually proposed building more but then buckled to public pressure?

Anyway, I’m glad this conversation has made it to Lemmy because I’ve long suspected the conspicuous popularly and regularity of posts like this on Reddit was the work of a mining lobby that can’t deny climate change anymore, but won’t tolerate profits falling.

I can’t really parse that sentence but the Wikipedia page for neoliberalism will give a run down of the various definitions that have muddied the waters, the current widely accepted definition and how the modern definition relates to the policies of politicians like Reagan and Thatcher (may they both rest in piss).

Unfortunately, they get to decide what counts as corruption.

You’re already doing them a favor by treating neoliberalism like a genuine, measurable economic philosophy.

Maybe once upon a time, way back when it was first suggested, some people might have actually believed that’s how things worked. But nobody these days is thinking “5000th time’s a charm”.

Instead, neoliberalism has become a collection of ready-made excuses for insatiable greed. They’re soundbites that seem plausible enough to for use in political speeches and press conferences – and when everyone is in on it, it’s even easier to convince people they’re true.

But openly or in secret, neoliberals love neoliberalism failing. That’s how they get rich.

Does the “free market” destroy companies who behave unethically? Nope! The most hated companies in the world keep posting record profits, because consumers don’t have the luxury of holding them accountable.

Does a “small government” with few regulations create increased competition? Nope! But it means they can dump their toxic by-products in the local river and pay out the savings as executive bonuses.

Does wealth “trickle down” to the poor? Nope! It ends up in off-shore bank accounts, but people are desperate enough for a little more cash that they keep voting to give the rich another tax break.

“Privatisation breeds efficiency” is bullshit that hands people monopolies and makes the public pay for its failure. “Welfare just causes inflation” is bullshit that frees up more public money for subsidies and no-bid tenders.

If neoliberalism actually worked, rich people would hate it.