NGnius

While light bulb sockets don't change much from region to region, they definitely aren't all the same. For the bulbs (not the bars), there's two large categories: Edison screws and bi-pin. Edison screws also come in a lot of sizes. When compact fluorescents were rolling out, they got a new bi-pin connector from the USA: GU24. My whole home has GU24 fixtures (not by my own choice), but my lamps are Edison screws.

It’s confusing why it’s such a big leap.

Because saying "I'll do [thing] until I die" is not the same as "If I stop doing [thing] you can kill me".

Also it’s odd to assume you’d break the vow after not accepting them cheating. From my cultural POV when you cheat. You’d forfeit the vow.

If the vow is broken by cheating, then the part of the vow about being lawfully wedded until death is also broken. So then you'd also lose your right to murder them to get out of the vow, since you're already out of the vow. If you'd like a fun take on divorce as murder, see The Orville's Moclans.

Which would bring dishonour upon your family and that includes a direct disrespect of the other family.

Is your culture Klingon? Because honour is not a real thing, it's just an excuse to shame people for doing things some don't like. If you've got a good reason why it has to be this way, I'd love to hear it. As it stands, that's just intolerance by peer pressure, which are both bad things to do. I'd encourage you to spend a bit of time doing some critical thinking about your culture, since I saw some of your other replies saying that some of your beliefs come from your culture. I come from a culture that still likes marriage a lot (Canada + Catholic), but that same culture is also responsible for (triggers incoming) genocide, child abuse, cultural cleansing, and rampant pollution.

Hey I cheated, or tried leaving (Not leaving because of abuse) since I believe if someone was abusing you. They’d also break the vow since the vow is to protect, love and care until death.

I'm not going to defend cheating too much, but the vow has no statement about monogamy (though that is usually and reasonably assumed to be the case) so the pedant in me would like to point out that cheating is not breaking the vow. Even with the reasonable assumption that cheating is breaking the vow, the vow does not set consequences for breaking it. Technically, divorce does not even break the vow. It is also possible to protect, love, and care until death while ending the marriage. Even after a divorce, your partner was still your lawfully wedded partner. (I don't really agree with this paragraph, but it's a totally valid opinion with some strong arguments so I wanted to mention it)

For Time do us part. While it may seem lesser. It’s acknowledging the flow of time and how someone can change throughout life. Though in reality there could be a better option but it’s more making it apparent the importance of meaningful statements.

I'd like to believe that the vow is acknowledgement that they intend to fulfill it until death. From that basic tenet and knowing that humans aren't perfect [citation needed], it's easy to come to the premise that somebody might grow to realize they can't fulfill that vow, and so they want to get a divorce. It's actually probably the most protective, loving, and caring thing a partner could do -- realize they aren't good with their partner and so leave. The fact that they broke the vow does not invalidate their intent to fulfill it when they started the marriage. This is basically the idea behind no-fault divorce, btw.

If you want to acknowledge time by changing the vow from "death" to "time", you're definitely allowed to for your own wedding. But don't presume that people don't understand the meaning of what they're saying because they made a vow that they ultimately didn't keep.

Here's a parting thought: Would a good partner ever murder their spouse? Is human life truly valued lower than this made up concept called "honour"?

I'm like 70% this is just bait, but I've got some time to break it down so I'll bite. For reference, the traditional vow is usually something along the lines of

I, [my name], take you, [partner's name], for my lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, until death do us part.

From OP:

What this entails if you mean it,

If someone cheats. The other partner has the right to kill them, if one tries leaving without mutual agreement. The other one can kill them. It’s not about anything unhealthy but two people collectively agreeing to a statement.

That's quite the leap from promising to take someone as your lawfully wedded partner until death to having the right to kill them if they do something you don't like. In fact, the vow does explicitly say that you have to take them for better or for worse, which would include just about any sleight against you, including cheating. So not only do you not gain the right to kill them, you yourself would break the vow if you stopped having/accepting them when they cheated.

If you don’t want that then something like Till Time Do Us Part.

This way there is no death involved and your relationship isn’t built on a false and shallow promise.

