I disagree. There are a number of Coromon creatures that also heavily resemble some pokemon. I mean, it’s to be expected, there are only so many variations of creature designs before they begin being similar to each other, especially with how long Pokemon has been at it, having like 1000+ creatures now.

Anyway, Nintendo is a greedy shitbag of a company. I love many of their games, but they’re the absolute worst when it comes to being extremely litigious and/or consumer friendly. I truly hope they lose this legal battle

How tf does Coromon get away with it? I’d say that’s waaaay more of a rip-off than Palworld. E: typo

Oh, I 100% agree that one of the biggest issues is due to corporate mass house purchasing and squatting. But my understanding was that is a problem in some large metros and the surrounding suburbs around those. For example, in San Francisco, much of the issue is due to NIMBY laws preventing high rise condos/apartments in many areas of the metro, which artificially suppresses the supply of new housing.

Really, there isn’t an all encompassing, singular reason that’s driving up the prices everywhere, but a multitude of them. It’s a difficult problem to tackle, but it’s incredibly frustrating that most governments (local, state, and federal) thus far have made barely any effort to address it.

Keep in mind that inflation has risen over 30% in just the last 4 years, which explains at least part of the rise in prices. I wouldn’t be surprised if inflation is even higher in certain areas of the country. I’d also not be surprised if Georgia is getting a lot of natural disaster refugees from places like Florida.

100% WFH jobs have rapidly dried up. They’re not super common like they were in 2021-2022. Most places either went back to the office or require a hybrid setup (x # of days in office every so often). I won’t deny WFH jobs have definitely contributed to a general rise in home prices in some areas, but I’d need to see data proving it is heavily contributing to a rise all over.

Any reliable sources? I wouldn’t doubt it for a minute, but I would think the NK and Russian military leadership would have them watched like hawks.

The US would have to get involved, South Korea is a military ally. We literally have thousands of troops and military bases inside their country. I think this is why the agreement with Russia only states “potential” aid from Russia in the event of a war with South Korea.

Agreed. And for every few dozen shitty infantry grunts, there’s going to be at least a few that end up being very competent at the job and are effective at killing Ukrainian soldiers.

They like it because they either work for it or hope to work for it and be in a position of power.

I think you overestimate how many women will simply prefer a woman leader by default. Several countries have had women as their PMs/leaders before and they don’t automatically win every woman’s vote each election cycle.

What’s going on here in the US is just pretty cut and dry: If you value women having bodily autonomy and equal rights, then the choice is pretty damn clear on who you should vote for. Unfortunately, it feels like so much attention is on the presidency, this obvious connection isn’t being evenly applied to other political offices as well (i.e. last I’d read, all projections have the GOP winning the Senate).

Well, only one of the ways is the accurate idiom. ;)

Removed by mod

I guess the biggest issue I see is how do you handle global trade? Right now, tons of materials we need for even manufacturing highly advanced products and other materials requires a complex web of international trade. How do smaller communities hope to be part of that without sliding back to the pre-digital age? I know there are folks who probably don’t see that as a bad thing, but I definitely do, as I enjoy having access to modern technology and services (not to mention, I work in IT, so my job kind of depends on it).

True, that is a valid point. Maybe with direct democracy, hard safeguards, and very limited terms and funding, it could potentially be limited from expanding power. But, I’m not an expert, so I’ll leave hypothetical future social governance planning to those who are more competent.

Originally, the federal government in the US was very, very limited in power and states had much higher degrees of autonomy than they do now. It resulted in tons of problems, even agreeing on a basic common currency was problematic.

Now, I think that it’s swung too far in the other direction and that the federal government nowadays in the US has too much power. I think it’s possible to meet in the middle, where you have a semi-central body where federated communities have a common ground to address and resolve grievances with an outside, neutral party mediating things.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Wtf are you even talking about? You literally said that stateless societies have formed infrastructure. I asked you to provide examples of where that has occurred on the massive scale that modern cities exist at. Basic roads and sanitation that stateless societies create is a whole lot different than getting clean water to tens of millions of people in a relatively small, dense footprint. You could argue that Kowloon did it, but honestly it is only due to the extreme humidity in that area of the world that the whole place didn’t go up in flames due to how shoddy the ran electric lines throughout the whole city. But there were tons of other problems that existed in that place, e.g. extreme levels of mold, sanitation issues, etc.

But sure, just write me off as a right wing zealot because I challenged your worldview. I’m not even conservative, but whatever, lol.

That sounds good in theory, but incentivization is a real problem for numerous communities, particularly less urban ones. Attracting doctors, engineers, etc is much more difficult when you have a smaller pool of people even capable enough to perform those tasks to pull from. Currently this is done through money/profit, but even that isn’t enough in some areas (see how the agricultural industry is currently struggling to attract veterinarians to rural communities).

I’m not fully disagreeing with you, by the way. In a perfect world, that sounds great. It just feels like a huge world of, “if X people do Y thing, it’ll all work out just fine.” Taking that step requires a huge leap of faith by hundreds of millions of people, and hoping no sizable group rises up to eventually usurp the whole delicate transition process.

But there’ll still need to have common policies across all of those communities, otherwise you just end up right back at square one with nation states. The US and EU are literally just this, a bunch of states (US) or countries (EU) that agree to allow free travel/living/learning/business/etc between each other with a larger governing body that oversees all of it.

What stateless societies have infrastructure on the scale of NYC, Paris, or Tokyo?

How do you propose you regulate corporations or any sort of industry? You want to make sure you food is handled sanitarily, no? You want to ensure your drinking water is being cleaned correctly, right? You want to know if new medications have downsides or are at least effective at what they’re purported to do. You want to make sure bridges and tunnels are engineered correctly. Etc. etc.

Yes, government is not perfect. Yes, there are things that get past regulation all the time, but just imagine how much worse it would be with zero regulations. That’s the kind of society you’re arguing for. You literally cannot have more than a dozen people living together without some sort of social governance. Even tribal communities have some type of government in its most basic form.