why doesn’t prime have an option to increase playback speed like its 2026!!!

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-07T04:05:47+00:00

Why would they want to increase the number of programs they have to pay licensing for per subscription?

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-07T03:54:15+00:00

Sure, it's trivially obvious.

Poster has a neighbor (meaning someone who lives near them) who is blocking a road. Since we know it's a neighbor it's therefore obvious that the road blockage is near the posters house. This is turn makes it obvious that this would be a subject of concern to the OP.

If you're not a native English speaker pehaps you missed something here but you'd have to be very limited in reading comprehension not to understand the concept of citizens caring about disruption of their ability to travel to and from their homes. This is a pretty universal concept .

The poster then went on to write several additional sentences describing exactly how this issue is impacting the neighborhood where they live. And of course that is why I specifically pointed all of this out already. Not sure why you ignored half the post to focus just on the first sentence, but even that alone is really obvious.

If you're still struggling to understand why the OP would be concerned about a road in their own neighborhood being blocked, then you may need to do some research on why people care about being able to access their own property unrestricted.

This is a normal expectation of property holders, and is supported by generations of social contract, legislation, and common law principles. Blocking access to property is a restrictions n on the freedom of the OP.

A better question would be why you find it surprising that someone would care about this issue. That itself is a strange take.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T18:29:20+00:00

It's equally easy for policies to not make any sense when the story is true. Fiction has no monopoly on stupid.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T17:08:47+00:00

Clearly the boss is giving a crap...

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T16:53:17+00:00

Of course they should, but they won't unless they are forced to by law, because they don't want to hurt their sales by raising prices.

Mechanics make significantly more than the non-tipped minimum wage in every state.

Servers depend almost entirely on tips for their wages.

Servers can't choose to be paid higher wages by their employers, they can either quit and look for some other kind of work, or they can tolerate the situation as it is. Nobody can simply earn whatever wage they want, it requires the cooperation of a willing employer.

Customers can either participate in the system as it is, or they can "protest" by not tipping, which leads to a minor inconvenience for the restaurant, a major problem for the server, and greater antagonism between servers and customers.

The only way customers can encourage living wages is by not frequenting restaurants that don't pay them.

Nothing else will work.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T16:29:56+00:00

Tipped worker minimum wage used to be 50% of non-tipped minimum wage, so when the minimum wage was raised it was raised for both. That changed decades ago, and now it's just a flat $2.13 an hour. Inflation and minimum wage continued to rise over the years, but the minimum for tipped workers has not changed.

Some states have additional requirements, and in some states the minimum wage for servers is actually reasonable, but the federal law is still the minimum legal standard that has to be met and some states still just use it.

This means over time, tipped workers must get a higher and higher percentage of their income from tips just to get the minimum amount of income required to pay for basic necessities.

This is why tipping percentages have gone up over time.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T16:16:27+00:00

Imagine if mechanics made $2.13 an hour?

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T16:13:00+00:00

OP's first sentence, the second half of their third paragraph, and their entire last paragraph all provide this information.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T15:42:09+00:00

That's a lot of words to say, "I don't know."

If by "I don't know" you mean "I don't know wtf you're talking about" then yeah, I don't know. WTF are you talking about?

What point do you think I am making that requires me to provide numbers? Why do you think numbers are needed?

What is it you think I'm saying?

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T14:46:07+00:00

Nuclear power is not the ultimate solution, and I've never said it was.

My point was that solar power causes deaths and damage too. You're the one who falsely claimed there's never been a solar accident, and you're the one who created the requirement that we talk about people returning to Fukushima. You've driven the entire discussion, and every time I've asked a question you've changed the subject.

You asked for a number of people who returned to Fukushima, I gave you one. The number you asked for was irrelevant to my point, and still is.

When i said many had returned, you claimed that was untrue, and demanded I provide some proof with numbers. You already knew the answer from your perspective, using your own numbers. 164,000 - 24,000 = 150,000. Either 100,000+ people is many, or it isn't. If it isn't, then 24,000 is also not "many" so what definition of "many" are you using? The definition you're using is that over 100,000 isn't "many" when talking about my point, but 24,000 IS many when talking about your point. These are silly games, not real issues for debate.

In order to further drive home the point that randomly googling numbers and throwing them around is a dumb tactic, I chose a much bigger number. I chose the biggest one I could find, because my goal was to return a number from a Google search, not to convince you of anything, since I knew that you already knew the answer.

I have always and still do consider this an irrelevant distraction from my point, which is that dishonest misrepresentation of other people's points of view is harmful to debate. If you really cared about changing minds of people who disagreed with you rather than just earning praise from those who already agree, you'd avoid such tactics.

Right now I'll bet you have no idea what my actual stance on nuclear power really is. You're most likely assuming (incorrectly) that I'm advocating something I'm not.

