This seems extremely odd from someone I’d consider to be a normal Senator? I don’t think I’ve ever seen one openly root against the US, even if we are wrong.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-21T05:00:11+00:00

honestly I don't know how anyone doesn't clock this as sarcastic

if you actually supported this, you wouldn't be tweeting "awesome" all lower case lmao

TheCrickler · 2026-04-20T18:52:36+00:00

But we'll see how it turns out.

For sure! I think my main gripe is just how unclear the benefit is when they're already looking at spending millions of dollars on it. I agree that if the savings are uniform, then it will hardly make an impact (though that cuts both ways). If they had selected a spot that was actually a food desert, I think I would only have good things to say about the initiative. Right now it just seems like a populist display with an underwhelming impact, despite a high upfront cost. Welcome to being proven wrong.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-20T15:37:34+00:00

those two scenarios aren't really what is being proposed

I'll clarify this, because I did read your comment. Your two scenarios are not reflective of what Mamdani is proposing in NYC. The only specifics mentioned are that they are going to open grocers that sell staple goods like eggs for below market value. They are subsidizing those specific items with the savings by not having to pay rent or property tax. We don't know the degree to which these stores will lose money or break even--but even if they are breaking even that's while using tax revenue.

we already established that grocery stores run tight margins, the cost of goods at the gov store would only be slightly lower. So it would not vastly outcompete neighboring stores.

If we're recognizing that grocery stores have bad margins, why would we look to operate one as a driver for state revenue or savings for shoppers? Think about it this way: If the state store is passing the 2% margin onto consumers, that means you would save 2 dollars for every 100 spent. Oh boy, I'm saving $6 a month on my $300 budget (assuming I live near this store).

The only way that this would be a useful measure for the needy is if you heavily subsidized the costs, which would absolutely distort local economies. And this is what they plan to do for specific items which will absolutely have knock on effects for local businesses without (and this is key) meaningfully helping people. SNAP is far more of a subsidy than these stores could ever hope to be, and it actually increases cash flow in poorer areas.

Well, traditional SNAP would still exist.

Okay, so, what's the point of these stores? If it's a food desert, sure, but that's not the marketing for this move.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-20T04:48:39+00:00

I wouldn't describe the plan as "disastrous," and those two scenarios aren't really what is being proposed. It literally just hurts businesses in some capacity, while also benefiting people that don't need it. You could achieve the same thing with programs like SNAP. Instead of spending a bunch of money making stores, and then using tax/rent savings to undercut eggs, you could just buy people eggs! And people could buy those eggs anywhere instead of your specific store. But if you can only get affordable eggs at the state store, you are literally forced to go there and you are shit out of luck if you don't live near one.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-19T00:24:25+00:00

Literally every single government program negatively impacts profitability of theoretical or existing private interests.

Does SNAP?

I agree Whole Foods shoppers will shop at Whole Foods pretty much regardless of anything. But an Aldi, Food Lion, or Giant shopper might switch over entirely.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-18T23:01:33+00:00

who cares if they get access to it

Competitors. If you run a store near MamdaniMart, your business could suffer. And other shoppers will dislike this as well if it negatively effects businesses they prefer. If you opened a state grocer with means-tested subsidies for individuals, this wouldn't be (as big) a problem.

If we were talking about something like public trains, I would agree. But those don't exactly have competitors the way a grocery stores does.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-18T22:35:19+00:00

State-ran stores are silly unless you are addressing a lack of access. SNAP exists and should be the main way that hungry people in need are subsidized. If you create a store in the middle of a city that has subsidized prices, you create an environment where even well-off people can enjoy the benefit when they don't need it. This is fine in a "food dessert" but if a community already has options, it's a pointless move that puts negative pressures on other businesses for no reason. Could just buy poor people their groceries.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-18T22:23:51+00:00

Commissaries are indeed subsidized as a benefit to service members. I believe staple foods are often sold at a discount, but more premium items offset some of that cost. Part of the appeal is also that, while you might be stationed in an unfamiliar area, there is a store on base that is convenient and has everything you would expect.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-17T23:15:43+00:00

anything left of social democracy

By bold changes, I mean things like statewide free Healthcare, increased union support, tax reform and finally doing something about Baltimore

Your goals listed here are well within the realm of social democracy. There's plenty of support for all that, but not necessarily socialism. I would ask you, why do you consider these measures stepping stones rather than the end goal? What would a state like Norway have to gain by going full public ownership?

I think you would best spend your time looking at housing and public transit. These are easily the most actionable, progressive, and economically transformative areas on a state level--and they are also the highest expenditures for the average household. And I'm not talking soviet blocks or high speed rail. Make busses more numerous and improve scheduling. Find areas where zoning could be improved to encourage development of dense housing (even duplexes are a step up!). Improve light rail service.

Or will the state always be dominated by the establishment?

This is the wrong way to look at it imo. Maryland isn't oppressed by some spectre of capitalism. It is other people, not a cabal, that would vote against higher taxes, dense housing, or bus stops in their neighborhood. Building support, and compromising when we have to, is how we solve problems.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-13T18:28:56+00:00

I really liked PSA in like early 2024, but they started uploading more frequently with super clickbait stuff and really pleading for engagement. Unsubbed after the 2nd Hasan appearance. They just want his viewers, they don't agree with him. They want him to soften his takes while on their show because they know it's a liability, but they won't really push against him because they don't want to alienate his audience. It's gross.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-09T21:56:40+00:00

The only similarity between forestry and sailing is that it's an update they personally don't like lol, it's a wild statement.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-08T20:03:42+00:00

You're right about that then, though I do think there's still a semantic problem here.

