Delta flight attendants are non-union. They’ve also had industry leading pay for… forever. Delta pilots are union and also have industry leading pay.

I don’t understand what you mean.

The only thing a little ironic is that delta FAs are the best-paid of any US airline.

Their deal is literally better than all the union deals - and the unions were scrambling to match.

Snape killed dumbledore.

I know less about what is considered halal or haram, but Muslims have no restrictions on meat and dairy being mixed though.

If they could make bacon though…… I think there’s a decent chance you could rightly argue it isn’t from a pig.

Similarly if Jews consider this to be parve (a vegetable), then presumably a cultured bacon or pig product would also be kosher. And they can finally realize the dream of a kosher bacon cheeseburger.

The big news here is if it’s considered parve, Jews who keep kosher can eat it with butter or cheese.

BA, agree, AF, not a chance. La Premiere is much much nicer than even qsuites. LH is somewhat plane dependent, but the FCT is fun.

AA first has been a joke for a long time. It was an ever so slightly better seat and they served one extra course - a soup - but was otherwise identical to business class service. You can’t charge thousands more for soup.

First class has been dying for years - and the only airlines that will do it, it’s really a prestige thing more than a profit center.

Only sorta. I’m not sure how much they are right about the crookedness of the market - it’s just that retail investors are at a severe disadvantage to institutional ones.

What they did do was create a short squeeze for a bunch of folks (rightly) betting that GameStop is overvalued because it’s a shit company with no real path to an increasingly digital market.

We didn’t then either. The real issue is scale. What worked when the entire population of the human race was 100,000 doesn’t work when it’s 8,500,000,000.

You’re right that there are no wilds no, no one is getting 40 acres and a mule, and you can just inhabit a new area.

But let’s not forget that a lot of the stake a claim and defend with lethal force was literally colonialism. So many of those wilds were owned by other people, but the stronger guy with the bigger rock can kill him, take his land, take his wife.

Hardly utopia.

Honestly, it seems the same. If a bar doesn’t want Jews in it and the bartender asks everyone if they’re Jewish or a bouncer at the door feels like a distinction without a difference.

There’s no additional liberty, the people who own the bar set the rules.

But if you can throw people out, and kill them when they come back why is it that different?

Ostracism only required a vote, no crime, and no defense was allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

The penalty for returning was death.

Presumably even though there were no border controls, they would kill you if you returned.

Honestly, I’m not sure what the fixation with a guy in a booth is about. Whether you get denied entry and they throw you out, or if they exile or ostracize you, what’s the difference?

Go read some Greek history on the city states and ostracism, as well as the fact that it only worked because they had slaves and subjugated women?

But that’s the way borders were understood then too… it was just harder to determine who was who?

They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?

So is the argument against technology that allows us to know who is who and records of who is a citizen of places?

Like, they used to record that stuff too… it was just much harder?

They would collect taxes and keep records?

That feels like a distinction without a difference? The vast vast majority of physical land borders are effectively open everywhere worldwide still today.

The zone of control of a government just kicks you out if they don’t want you?

Anarchists are basically our version of libertarians. There’s no internal consistency and the vast majority of ideas or arguments don’t survive even a cursory examination.

It requires humans to behave in a fundamentally different manner than every bit of recorded human history has shown us. It’s a reality that doesn’t, and with all available evidence, can’t exist.

In what way isn’t it? How were the borders of the France different than the Roman Empire or Mesopotamia?

Humans have built societies with rules for forever.

And banish people outside their society.

I’m not an expert on the theory of all of this, but it seems entirely dubious that anarchy could function in any environment for long.