workerONE

I agree with you but there are logistic challenges to getting 1/3 of a banana to the person who needs it. This example may seem silly but it's a realistic example of household food waste.

But I agree that solving hunger should be a society's top priority which it clearly isn't under a food for profit model

So when you say that the US benefited immensely, you really mean that a few people (politicians and the ultra rich) benefited. I can understand that you're saying that the US was successful in achieving it's goals i just don't agree that the result was beneficial compared to a more strategic focused approach

Holes drilled in the ground to access water should not be managing firearms

As I understand, chasing a measurement of GDP is an effort to show work capacity. This capacity can be utilized in wartime to produce weapons and bolster security. Increasing work for the sake of increasing work does not benefit workers- it does not provide fair wages or safe workplace environments. It does not make citizens lives better. Similarly, there is an amount which must be spent on military for protection and to act as a deterrent, but engaging in a spending race is not beneficial to people. Those efforts could be used towards education, health, transportation and quality of life. I don't see how you can argue that the US's goals should be to work the hardest and spend the most on military.

I was listening to a podcast and the guy was saying that the United States aimlessly pursues goals to outperform other countries. For example, the US wants to have the biggest military. The US wants to have the largest GDP. Chasing a goal for the sake of competition does not benefit the US at all. We should work towards fulfilling our own interests but there is no point in blindly pursuing every metric. BTW the US doesn't try to outperform other countries in health care or education or any semblance of happiness.

They were probably people dressed in rat costumes

When I was a little kid I saw The nutcracker ballet on TV and they had human-sized rats dancing around and I was terrified for a long time

You can get a 66% chance of being right if you turn on a switch and check the room. If the light is off you guess between the other two. For example, you are going to test switch 1 and if it is off you guess switch 2.

Reminds me of the Monty Hall problem except in that problem the game show host has an action to take which effects the odds.

Sometimes it would be the other way around. The new dev hire about to terrorize the mission critical system

The launcher has a maximum effective range of up to 1.5 kilometers and can fire either single shots or bursts, with an onboard ammunition load of 48 rounds.

Shitposting is an artform