Yeah, it’s fake lol. I mean maybe for some businesses it isn’t fake, but usually clients would ask us to make it where “if there’s more than X calls in queue, play the message”. Turns out, there’s always more than X calls in queue. It’s not actually looking at the average.
It’s kinda weird, some things are just always like that, some things clients want to add in because the average user expects it.
Someone wanted a repeat caller to get bumped to the front of the queue. Literally encouraging the “if I hang up and call back I’ll get there sooner” people. Awful.
Stop putting people on hold, period. We have the technology to just call back when they’re at or near the top of the queue. If they miss their call, maybe their number gets priority for an hour or something. Either way, when I get put on hold, I mostly fantasize about murdering whoever set up that system.
And then interrupting that hold music at seemingly random intervals to tell you that they care about you, or to tell you that you could do this faster on their website.
I had to call Assurant recently because their website literally threw an error and told me to call in and wouldn’t let me proceed. I was told by the automated messages no less than 4 unstoppable times that the website is faster, and then after explaining the situation to the person she told me that the website is faster.
She was clearly reading the script and it’s not her fault so I kept quiet, but I have rarely felt such extreme rage in my life.
And then interrupting that hold music at seemingly random intervals to tell you that they care about you
I recently encountered one that paused the hold music for around two seconds before the “your call is important to us” message. I hated it because every time it happened, I thought that someone was answering the call!
Yeah, it’s a feature dubbed “queued callback”. Saves your place, it’s a pretty common request. Customers like Delta, Intuit, Pacific Life, Citibank, Dyson, all use the platform I build (Amazon Connect) and do stuff like that.
Problem is, no one answers a call from an unknown number these days. Some phones are getting smart enough to recognize the number and show that it’s a business, though that’s more anecdotal evidence from my personal device (Pixel Fold with Google Fi carrier).
As someone who is also a phone system admin, if you had an older system, that feature was a pretty expensive feature to add on. We never purchased it because to buy what was needed to do it would’ve costed a ton. We did recently switch to a cloud pbx a few months ago and the one advantage I’ve seen is most of the high end features seem to be more readily available and cheaper when bundled with their packages so we finally got a lot of these options. RIP are the days of on prem systems.
I guess my point is I would imagine a lot of places still use older systems possibly and will wait as long as possible before upgrading and probably do not have the call back feature.
That’s a good point, a lot of people are still on old Avaya or Cisco systems and it was expensive to do that. A lot of cloud providers now don’t charge anything for it.
Yup, we were Avaya. Once Covid started, we looked into finally getting WFM and other features like this because we were a place that directly increased call volume due to covid but were unable to keep up with the amount of concurrent calls. We wanted to use the call back feature to help the agents who were overwhelmed and wouldn’t be able to get a large increase in help anytime soon. Especially since we knew these levels would only be temporary as well. In the end, it was not approved.
So the length of the queue is the expected average, right? Then, if you fall off that you are therefore the above average call in the message… except the length of the queue probably doesn’t actually much to do with any kind of average of the number of calls.
You know, of all the things of this post, it’s the Roku remote that really confuses me. Was he holding it when he answered the door? Was it in his pocket and he took it out when was looking for phone to make the Tweet?
I think those are two entirely different days, and the second day the friendly neighborhood FBI field office agents brought the printout of the first day with them to confront CoreyPilat over his vague threat towards federal officers.
So the remote being on his kitchen countertop is just random coincidence and does not figure into the continuity between the two posts.
this is pretty regular. It happens a lot with people who order large amounts of “suspicious chemicals” Styropyro got a visit from, i believe the ATF, might be wrong it’s been a minute since i’ve watched that video, for procuring chemicals that can be used for nefarious purposes in mass quantities.
Similar things have happened with farmers, (fertilizer can often be used in improvised bombs) You will almost certainly see something similar if you directly threaten the government, though it’s usually "hey uh, don’t do this, this is bad, also we’re going to make sure you aren’t a terrorist real quick.
I remember back at the height of the pandemic, I saw this lady licking her finger so she can open those plastic bags, then proceeded to touch multiple vegetables and fruits.
