At least upgrade to silicone. I’m baffled that cooking utensils even come in nylon. Options should only be metal, wood, silicone if intended to use near heat.
Nylon is considered food safe while it is in good condition, but not if it has been damaged or used at temperatures higher than what it is rated for. If you cook at max on your stove top, you can exceed the safe temperature of Nylon very easily. chefreader.com/how-hot-does-a-frying-pan-get/
Nylon can be washed in the dishwasher, but in my experience it does degrade a bit over time. Silicone on the other hand tends to absorb any smell or taste, including dish washing detergent.
These types of plastic spatulas tend to be recycled plastic. Which…you’d usually be all like “Oh, that’s great!”
WRONG! Unfortunately it means you’re getting an unknown exposure level of forever chemicals and there’s rarely any oversight on what types of plastics are put into these. So it’s worse than just cooking with plastics. It’s cooking with an amalgam of unknown plastics that may be putting a huge amount of chemicals into your food.
I’m so glad you never go to restaurants, use plastic bags, ziplocs, or ever take food to go. It’s good to use only glass food storage. Now tell us how to afford it. If you’re over 2 years old (and I assume you are) we’re already fucked with plastics.
I actually don’t use ziplocks or plastic bags, I do use glass food storage containers, and I go and eat at restaurants maybe twice a year. Wife and I are trying to have a kid, so we’re cutting as much plastic exposure as we reasonably can. Are we already lousy with plastics? Definitely. Does that mean we shouldn’t do everything we can to mitigate further exposure? Of course not, stop being a whataboutist doorknob.
Wonder what the levels in Canada and the UK are. Context: I’m from Canada, and live in the UK. I’ll hold out hope this is an American problem…excuse me while I bury my head in the sand a mo
Rada makes some pretty decent metal spatulas if you want specific recommendations.
The blade part is way thinner than plastic spatulas. Now that I’m used to the stainless steel ones, I feel clumsy and inept when I have to use someone else’s nylon spatula.
Le Crueset makes a fantastic spatula, solid piece of metal, no glues/adhesives holding it together. Comes in either a metal blade or silicone coated one.
News flash: Even if they do that, your body is already full of microplastics as it’s in your food. So not sure if this is going to help even one bit :)
Those update messages are likely from an automated system, and the updates are probably controlled by a completely independent system that nobody looks at regularly.
By submitting exactly what you did here as a ticket to the IT team, you’re pushing them to check in on those systems and approve updates that haven’t been approved.
Yes, it’s dumb. The updates should be automatically approved. Obviously they’re not, or something has prevented them from approving it.
Personally, as IT, if I get a ticket about this, I’d want to dig into why the update wasn’t approved and make sure future updates get approved without delay; solving both the immediate issue and all related issues in the future. However, if I’m not aware of the issue, I can’t really fix it. From their view, they likely only see a dashboard of all devices and yours (along with others) are probably flagged as needing an update. This is extremely common and probably entirely ignored under normal circumstances. Almost every one of the systems I administrate at work have updates that are pending. Either the system hasn’t been restarted (mainly desktops and servers and such) or, if it’s reliant on a user taking action, I assume the user doesn’t care enough about the update to bother running it… The idea that the update hasn’t been approved or that there’s a problem getting or applying the update, doesn’t even enter my brain as a possibility until someone complains. Simply put, I don’t have time to investigate every pending update that has not yet been applied. You’d almost need a dedicated person just to keep an eye on updates in order to keep on top of them, and nobody pays an IT person solely to look after updates.
So I’m busy fixing Debbie’s printer, and Joe’s scanner, and Frank’s email that’s slowing the date in that strange format again because he somehow changed his regional settings to the UK again…
Do your IT team a favour and send them this. I promise you that they’ll be grateful, even if they don’t seem like it. Bluntly, this is a perfect amount of information.
I get requests that range from “please call me when you have a chance” to “this specific function in this specific program is doing a thing that’s different from what I see on a coworker’s screen and I like how their screen shows it better because it reminds me of my grandchild’s grade 3 school play where they played a tree.” Ok Linda, thanks, I really didn’t need to know about little Timmy’s school play… Users either give us nothing, or way too much irrelevant data. So this image shows exactly what is required for a diagnosis. Either the messages will be stopped or the update will be approved.
That’s my point. Updates pose some kind of risk to something and so require approval before they’re allowed on a corporate owned phone. But the update approvals are just automated, so…
On the face of it, option B would seem to be clearly better, but I’m just trying to understand how an approval system can work if it automatically just approves things, that sounds more like slight delay system than an approval system. Maybe I’m misinterpreting, the way I was reading it sounded something like “the process of approving updates would be cumbersome and time consuming for humans to do, that’s why the process of calling things approved is automated” but perhaps what you were saying is the “the process of evaluating whether approval should be granted is automated and done by software that can figure out if the update will or won’t cause problems and then either does or doesn’t approve depending on the evaluation” which sounds great, but I just didn’t think that was actually a thing that could be done by software. Is that actually how it works? There’s software that can determine if OS updates to phones does or doesn’t cause unexpected problems with an entity’s existing systems? I just thought for sure you’d need a human to do that given how hard it is to define a ‘problem’ and how specific the needs of an enterprise would be.
If my initial understanding was correct, that the software just does the job of ticking ‘approved’ for you, so you don’t have to tick it yourself, then I am completely at a loss in understanding how that is any better than simply having no approval process and just allowing updates without oversight since it’s functionally the same, except a little bit slower (albeit only a little slower because it’s automated).
