Of course it’s different, and economies of scale are generally more efficient. 50 Independent Burger joints would likely be healthier and higher quality, they would do more to keep money flowing around the community rather than funneled away to corporate, and their ice cream machines wouldn’t break

But you wouldn’t have 50 - you’d have more like a dozen. Most local restaurants find the best place they can, because they want the store to succeed

Franchises want coverage - they want as many locations as possible. They want a new McDonalds next to the Wendy’s, even if there’s three other fast food restaurants all within sight already. They’ll dictate every detail of it, because they win even if the store barely breaks even

Such as the famous McDonald’s always broken ice cream machines. Billionaire shareholders in both companies mandate these machines, which must be repaired frequently by licensed technicians. They even shut down a couple that built a $40 device that was able to fix the glitch that causes the problem

And that’s how it works from top to bottom. At every stage, the billionaires must get their hidden taxes. Like the ice cream machines, it generally costs more in every way to society - we would not be using decades old ice cream machines known for breaking down all the time, we wouldn’t oversaturate towns with competing fast food franchises, we probably wouldn’t be subsiding the food itself

But again, it’s all for their personal benefit. A human Their money is managed to grow by any means, and that has a lot of knock on effects

They generally either put their money in funds with the highest returns (which often use unethical and illegal but accepted practices, and the best ones require large minimum deposits), or they directly own large percentages of a company and use that influence when it suits them

I see where you’re coming from, but I think the line is blurry. Their direct personal actions don’t capture the full extent of their actions, but this also assumes full responsibility for their ownership, where honestly it’s impossible to know what level of emissions the companies would have if the billionaire’s wealth machine wasn’t involved

I wouldn’t say this is totally unfair to say though - at the end of the day they own what they own, and letting others do your dirty work doesn’t absolve you of responsibility

The fact that their life would barely be affected if they added emissions to their criteria for investment makes this worse - these are the figures the billionaires should be looking at to make decisions

A billionaire is a business themselves. One person can’t even passively possess a billion dollars without tons of support staff

If you separate the direct actions of the person from the actions of the staff required to maintain and grow their wealth, you’re missing most of the reason why billionaires are so harmful to society

So I’m not sure how applicable this is - I’m a programmer, and I’m not neurotypical - but here’s how it works for me

If this, then that. When a certain trigger happens, I’ve conditioned myself to stop my train of thought and reevaluate

When I realize I’m uncomfortable or agitated, I first ask myself “am I dehydrated? Am I overheated?”. If not, I look at the situation… If I’m talking to someone and feel agitated, is it because of something that happened earlier today, is it because I’m just in a mood, or is there any other reason this is a me thing, and snapping at them would be unfair.

It’s a lot of introspection, and I’m not sure it applies to someone who doesn’t need coping mechanisms like this… But here’s how it applies to logical fallacies:

If someone says something I feel is wrong, first I ask myself, why do I think that?

Maybe I’ve been taught wrong. I first heard the vaccines cause autism from a parent who said “I think he was susceptible, and the shock to his system from the vaccines triggered his autism”. On it’s face, that made sense - it wasn’t until a coworker sighed and walked away after a comment I made that I googled it, and there was evidence against it and none for it, so I changed my mind immediately. I had no facts, one opinion by someone with a personal stake in it, and so I was wrong.

So if I only “know” a thing because I was told or because I assumed it, I immediately pull out my phone and look for evidence. You can do it very quick with practice, and people generally respond well when you take them seriously - either you go “huh, I guess you’re right” and they’re all smiles, or you show them what you found and go into the conversation with sources - either they can refute the source or you know they’re ignoring the numbers

So now, let’s say you’re arguing something not so clear-cut, I have a reason to believe what I do based on facts, but the answer isn’t obvious.

So first off, I don’t care if you’re the surgeon general or an anonymous Lemmy poster - ideas matter, people don’t. The only time you trust authority is when you aren’t able to understand the issue - and that comes up plenty, but it has no place in a conversation about the issue - you should be trying to understand ideas if you’re talking about it. If they bring up a person, that’s not an actual argument… Just ignore the names and the titles.

Hitler was right about some things, George Washington was wrong about some things - pretending otherwise is dumb. I’m on Hitler’s side about interior design… Nazi stuff looks imposing and regal. I’m also Jewish, so I’m not exactly a fan of the guy. Ideas matter, where they come from has nothing to do with anything

Next, is “if I can’t understand why someone would do/think this, I’m missing facts”. If you can’t give me a solid argument for the other side, I take everything you say about the topic with a grain of salt. No one is evil in their own story, no one takes a hilariously bad stance just because they’re dumb… They have a reason to think that way, and if I can’t understand why, then I’m missing something.

And if I’m missing something, it’s foolish to make up my mind before I hear what that is.

Then you get to the actual arguments. I lay it out in my head. I break down the individual statements - do they make sense individually? Are they actually related to each other?

Most of all, it’s important to see the difference between winning the argument and making a point. I’m not a great speaker - i don’t remember specifics well, I remember my conclusions. I lose arguments all the time, and I pride myself on the fact that if I realize I’m wrong, I’ll turn on a dime and own up to it.

But winning an argument and being right are almost unrelated things.

Finally, go back and fact check. The argument might be long over, but the goal should always be to understand better and gain a deeper perspective - follow up for your own sake

So my advice is: stop, reevaluate, and refocus. Every time something doesn’t sound right to you, take a minute. Take a breath, remember your goal, and decide if what you’ve just been told changes that.

It’s easy to get buried in details or lost in the heat of the moment, so make a habit of taking yourself out of it

I’m having trouble parsing your sentence… Are these examples? If so, they don’t sound like poor or lazy writing, it’s more stylized writing. They’re not vague or ambiguous, they’re actually very clear and concise (even if they use non-standard grammar)

Nah, sugar and plastics.

Corn has a lot of sugar and is put into everything, so it’s closely related - but I’m almost 100% it’s just sugar in general

Silence isn’t a thing.

Sound of leaves rustling, the ocean, or even gentle wind? I sleep, no problem

A house quietly creaking and my blood flowing?

I’ve put on music or Netflix since childhood

There’s embedded videos, no need to host them yourself - you just need to link to somewhere supported.

It’s on my to-do list for my app, if no one has figured it out on the web maybe I’ll help out. It’s not that hard to do but it’s not exactly fun