Of course people touch those all the time. Maybe they sneezed before entering the store etc. Always wash the things you consum before because you never know.
And with the bag you just breath on your findertips and then you have some grip. And the you, of course, proceed to touch every vegetable and fruit you can lay your filthy fingers on.
Oh for sure, I know people with more filthy hands probably touched the produce, and I do wash them when I get home. I was just sharing something I remember at a time where spreading bodily fluids was an extra concerning thing.
And no, I personally do not touch the produce. I open the plastic bag just with my hands, invert it to wrap around my hand, and grab the produce with it. So my hands never directly touch them.
During the pandemic (and also to this date) I open bags sometimes by visiting the refrigerator section and touching the bed of the shelves. A lot of grocery stores have fridges that spray water in the section so it will get my fingers wet. It’s even easier if Im buying a vegetable from that section, since I just have to touch the thing I’m buying and my fingers will be wet enough to open the bag.
Xenophobia and racism, mostly. And yes, it’s a solution to the aging demographic crisis many countries face (at least in the medium-term).
I remember seeing a video of a presentation back in the Bush years by some neo-con group that advocated for immigration to Pentagon or DoD officials or something. The argument for immigration was mostly the same: we have an aging population, so we could integrate immigrants (who are statistically younger) to solve this issue. I didn’t agree much with the broader idea of the presentation though. The broader idea was that there were still some parts of the world not a part of the global U.S.-led hegemony (mostly the middle-east and Africa), and we must spread democracy and capitalism to them. The argument was that globalism/capitalism ensures peace, and that both WWI and WWII happened because globalism was falling apart shortly before those wars. So, to ensure world peace, we need to globalize the entire earth and bring all countries into the the U.S.-led hegemony, even if that means starting wars to spread democracy, lol.
not every country can encourage significant immigration
even developing countries have a rapidly dropping birth rate
Some countries, maybe like Japan and South Korea, have low birth rates and a history of discouraging immigration. I’d argue it’s too late for them: you can’t suddenly develop and support a large wave of immigration, especially when most developing populations are doing better, most are seeing lower birth rates. They have a lot of work to do and little chance of succeeding
Other countries, notably China, have a rapidly declining birth and already see the impact, so are just going to discourage emigration. The supply of immigrants will quickly dry up (except refugees)
So for example, the US has a history of significant immigration. We’re already in the scenario of insufficient birth rate to sustain our population but sufficient immigration to keep growing. Maybe I don’t know enough about other countries or I’m falling to some sort of exceptionalism, but to me this boils down to why doesn’t US encourage immigration. We have the easy case: if we can’t figure it out, how can we expect anyone else to.
Either way, the fetus of a woman who wants an abortion is up her vagina without consent and is therefore a rapist. Deadly force is permissible in the act of removing a rapist from their victim.
If it is a person, then yes, it could be considered a rapist, and subject to forcible removal at the mother’s will. If it is not a person, it is merely an unexpected growth, and subject to forcible removal at the mother’s will.
The ridiculousness of the former scenario tells us that, for purposes of deciding whether the mother is entitled to remove it, the fetus should not be considered a person.
I love that bait, hahah. Rape aside, woman had to take into account possibility of a child when she had sex. Same with her partner. Sorry, but that’s the biological reason sex even exists, and denying it because we found good methods of contraception does nothing because even these methods are being advertised as not 100% effective.
So, no victims there other than the poor unborn child.
That “rape aside” is doing a lot of heavy lifitng there and conveniently sweeps away the need to actually address anything that isn’t the “had sex, your fault” narrative you seem to be espousing here.
Especially given that there is little to no effort being given to exemptions of any kind.
Nobody is denying that sex is how babies are (usually) made, i mean apart from the “this book is the literal truth” christians i suppose.
or you’re trolling, in which case, congratulations…i guess.
I slightly do troll - in a sense of presenting fully opposite view to the one provided.
And the"rape aside" is meant to do the heavy lifting. It’s there as a heavy notion that shit happens. Forced sex, rapid health declination, getting too drunk to think logicaly (…although from what I know, then it’s also rape, no? Or I misunderstood), or simply finding out your body can’t handle birth. These are all valid reasons for abortion.