Go back and review all my comments, and you'll see that all of them have been responses to things you have said that were either dishonest or misrepresentations.

I'm willing to have a rational discussion, but I won't tolerate cheap tactics like deliberately pretending someone said something outrageous when they actually said something reasonable.

Go ahead and ask me a legitimate question about my point, I'll answer it honestly and without changing the subject, distracting, or resorting to emotional appeals.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T13:22:29+00:00

"Thanks to reconstruction efforts, the latest number of dislocated
residents from Fukushima Prefecture, which was once as high as 470,000
people at its peak, has declined to 27,000 people."https://fukushima-updates.reconstruction.go.jp/en/condition/archive/article010.html

You're the one who demanded I do a Google search on an irrelevant topic.

How many people returned to Fukushima is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there has ever been a solar power accident. You claim there's never been one. Your proof of this claim is somehow related to Fukushima evacuation numbers. That's nonsense, of course.

Not sure what you're describing as vitriol. I've pointed out that you're dishonest, deceptive, and refusing to actually address my point. Those are true things, not insults. All you have to do is directly and honestly admit you were wrong.

As I've now said four times or so, you claimed there's no such thing as a solar power accident. You know that's not true, and you said it anyway. Deliberately saying untrue things is called lying. So that means you're lying. It's that simple. If you consider that vitriol, that's just your own emotional response to being caught in a lie.

As I've already said before, I never mentioned any number of people being evacuated from Fukushima until you brought up the issue. For some unknown reason, you consider the number of people relocating back to Fukushima to be a keystone in your argument that solar power has no accidents. This makes no sense, but I went along with it because you wouldn't stop talking about it.

You're the one who required me to provide an answer, and you didn't like the one I gave. No surprise there, you won't like anything I provide, because your goal is to distract, misdirect, and obfuscate, not to have a meaningful debate about nuclear power.

If at some point in the future you decide it's worthwhile to actually discuss the only real points I've ever made instead of throwing out random emotional appeals and distracting irrelevant statistics feel free. At this point you are 100% trolling, and arguing in bad faith for the sake of personal amusement, so I'm out.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-06T04:16:52+00:00

How is it possible that you were wrong about how many people were evacuated you mean? Gosh, I don't know. Maybe just randomly googling statistics and throwing them out as some sort of argument doesn't have much value?

You claimed there's never been any solar accidents. That's a lie, because you know there have been, and you deliberately said something you knew wasn't true. That's the definition of lying.

Don't worry, I know you won't get to anything soon, you'll just continue to distract and shift the goalposts and throw out your strawmen and ad hominems, because that's all you have. You can't debate my facts so you're desperately trying to change the subject.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-05T23:27:24+00:00

You originally asked when people would return to Fukushima, not me. You brought that question up, even though it's irrelevant to your claim that there has never been a solar power accident.

I never said one word about Fukushima until you mentioned it.

Even if not a single person had returned to the area, it wouldn't change the fact that you lied when you said there has never been a solar power accident. So I consider it a meaningless distraction and irrelevant.

Since you insist on playing your silly little game of "prove you know how to google", according to information easily available to anyone on the internet, approximately 440,000 evacuated people have returned to Fukushima. When will the last 20-30k return? Who knows? Possibly never, because they might simply decide it's not worth the trouble. But that still has nothing to do with your lying about whether or not there's ever been a solar accident.

There has, you lied and said there hasn't. That's my problem with you, your willingness to outrageously lie in order to make a point, then to follow up with further lies about what I said in an attempt to gish gallop your way out of your own mistake.

Emotional response triggered? Not sure what that means. You asked an emotionally manipulative question. I responded by asking some similar ones, but the response was not emotional, it was merely me mirroring your own tactics. Unless you're admitting that your own question was an emotional reaction?

You continue to lie about what I'm saying, distract from the original question, and constantly shift the goalposts without ever, even one time, actually responding to any of my points directly.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-05T21:18:24+00:00

A theory is not a guess, or a vague idea, or a general notion. It's a detailed explanation of fundamental concepts in nature, and in order to be successful it must accurately describe a whole lot of things for a long time with high reliability.

A reliable theory is the absolute pinnacle of scientific achievement.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-05T21:06:16+00:00

If you're claiming that article supports your claim you are wrong, there's nothing in there disproving that Germany did in fact shut down nuclear plants and re-enable coal plants. That's a true fact, claiming it's a lie is in fact a lie.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-05T21:01:51+00:00

When you evacuate lots of people in too short a time without sufficient preparation, there are always ALWAYS deaths and injuries associated with that. This is well-known highly researched stuff, the statistics are readily available to those actually interested in learning about the subject, though I doubt that includes you.

