this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2026
653 points (99.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

44502 readers
361 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I was just reading about a violation of the Canadian fisheries act that has a maximum penalty of $200k, and realized the absurdity of there ever being a maximum fine.

There should be no maximum fine on any corporate penalty given that we do not cap the size of corporations or their bank accounts.

It would be like having maximum jail terms of 25 years for immortal beings that can live to 10,000.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Caps make sense in some circumstances (like how a library's overdue book fine caps at the price of replacing the book). I don't know anything about the Canadian fisheries act and whether its cap is reasonable, but a reasonable cap (if there is one) generally shouldn't have anything to do with the size of the corporation, unlike what OP proposes.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So this comment is just off-topic? The OP is about caps, and whether they are reasonable.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works -4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The OP is proposing that a fine (whether or not it is capped) should have some relation to the size of the corporation being fined, and I'm saying why that's wrong.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

No, the OP is proposing there shouldn't be a cap. There's no "whether or not it is capped" proposed, the OP just opposes caps.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The OP is proposing that there shouldn't be a cap specifically because we don't cap the size of corporations.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That doesn't require that the size of the fine scales to the size of the corporation. The size of the fine could also scale to the size of the harm. A cap means that a company can inflict trillions of dollars of harm but only pay the fine up to the capped amount. That will usually lead to larger companies paying larger fines because they inflict larger harms, but not always.

But you just don't want to engage with the topic of caps at all.