Who insures the insurers?

About 11 meters.

Flavor causes cancer.

Term limits in SCOTUS would increase the current president’s power to exert influence in the court. That sounds great, until we realize that about half the time, the president is a complete asshole who shouldn’t be in charge of a McDonald’s franchise, let alone the country.

To reduce a president’s undue influence on the court, we need to strictly limit the number of justices they can add per term. If three justices reach their term limits, and two others die or retire, the president is flipping five justices. That’s a terrible idea.

What we could do is eliminate the fixed size of the court. Eliminate the requirement that the court must consist of 9 people. Instead, the president appoints two justices per term, shortly after their first and third years in office. The court’s size will likely fluctuate between 10 and 15 justices.

To further remove political influence, we could introduce a means of replenishing the court without political grandstanding. Should the court membership fall below 5 members due to some kind of disaster or tragedy, (or should the president fail to appoint or the Senate confirm a presidential appointment, or should too many members of the current court have a conflict of interest and not be eligible to hear a case) appellate court justices are elevated to the supreme court in order of seniority.

The meme isn’t about committing genocide with nuclear weapons. The meme is about having made a ridiculous and obscene ultimatum. It’s about his intimidation tactics. He tries to bluff his way through negotiations with outlandish threats, and looks like an idiot when anyone calls his bluffs.

See, I knew you could get there.

Now, I’m gonna have you go up to where the parent commentator discussed the importance of “force” and the use of arms on an upright bike, and reply your “power” comment to them, not me. I was directly rebutting their “force” arguments; I made no claims regarding “power” for you to rebut. Your criticism is wasted here. But, your insight would be valuable in the context of their argument.

Vance is going to need that new, impeachment-ready Congress in place before his coup, or his coup will fail.

Bingo.

Vance is going to want to be seen as leading the coup, not being handed the job. But it’s not happening for another 10 months. First, he needs a new Congress, one who is already itching for impeachment. And if he’s waiting for Congress, he’s going to wait another three weeks: so long as he only takes half of Trump’s term, he remains eligible for two full terms himself.

Vance will exercise Section 4 of the 25th after January 20th, 2027.

Yep. Class action lawsuit. Get fucked out of hundreds or thousands of dollars; receive $12 and a coupon book in compensation.

The reason I am “not making sense” is because you are continuing to not understand the distinction between “force” and “power”.

“Torque” is a measure of force. “Horsepower” is a measure of power. Do you understand the difference between the two? Until you understand that distinction, you will not be able to understand the discussion you have joined.

…do you have any idea how a bicycle chain or equivalent works? Have you ever SEEN someone operate a bicycle?

Yep! I’ve actually even ridden bicycles before! My hips have never been secured to an upright bike. Every time I’ve tried to press harder on the pedals than my body weight, my hips have come off the seat. The force my legs have applied to the pedals has lifted my body into the air, against the force of gravity. I’ve been able to introduce a little more force on the pedals, with my arms pulling my body downward toward the handlebars, but not by much.

On the recumbent bike, gravity and my arms aren’t what is providing the counter force to allow me to push against the pedals. The backrest of the bike is what I am pushing against. I can push far more than my body weight against the backrest. Much more than I can pull with my arms.

You’ve entered a discussion on “force”, but you are still failing to understand that you are talking about “power”. When you understand the difference between “force” and “power”, you’ll be able to understand the discussion. Until then, my commentary will not make any sense to you.

I agree with you fully. The parent comment’s focus on the use of arms during a climb seems rather silly.

Downshift, focus on maintaining consistent, sustainable pedal pressure and cadence. Ignore road speed entirely. If you’re doing it right, even the steepest hill is just a long stretch of flat road.

Focusing on the role of the arms in applying force to the pedals only makes sense if we are talking about single speed bikes, fixed gear bikes, or racing. It does not make sense when we are talking about trekking.

Your cited study concerns itself with power; your comment discusses force. The two are not the same. What your study is talking about is the equivalent of “horsepower”. What we have been discussing is the equivalent of “torque”.

Your maximum force power on a standard bike is the weight of your legs plus the force you are able to exert via muscle power and cadence.