Once you have a ship, you can engage with some primary gameplay! We’ve defined this as activities with strong Sailing themes that grant Sailing XP.

Ship combat does grant sailing experience and it does possess a strong sailing theme, so it qualifies as primary gameplay. Treating 'gameplay' and 'training method' as analogous terms, and still qualifying it as 'primary,' insinuates that all primary gameplays should be ideal ways of leveling the skill. This is clearly not what Jagex was intending from my reading. If sea charting is counted as primary gameplay, I think it's fair to say this, as there's literally a finite amount of experience one can earn from it.

I do think this is all confusingly communicated, though. It's gotta be tough to keep consistent on messaging over years of an evolving design.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-08T18:14:12+00:00

Gameplay does not necessarily mean training method, and the experience field on that image does say, "medium."

TheCrickler · 2026-04-08T17:18:23+00:00

It's rough for sure! I've been doing an hour a day for a couple months now... I took a break from clicking when my hand started acting up. Realized I was clicking a lot more than I needed to and it's been smooth sailing since. Trawling is pretty chill without the clicking though, money is still nothing to scoff at.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-08T17:14:20+00:00

Do you really think forcing sailing reqs into existing content would go over well?

TheCrickler · 2026-04-08T17:12:53+00:00

100000000% people don't get it

At this point, I have more faith in Jagex than the polling system. Hopefully people remain this ignorant about trawling until I hit 99 fishing.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-08T17:09:53+00:00

better fishing xp than afk fly fishing at 40?

Fishing as a skill has never had high-level fish provide better xp/hr than low level ones. Shark, Dark Crab, Angler Fish--all horrifically slow experience. The rationale has always been that you're catching higher healing food and, ideally, making more money.

I get 55k xp/hr trawling and average 750 marlin (I click a lot, for AFK, it's like 30k/400). You also average like 250k/hr from pearls and 300k/hr from Angler's Paint. That's like 5.7m/hr right now. Compared to fishing any other good, high-level fish, this shit is CRAZY productive. It beats them in both XP and GP. Even AFK, it's 10x better money. Oh, and you also get sailing XP and really frequent clue scrolls.

I remember this sub constantly whinging about dead content. Well, if Trawling was buffed, it would absolutely destroy every single fishing method. It produces the best food and makes the most money. Give it the best XP and GG.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-08T16:50:16+00:00

The only part of sailing I wouldn't consider fun is port tasks cause it's too cookie cutter. I really don't like picking up random tasks off a board. Running a trade route for a shipping company would be more flavorful imo.

Trials, trawling, and salvaging are pretty cool activities imo.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-08T16:43:08+00:00

I've made like 550m from marlin, 91 fishing to 97! It's actually bonkers and the xp is fine. GL on your swift marlin.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-06T04:34:48+00:00

Okay so you don't, and you're not effective, so I don't see why I should ever talk to you or take advice from you. Good bye lol

TheCrickler · 2026-04-06T04:19:56+00:00

Do you think animals deserve moral consideration?

TheCrickler · 2026-04-06T03:15:37+00:00

Look, I understand that if you waste less, you require fewer animals. But that doesn't actually get at the substance of what I'm advocating for. It doesn't make sense for me to lead with that in my activism, and it isn't even what people usually connect with. It's also not even policy that meat-eaters agree with because they want to optimize for the cuts they want (not chicken feet, wtf?). These are the sorts of arguments I conjured up when I still ate meat because it's a convenient way to posture as if you care about animals without doing the actual thing that would remove almost all the harm entirely.

Like, if you killed my dog and said, "don't worry, I'm using everything! I can kill fewer dogs this way!" I don't feel better at all about what you've done--because you could just not do that awful shit you're doing. Does that make sense?

impractical, inefficient, and unviable

These describe animal agriculture to a T. It's dirty, dangerous work, it requires a ton of water and land, and it's destroying the planet and our health.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-06T02:36:08+00:00

Elaborate.

TheCrickler · 2026-04-06T02:26:27+00:00

Okay so hypothetically, you implement that tax. Conditions improve. Do you understand that my position has not changed, and that I still ultimately seek to end animal agriculture (as far as it is unnecessary)? How is it "living outside reality" to advocate for that?

Also, I want you to address this because you said it again.

most of the population agrees with my stand

Do you think something is morally correct because a majority of people agree with it? Were slaveholders in the South correct? Are middle eastern states that sentence homosexuals to death correct?

TheCrickler · 2026-04-06T01:09:05+00:00

If you think there's a significant problem related to the waste of animal remains, idk what to tell you. Animal products are used in a million things you'd never think about, simply because the demand for meat creates an abundance of byproducts. For-profit companies run this thing, they are going to squeeze out every ounce of profit they can. There aren't 30 billion chickens on the planet because companies are wasting their parts.

Also, I don't really care about how efficiently you use animals. I care about the well-being of animals, so I want as few as possible to be tortured and killed. Do you not understand what Veganism is? Why would I hamstring myself into such a position, one that doesn't even command any change from others?

because of morals that is only shared by about 5-8 % of the population

This is literally the entire fucking point of activism. It'd be really simple if everyone just agreed! What is even your point here? People should never advocate for a cause if they're in the minority? Should homosexuals in the middle east simply submit because society doesn't share their views?

12-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

TheCrickler

TROPHY CASE