botfly

You're 5'3" and weighed 175? You must be built like a tank

This seems naive. The market will not automatically reward the non-discriminatory actor.

I don't know if Jet was a "small guy" before the acquisition either if they had a 1B valuation. Plus pricing at a loss to get market share and compete with Amazon or get acquired by Walmart isn't really a small guy business plan. My idea of small guys I'd want to help is a local mom and pop stores. Maybe that guy likes the idea of helping start-ups though? It's his money

To be fair, you don't have to refer to them as "Indians". Most serious academic anthropologists would refrain from doing so, preferring Native American instead. So to label them as "Indians" yourself and then to state that "it's not hard to see how there are misconceptions about them if they're still referred to as 'Indians'" is a bit disingenuous. I'm sure there are misconceptions but I don't take as evidence the fact that you chose to call them "Indians".

Why don't they just eat cake?

So the problem in this view is the primacy of one particular projection asserted by the word "actually"? Fair enough.

Isn't that "what things look like"? Like what you see when you see a tree isn't actually a tree but the interpretation of light waves hitting your eye. It's a rendering of the light in a particular way and we somewhat casually call this "what a tree looks like". Often when we talk about the projection of a thing into some visual form we us this kinda casual language. I think to your point, any one of those methods of rendering the information into visual form has equal claim to "what the notes look like"

Additionally, the Venezuelan crude is generally viewed as a low quality product. It's not as suitable for many applications. So when prices drop it's one of the first products to get pushed out of the market

But why talk about that when we can have silly ideological arguments over the merits of communism and capitalism instead

You're free to simplify and to contemplate

Does that happen often?

Well really the opinions of economists on this DID have real, quantifiable backing. It's not just ideological conjecture when economists assert that backing out of a trade union will have negative consequences.

I'm pretty sure it's always been like that but presently I lack the data prove it

So you eat vegetarian rolls and tempura battered sushi rice in Miso and call that Japanese cuisine?

Has anyone ever classified forms of gullibility before? For example, is there a name for the form of gullibility that will make otherwise smart people believe ridiculous things if it reinforces their belief that they are smarter than everyone else?