ObjectivityIncarnate

But you will hear them saying they don’t want to raise taxes, thinking it will affect them with their low income.

You presume to know what they’re thinking, you mean. Have you never considered the possibility that they’re simply adhering to the point of view that you shouldn’t have to pay over and over for the ‘privilege’ of continuing to own what you own?

Taxes can be targeted at the ultra-wealthy, but low-information people have been made to believe they will be taxed.

You assume they believe that because they’re ignorant. But what if they just know their history? The income tax started with the exact same promise, a tax targeting only the wealthy, but somehow, we all have to pay it now, too.

The populace has every reason to be skeptical of taxes ‘targeting’ only the wealthiest among us.

I have seen comments like this thousands of times, but I’ve never seen a single example of anyone genuinely expressing this sentiment.

Even if you ignore ethics and assume the billionaires are benevolent - it’s just a bad investment to invest majority of resources to a small number of investments. Does any successful large project hold 99% of their investments in few projects? It’s absurd.

Small number of investments? Billionaires have shitloads of investments, what are you talking about?

If your concerns are ethical, then you should be consuming only indie music from unsigned artists

…who could be using AI, lol.

You are definitely not beating the “deliberately obtuse” allegations.

In no way did Musk insist that the entire plan be tweeted in plain text as tweets, and no reasonable person would consider putting a link to X (pardon the pun) in a Twitter thread as not counting as ‘putting X in a Twitter thread’.

“not linked document” is literally a lie, why would you think it wouldn’t be identified as such, when his exact words are so readily available?

This article is about Brazil.

According to the same article, 42% of drug dealers did not complete elementary school. Not quite the same situation as what it’s like in the US.

Do you think this is some new idea that hasn’t been tried yet, or something?

The people still starving are starving due to abuse, neglect, political instability, and war. None of those things can be fixed with money, or improved production. What good is improved production going to do the masses when the local warlord takes control of it (and therefore the food supply)? Arguably, creating those tools in areas where that unrest/instability still exists is likely to make things worse, not better, because it literally makes the oppressors more efficient.

The bottom line is that you can’t end world hunger until/unless there is world peace.

Did you read anything but the title?

So you’re essentially admitting to the headline being misleading. We can agree on that.

Moving production around and creating new transporrt routes are not ongoing costs.

It’s also not the reason world hunger still exists.

A URL linking to a fully fleshed-out plan can be linked in much less than 140 characters, you’re being deliberately obtuse, and also evading the main issue I pointed out, that their response was a colossal backpedal from their initial sensational claim.

They aid by creating and developing agricultural infrastructure, not just buying people food.

I include all of that when I say “food” above. Those things also don’t have a cost that goes away after a handful of years.

The headline talks about “ending hunger by 2030”, not ending hunger until 2030. The notion that any fixed dollar amount of X spent now will/could “end” hunger in 4 years time is ridiculous, full stop.

NOT EXACTLY.

Bottom line: to solve world hunger, first you need to achieve world peace.

And you can’t buy peace.

You’re misremembering, or lying.

Musk replied to a claim by the UN that 2% of his wealth ($6 billion, at the time) could “solve world hunger”, calling their bluff by saying that if they showed him how that was possible with a detailed, transparent plan, he’d give them the money immediately.

The response Musk got was a massive backpedal, a plan that described helping world hunger, not ending/“solving” it, and only for one year.

Bluff was successfully called.

The bottom line is that you can’t solve world hunger until you solve world peace.

And peace can’t be bought.

Food continues to be a need more than 4 years from now. That’s not an “end”.

No, I just know it’s ridiculous to think food is something that magically stops costing money after a time, especially a time as short as 4 years.

Why is an annual figure being directly compared to an “over the past decade” figure?

Did you miss the words “a year”?

Donny 2 Inches

Donny 2 Dolls

What are you even talking about at this point? lol

You admit, within your sarcasm, that you’re guessing at the rate of incidence.

That was the entirety of my point, really.