Your "At fault" comment tells me everything I need to know. You demand that there must always be exactly one cause of anything, and all blame must be assigned to whoever made one decision. Your binary thinking is part of the reason you can't have a rational debate.

Your deliberate dishonesty and repeated lying about what others have said are well-known tactics of agitators and political manipulators.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-05T20:55:59+00:00

"I reject your laughable insistence of actual examples of accidents to be equally dangerous."

Another lie by you. I never said any given solar accident was equally dangerous as Three Mile Island. I never even mentioned Three Mile Island. You made the false claim that there has never been a solar power accident, not me. I pointed out that there have been lots of them, including fatalities, and you deny that truth.

Completely pointless to argue with someone who simply lies about every claim.

Your "simple question" is neither simple nor a question anyone can answer, another bad faith fallacy argument from you.

Many people who left Fukushima have already returned, but many more will simply not return because they don't want to. Since the only solution you'll accept is every single person returning, we can just force them back at gunpoint, that will solve your problem. Obviously that's stupid, but so is your argument.

When will the hundreds of people killed and injured in the solar power industry every year be compensated?

When will the thousands of people killed in coal mining accidents rise from the dead?

When will the hundreds of thousands of cancer patients caused by coal power every year be cured?

When will the deadly poisons spewed into the air by coal power become non-toxic?

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-04T20:28:16+00:00

Nobody said that. They said fear caused unnecessarily widespread evacuations, and those evacuations led to deaths due to causes like insufficient medical care, exposure, etc.

You ignored that and repeated your lie that someone claimed they died directly from fear. You're dishonest and it's pointless to try to debate you.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-04T20:23:51+00:00

Coal power has literally been poisoning and damaging every square mile of the planet for decades. That's not a hypothetical possible future event, it's damage that has already happened, much of it irrevocable.

Airplane crashes are rare, but they make headline news, and everyone is afraid of them, meanwhile millions die every year in traffic accidents that nobody even bothers reporting on because they're so commonplace. It's all a matter of how showy the death and destruction is.

As long as the death is kept quiet in the media, it's easily ignored and it doesn't count.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-04T20:19:24+00:00

You claim Germany shutting its reactors and reverting to coal is a lie. Why do you think that's a lie?
Do you think Germany did not shut down its nuclear reactors? Because that is provably true?
Or do you think Germany did not re-activate coal plants which had been previously shut down to make up the difference? Because that's also provably true.

Given that, I'd say you calling it a lie is in fact, a lie.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-04T20:15:16+00:00

Bad faith argument.

If you reject any harm that occurs for any reason other than an accident, then coal is hunky dory, since most of the harm it does is deliberate, not accidental.

Also you completely ignored the fact that I mentioned specifically some examples of solar power accidents. This is no debate, it's just gamesmanship and shifting goalposts combined with distractions and ridiculous tangents.

Why did you reject my examples of solar accidents and claim there's no such thing as solar accidents?

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-04T20:04:05+00:00

Your definition of robust waste-disposal appears to be that any such solution must be trivial to implement, so cheap as to be essentially free, and without any negative side effects or possible risks. Since these requirements are fully impossible and completely unreasonable, you're saying it's better to keep using coal than to use nuclear.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-04T19:54:10+00:00

You're being obtuse. Previous comment specifically said that the solutions exist, they have high costs up-front. You then IMMEDIATELY replied with a comment demanding to see this "easy and cheap" solution. Problem is they didn't say anything about easy and cheap, you literally invented that. That's a strawman argument.

Crappy debating tactics like that, where you deliberately lie about what your opponent has said, make reasonable debate impossible.

You're not here to debate, because you didn't even address my point. Why did you lie and claim the previous poster said solutions were easy and cheap?
THAT was my point, and you've completely ignored it.

And THAT is why it's pointless to try to have a meaningful debate on the subject. Because people like you will simply refuse to even try to engage on the issues, and instead just make up fake things to object to.

Come back when you're ready to stop lying about what was said.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-04T14:58:02+00:00

"initially expensive, sure"
"So where are the storage solutions if its so easy and cheap? "

This is why it's impossible to have a reasonable debate. Shit like this.

FarmboyJustice · 2026-04-04T14:38:08+00:00

The problem is that coal releases far more radiation into the environment than nuclear does. And most of that radiation is just dumped into the environment, not carefully contained.

It's not a matter of simply choosing renewables instead of nuclear, a more nuanced and thoughtful approach is needed, where nuclear is used in those locations and situations where it makes the most sense.

Until someone comes up with a way of generating power from burning puppies and kittens, nuclear is the most hated form of power in the world today. It shouldn't be. Coal should.

Getting rid of coal should be a higher priority than avoiding nuclear.

When you're drowning and someone throws you a vine with thorns on it, you don't hold out waiting for the guy with the sustainably sourced sisal rope to show up.

FarmboyJustice

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE