Honestly, I think the original version is more accurate

It’s my honour

Well that’s assault

Poland is still inaccurate, as it was when it was posted here the last time

Edit: I tried to search for my comment last time but I didn’t find it. So short summary: In Poland, an authoritarian far-right party ruled for a long time that acted heavily against the rule of law and separation of powers (they replaced their Supreme Court and discharged judges on other courts that didn’t rule as they wanted) and was very anti-democratic (they turned the national TV into a propaganda broadcast). Amid huge protests, the opposition won the election, and while it is not a very left coalition, they were pretty successful in reversing many of this horrible things, e.g. taking back control of the TV broadcast with a completely new team. They couldn’t undo everything as the president with a veto power is still from the old party but with the president elections coming soon this could change soon. And it’s generally very euphoric and awesome what happened because it was really terrible what the other party did to this country.

I still really liked Howie Hawkins in 2020. I wouldn’t have voted for him, but I felt like he would have been a good candidate. Idk why they went back to Stein (although that was probably good as it likely led to fewer people voting for them).

Any update yet?

I actually procrastinated enough had the time to turn this into an actual map:

Surprise: Oliver wins in Louisiana and Virginia!

Bing Chilling

If they don’t know about it, it doesn’t make sense though, does it?

Just for the record, it’s not like GOP pollsters are biasing polling models as they all account for house factors and partisanship. The Iowa poll is an outlier. That doesn’t mean it has to be wrong, it’s a good sign and outliers should be published as well. But it’s not like all other polls are fake.

Go vote!

What Locktober and NNN do to a mf

The stock market averages are only true if you look at it for a really long time, like 30-40 years. In 10 years, the value can definitely go down a lot, but if you view it for the long-term, it will still be an improvement.

I understand that looking at it like that is unnerving though.

This might be a hot take (that’s why I put it in a separate comment), but I think that the system is bad doesn’t mean (in my personal opinion) that it’s morally wrong to use it, at least if you take care that you don’t invest in really awful stuff like coal. Especially since the rich ones use it, not using it just leads to a bigger gap between poor and rich. Living and wanting to improve the society doesn’t mean having to reject it.

(I’m open for any arguments though.)

I dislike the stock market. In the end, just like in capitalism, most of the companies profiting the well, are just the ones screwing over their customers the most. Of course there are exceptions, but that’s the system. You only earn money if customers have to always pay more, not for the lightbulb that never pay. Focusing the economy on the stock market and its wellbeing denies the basic facts that we have a finite earth and that maybe the companies shouldn’t be maximising the profits but rather look for their customers. It’s sad, but the less you care about ethics, the easier it is to make money.

… Pumpkin

It’s weird that this is public record

Statistically, that’s just not true. Just look at the differences from the polls, the margin between Harris and Trump has moved quite some percentage points back and forth. E.g. after RFKs endorsement, more undecided voters went to Trump and after the debate, more went back to Harris.

In the primary

I think Gates is worse than Zuckerberg