But by all means, consequence of sex is having a child, and people - this is my own fully subjective opinion - seem to be bewildered by this notion. By all means, people always should take into account that sex ends with children without precautions, and still may end with children with, and be responsible about it. Not call a consequence of their actions a parasite.
Is she obligated to report that rape? Is she obligated to accuse someone? Is she obligated to prove she has been raped? Is she obligated to cooperate with an investigation into her rape? Is she obligated to even claim she had been raped?
The answers are “No, No, No, No, and No”. Since she is not and should never be under any sort of obligation to do any of these things, you don’t know and can’t know that she was raped. Yet, by your argument, as a victim, she is entitled to an abortion.
With your philosophy, you could presume that any particular woman seeking an abortion has been raped, and is simply not reporting it for whatever reason. She is entitled to her abortion.
I didn’t aim to proclaim “women need to admit to rape to get healthcare”. I countered instead calling fetus a rapist - an actively and wholly out of control of a woman agressor. No, unethical situations aside, both parties knew what consequences are there. No use getting pissed at someone/thing because of your own stupidity.
I put rape aside because it wasn’t aimed at discussing this part in depth but…if you want, why not. First of all, women, as you wrote, are not obligated to admit to being a victim of rape. And yes, in the way I described it above, it’s suggested that rape victims are entitled to abortion. However, the mental jump to then switching the logic around that any woman looking for abortion was raped is simply illogical in the same manner that saying only alcoholics buy alcohol is. In the dystopian version of the world where abortion is fully illegal except for unexpected and unethical situations like rape, I think that yes, women would have to admit to being a victim to receive medical help. There’s simply hardly any other way.
However, the mental jump to then switching the logic around that any woman looking for abortion was raped is simply illogical
I agree, but I didn’t say that they were raped. I said you could presume they were raped. You are perfectly capable of making and choosing to make that presumption.
I think that yes, women would have to admit to being a victim to receive medical help. There’s simply hardly any other way.
There most certainly is another way. You are under no obligation to ask. You don’t need to create an obligation for her to tell. Even if you did ask and she did tell, she could have some reason for lying and claiming it was consensual when it actually wasn’t, so you can ignore any answer she gives.
The “other way” is to allow you to presume that she meets whatever criteria you believe necessary to justify and permit abortion. If you need to believe she was raped, presume she was raped. If you need her life to be in danger, go right ahead and presume her life is in danger.
One last point: You are under zero obligation to presume that her sexual encounters were consensual. If you choose to presume consent, I’d like to know your rationale for doing so. And I’d like to know how fairly you will be treating a rape victim seeking an abortion if you presume consent that was not granted.
About presuming she met any criteria: If our aim is to limit unneeded abortions, then this approach is not only invalid, but also damaging. It will work against the target of removing casual abortions while also removing a lot of weight behind act of rape. The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims. Also, this means that woman would have to prove she’s a victim - by gaining second opinion, most probably with the help of police, maybe could be done by medical specialist. I’d honestly rather lean onto the other, to remove need for criminal investigation if such is unwanted by victim.
About last point: I choose to presume consent because great majority of children is conceived consensually, and as such this is default, and I’d treat a rape victim as a rape victim, not much to say about that one. Case by case.
The only “unneeded” abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will. Every other abortion is “needed”. (We have not previously considered forced abortions in this discussion, and I see no compelling reason to delve into them now. I mention them only in demonstration that the mother’s needs are valid, so the only abortion that is “unneeded” is the one that she has determined to be unneeded: an abortion forced upon her without her consent.)
The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims.
The only “help” our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn’t requested it from you. She has requested it from someone ready, willing, and able to provide that help. Neither she nor that provider want you to be involved at all. She hasn’t asked for your help; she doesn’t want your help. Why are you choosing to involve yourself? What “help” are you going to force on her against her will?
About last point: I choose to presume consent
I’ll stop you right there. The rest of your argument is likely true, but the truthfulness of that second part does not justify the first part. You don’t get to make that “choice”.