Is there actually a reasonable interpretation where promising to do something until death is less shallow than promising to do something until time progresses? Promising to do something for a period of time without specifying the period means that doing it for 1 second is enough. Unless you're going to die in the second after you get married, "until death" is a lot more meaningful.

If you're unwilling to make a vow with any heft to it, don't get married. Marriage is no longer required in a good portion of the world thanks to common law "marriages" now. In other places, marriage is just a legal contract which can be broken by another proceeding called "divorce", not "murder". In most of the world, it's agreed upon that nobody has the right to murder someone else in any circumstance except for war (and plenty of people would prefer that single exception be removed too).

Edit: I clicked post too early

They may have mixed up the British commonwealth. Canada has a similar population to California

If they go into influential people's houses or into important businesses, I can think of a few reasons to bribe them to do things for you.

If the US government didn't work with the US military that would be crazy

I just sat down to do my annual donations, so I've got the list ready to go:

• local food bank
• local safe injection site
• Signal
• KDE
• OpenMedia (closest thing to EFF in Canada)

A few places I couldn't afford to donate to this year, in case anyone needs more ideas:

• archive.org
• EFF
• miscellaneous software projects I'm using (mostly Steam Deck plugins because I'm in that community a lot)
• Gnome

I also give a bit to Tor and The Beaverton monthly.

Your first example only works for goods that are completely optional, which is very rarely the case. For example, smartphones. Nobody technically needs one, but almost everyone in western countries has one. If every company that makes a smartphone increases their prices, people will still buy them because they basically need them. I believe this is the principle of inelastic demand (or low elasticity) -- car fuel is a more traditional example.

Your second example doesn't work when the cost of entry into the market is really high. This is very common in high tech. Take semiconductors for example. There's basically one big name in chip manufacturing (TSMC) and a few runner-ups (Samsung, Intel, etc.). The latest node is infamous for being very expensive and low capacity. Why aren't there new competitors constantly breaking in to the market?

UBI is a great idea and will help things, but it's not perfect so we shouldn't expect it to just completely fix capitalism. The best way to fix capitalism is to get governments (which are all in charge of capitalism) to fix it with regulations. UBI will be a major regulation/step in the right direction.

Another classic from NatPo!

While we are ashamed of our cultural traditions, retailers are certainly not ashamed of milking cash from the desiccated corpse of Santa Claus. And so, by being cynical of a traditional Christmas, we have fashioned Christmas into something we should indeed feel cynical about.

NatPo came so close to making a progressive statement, but held back at the last second and blamed regular people instead.

Perhaps we can sneak it back onto the calendar

I wonder who doesn't know when the stat holiday for Christmas is. No need to put it back on the calendar when it's still there...

Throughout the whole article there are only anecdotal reasons why it should be restored. So many of them boil down to "it used to be like this so it should still be like this" too, which is just a silly argument. Maybe come up with some good reasons for it to stay by using a bit of critical thinking, NatPo.

The article could've been a nice little nostalgia trip too, but instead it finished off by saying all of the far-right talking points as though they had some relevance to the rest of the article.

Honestly, I try not to think about them. It's an inherently selfish and self-serving class and they've got enough money to pay people to think about them, so I'm not going to do it for free.

Victims are all SOL, in more ways than one

I like to divide my spending into two broad categories: needs and wants. For example, I need food and shelter to survive, but I only want that really cute blahaj (even though it feels like I need it). Things that I want I can skip, things that I need I cannot. You have to be very honest with yourself for that to work well though.

Of course life is not fun if you're only surviving, so it's OK to treat yourself occasionally with things you want. Just make sure you're saving enough before spending on "wants".

It's also often possible to break down "needs" further, since you may need some functionality (e.g. something to eat, something to hit nails with, etc.) but the specific item is not a need. I will prefer the cheapest option if I don't have any other requirements. I tend to like things that'll last though (they're usually cheaper in the long run), so I'm willing to not cheap out if that's a factor.

I am a very pragmatic and minimalist person though, so I don't think this advice will work for everyone.