FTFY. As soon as you consider a time component (“cadence”, or strokes-per-minute), you aren’t talking about force. You are talking about power.

A recumbent bike puts the rider in much the same position as the user of a leg press machine. An upright bike puts the rider in much the same position as the user of a scale.

You can only put force equal to your body weight on a scale. I’m betting that you can put force equal to several times your body weight on a leg press. Gravity does not assist the upright rider here: gravity limits the amount of force the upright rider can apply: any additional force doesn’t go into the pedal; it goes into lifting the rider off the seat. There is no question that the rider of the recumbent bike has the advantage on “force”.

one of which is that it’s possible to transfer MANY times more force power through the pedals

Again, FTFY. Recumbents allow much greater force on the pedals, so your comment was patently false. De-conflating “force” from “power”, your comment starts to reflect the conclusions in your cited study. (Although the “MANY times” claim is still wildly misleading)

Upright bikes may be slightly more efficient at converting power, but the parent comment isn’t discussing power. They are discussing force.

Again, federation. You aren’t leaving this instance just because you interact with another instance. You aren’t leaving your friends behind. With federation, they already have access to your new community.

The idea of begging an instance admin to change their position is the antithesis of federation. Join or start a community on an instance where that community is welcomed, appreciated, and supported. If that isn’t here, find another one. If you can’t find one, go start your very own instance just to host your comm.

Lemmy != Reddit. Don’t bring that Reddit mindset here.

If this instance isn’t friendly to the community you want, why don’t you just start that community on another instance? This is exactly what federation is for.

Nobody paid the 91% tax rate. Anyone who found themselves over the top tier chose to spend their excess money. If they were $10,000 into the top tier, they could elect to pay $9100 in taxes, or spend $10,000 on payroll and other deductible expenses. They could keep $900, or $10,000 worth of products and services purchased from the open market.

Nobody chose to keep the $900.

Securities tax. A type of wealth tax, we confiscate 1-2% of all stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments, each and every year. Not the cash value of those securities; the shares of those securities. Natural persons can exempt the first $10 million of their investment portfolio; no exemptions for corporate investors.

IRS liquidators will hold those securities, selling them off slowly, such that liquidated shares comprise no more than 1% of total traded volume.

“Securities” are “ownership of the means of production”. Directly taxing securities melts their returns, and drives the ultra-rich to reduce their ownership stakes.

Alternatively, adopt universal healthcare, and assess the costs of the program to the richest person. When the richest person’s wealth has been reduced to #2, the second-richest gets to share the burden. Repeat as needed to fully fund universal healthcare. No single person gets to be “richest”; they get to share that title.

Buddy, you clearly aren’t paying attention. The proposal raised capital gains taxes. Capital gains is where the wealthy make most of their money.

The proposal also introduced a type of wealth tax. It would take 1-2% of the stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments (“registered securities” - the things regulated by the SEC) held by the ultra-wealthy. Securities are the specific investment vehicle the ultra-wealthy use to amass their tremendous fortunes. The poor, middle class, and moderately wealthy would be able to exempt up to $10 million of their investment portfolio.

You specifically asked that the poor be exempted; I pointed out that under this proposal, they would be exempt: the securities tax only applies to people with greater than $10 million in stocks and bonds. Capital gains would be taxed the same way as income; the poor are already exempt from income tax.

Income tax is already progressive, with “the poors” already exempt. Treating cap gains the same as income tax would exempt “the poors” in the same way.

Taxing cap gains at a lower rate than income is an insult to labor.

Abandoning the 91% top tier rate is what got us in this mess. “Trickle Down” actually worked when there were consequences to not spending your excess earnings.

91%, 100%, 150%, 10,000%, doesn’t matter: nobody paid it. The point of it was to get people to avoid it. What they had to do to avoid the top-tier tax rate is what drove the economy.

We need the 91% top-tier tax bracket.

We also need capital gains taxed at the same (or greater) rate as income tax.

We also need a 1-2% annual tax on registered securities, payable not in dollars, but in shares of the security. No more than 1% of total-traded volume will consist of liquidated shares. Up to $10 million worth of securities will be exempt from this tax, if held by a natural person.