The only time it is reasonable to presume consent is when you are actually presuming innocence. Where an individual is accused of committing a crime by acting without consent, presumption of innocence requires us to presume consent until proven otherwise beyond the shadow of a doubt. As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.
#You may never infer consent from silence.
If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn’t want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.
The only “unneeded” abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will.
Abortion is killing off another human being, so it’s not really that black and white. Also, I agree that forced abortions are, at the very least, unneeded.
The only “help” our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn’t requested it from you.
What I meant by help is therapy, societal support and the like. If we just presume that every woman wanting abortion is a rape victim, these forms of help would loose support due to lessening the weight of situation.
Why are you choosing to involve yourself?
The only place I chose to involve myself initially was in calling a human being brought into this world through people knowing what they are doing a parasite.
I’ll stop you right there.
It was you who wanted to kniw my rationale. I simply responded.
As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.
Meanwhile, however, you require others to presume that there’s a rape victim. This means there’s criminal act, and thus is a valid justification.
If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn’t want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.
I’ll be honest, only at this point I actually got what you are going for, but sadly, it applies both ways and depends highly on someones morality. While I cannot say in good faith that I would choose life of an unborn baby over it’s mothers health - be it mental or physical - there are people whose moral compas wouldn’t allow to simply accept killing off such child. There are also more reasonable - in ny opinion - people who simply don’t want us to kill off unborns due to the mere convienience.
My point from the get go was, however, to not treat creating a new living being from activity meant for doing just that as a surpise and/or punishment. For people to think about what they are doing, and what consequences may be.
It’s actually a pretty simple question, and has a simple, straightforward answer. The fetus does not become alive until its survival needs can be feasibly met by someone or something other than the mother. Until it is biologically capable of surviving the death of the mother, it is alive only as a part of the mother’s body.
An infant does require considerable support. It will die if neglected. But, the support an infant requires can be provided by any caregiver. Dad, grandma, or an older sibling can feed an infant. Doctors can provide it with IV nutrition.
To you it seems simple, but this is a philosophical question that hasn’t been answered for over a century. You can reason for any point in time to be the point it becomes a person.
I maintain that debating fetal personhood is a huge mistake because it goes down a philosophical road where you can’t clearly define things like when someone feels pain.
There is a much simpler reason to make abortion legal- for the same reason it is not legal to harvest a corpse’s organs without the person’s consent before they die or the reason you can’t be forced to donate a kidney. Being forced to use your organs for someone else’s benefit against your will is illegal in every other situation. Even if it means a human will die without them. That doesn’t matter if it is something that will eventually develop into someone with full human rights or if it has them already. It’s just not relevant. It’s about the rights of the person whose body will be used.
It was mostly just Catholics who were anti-abortion before the 70s. Then the Baptists discovered it was an issue they could latch onto and others followed.
And it wasn’t just a political reason the Baptists latched on to it. They realized legal abortion meant less white babies because you’re a lot less likely to be able to get one if you’re poor.
Even then water is only wet sometimes. Extremely cold ice isn’t wet for example. It’s quite dry until you reduce increase* its heat enough for it to become wet again.
Most of water on earth is wet. It’s not a default property though.
because I call the customer service line of any one company so much, that I have memorized their touch tone menu
9 months into my daily call to Maytag: Excuse me, babe. I have to walk into the other room so I can listen. Apparently, they’ve changed their phone menu.
The President cannot run a campaign from the White House, it's against the law, so, you would never ever find a Biden/Harris 24 anything on any official White House source
Not saying it’s not an internet meme, but NBC News seems to have ran the quote yesterday, and hasn’t updated the article with a correction:
he Biden campaign slammed the former president in a statement about the expected gun license revocation.
“When Trump tells the NRA he won’t do a damn thing to prevent convicted felons, domestic abusers, and other dangerous people from getting their hands on guns, he’s talking about himself,” said campaign spokesperson James Singer in a statement.
I checked James Singer’s twitter and couldn’t find a written statement, nor a rebuttal to NBC News article, so maybe this was a spoken quote off the cuff?
fedia.io
Top