Re: “wrongness” and “accepting yourself”, how much do you think it has to do with how society/others regard the identity you present? I.e. how much do you think the path you’ve taken is an internal development vs a response to society?

In order to describe what I’m thinking: Today, you’ve found a place/role within society where you’re more comfortable than the places/roles you’ve taken in the past. However, a completely different culture/society would have had different available “options”.

Sorry if I’m being way too abstract/hypothetical. Even as a “more conventional normal person”, I’ve long wondered how different I might be had I grown up in a completely different society.

Either 1:0 or 0:1, depending on my mood

This is when the argument can be reduced to absurdity, e.g. banning the Bible for the sexual imagery in it. Ban absolutely anything and everything even remotely objectionable to anyone (there are people with feet fetishes, ban all feet, and thus also all shoes), so there’s no Internet at all.

True, but there are projections designed to compromise multiple factors, whereas Mercator Al has a specialized use case, so it’s easy to agree that it’s a poor layman/general projection

I’ve read that Brita elite filters do capture some PFAs. However, it is well known that Brita filters and the like aren’t as efficient and effective as more dedicated solutions.

That is to say, no, they’re not bullshit – they’re better than nothing, but they’re just a marginal improvement. From my limited research so far I think it’s correct to say that you’re paying Brita more for a convenient system than for efficient and high quality filtration.

If you worked a shitty job that only earned $1 a day after accounting for work-related expenses (e.g. transportation, professional equipment, taxes, etc), it would be profitable, but not worth your time.

Realistically, even if enacted, would be tricky to implement, and would definitely have to be done slowly not to shock the economy.

I think this also means creating a system where companies beyond a certain size cannot be privately owned and must be governed by large “committees”, since beyond a certain evaluation, concentrated controlling entities would be forced to sell off.

Long shot research and development (e.g. think employing thousands for a decade, like drug development) could probably be harder to get started, but at the same time less corruptible due to spreading out power.

I do think spreading out power can be a good thing, but I have to acknowledge that would probably make the government much more powerful (i.e. corruptible) by comparison.

Also, a lot of wealth is tied up in non-liquid assets, so these billionaires would be forced/incentivized to hold more liquid value – who’d want to hold something that can be capped one year only to have it fall the next?

So on one hand, a ton of market value disappears from the economy due to increased supply, yet on the other a ton of hoarded value is unlocked to circulate in the economy.

Anyway, don’t know where I’m going with this, I’m not an expert by any means.