Given that the op is taking about an apple device, Apple has made their own mobile device management system (MDM) for their devices. Within that MDM you may, or may not be able to set that updates are automatically approved. I’m not certain as I have limited experience with their MDM. I have used it in the past, but only a very small amount, and never in-depth enough to deal with how that MDM handles updates, or what options are available.
I know from my experience with other remote monitoring and management systems that you can often, especially with Windows, specify some clarifications of updates to automatically approve, or do so manually. It is up to the administrator. You can set the approvals to be automatic for all updates too… Or, when doing manual updates, you can approve updates for a group of computers, or one computer, or all computers. I imagine much of this is also available from Apple’s MDM.
The approval only gives the end user the ability to install the update. Due to the disruptive nature of updates, it is generally up to the end user to finish the process at their convenience. Updates usually involve a system restart, so the thinking is to allow the user to pick when specifically to install it, to minimize disruption to their work.
Some organizations with the IT resources to do so, will approve a batch of updates to a group of test devices (usually the IT staff, if there’s no pool of devices that are dedicated to testing), where all applications are run through testing after the update. These unit tests, if you will, are usually designed to give an idea if the update has caused any issues with the software that the users need to use. Not all organisations have the resources to do this, and usually rely on third party testing (usually reports from companies that do this sort of testing, or complaints from the public), and will simply approve the update after a duration of time after it has been available for more than a week or month without complaint.
Every organization is different in this respect.
At the same time, the monitors that inform the notification system may not be aware of the approval status of the update and simply see that an update is released, and that the user does not have it installed. This may be an issue with reporting (eg. The update is installed and it’s working with outdated information), or it could be any number of other factors.
It’s likely that the MDM and update monitoring are done by completely unrelated systems, unaware of what the other is doing, or what has been set.
In the A scenario, going into the MDM and setting automatic approval would fix the problem. By the time the monitoring solution is reporting and notifying the users about an update, it is available to them.
The B scenario, on the other hand, may not even be possible, as it relies on a link from the monitoring system into the MDM to know if an update is approved. If such a system has the ability to set which version all users should be updated to, then when the update is approved, then the version of software that should be expected on the device can be set to a minimum level and notify the users if they are below that level.
The unit tests are usually done by hand, so the outcome can be evaluated immediately. Rather than rely on an automated system for testing, which may not recognise that a failure has occurred if it is an unknown or unexpected error.
Yes, B is preferred, but not always possible. Often with MDM, you cannot exempt a single system from MDM control for updates, depending on the platform, so usually approval is a required step, hence A being an alternative approach.
On the “B” side, if updates need to be manually approved, users should not get notified about it until after approval has been granted.
I work in corporate IT so I can entirely understand what’s happened to you.
The team that’s supposed to manage user communication doesn’t themselves actually know what’s going on so they just push out a notification whenever there’s an update and no one’s actually bothered to check whether or not that update is actually downloadable. Resolving this issue would require someone to actually care and no one really does so it’s never fixed.
Yep. I try to be the change. When I see something that’s entirely preventable, I try to invest the time, mostly for my own sanity, to correct the issue, and reduce the frequency of the issue.
I’ll put in small scripts on servers to quietly restart problematic services at 4 AM daily so that we don’t have to go and do it manually, I’ll develop login scripts and such that set a user’s environment variables to what they prefer, stuff like that… I’ll even run full systems reports from a remote PowerShell script running as an admin that emails me if anything isn’t as expected, so I can investigate long before the user even knows there’s a problem.
I’ve pushed for network monitoring by SNMP with sensible alerting, and often, I’ll sign in for the day and the first thing I’ll check is if any servers are down. Strangely, it’s happened.
I want to know about the problem before it’s a problem. I want to be able to fix that problem before anyone knows the problem exists.
I’m not in IT, I’m an SE, but I do wonder if their system automatically approves minor updates but requires manual intervention to approve major updates?
Or maybe it provides the functionality for them to turn off the automatic approval if they’ve done testing while the update is in beta and discovered issues that need to be addressed?
Or maybe it’s just a crufty relic of a previous IT regime when they actually did have to manually update everything, but disabling that specific checkbox would cause downstream issues they hadn’t considered. Or it’s an edict of the management that they have approvals enabled, but they don’t care whether it’s automated or not.
In my experience all enterprise technology policy is basically just three Windows scheduled tasks in a trench coat, so I also wouldn’t be surprised if it’s all of the above.
It’s usually because updates will be automatically approved after a certain amount of time but not immediately. Usually because they’ll be some business critical corporate app and we have to make sure that the iOS update isn’t going to break it.
Apple do love breaking apps. Normally the app developers would get for warning of updates and be able to update their apps to accommodate but a lot of corporate apps won’t be run through the app store they’re just loaded in via some management tool (businesses get side loaded apps by all means). The corporate apps tend not to get any warning.
And all of the above is assuming that the app is developed in house which often it isn’t so you’ll need to hire a developer team to update the app, which again adds more time.
Lol, that bit where he praised their grocery store prices was insane. The average American makes over 300% what the average Russian makes in terms of salary.
🇬🇧: 90+7 (ok, there is some jank in English numbers - 13-19 are in line with the Germanic pronunciation, i.e. pronounced “right to left”, as a weird hold-over from the more Germanic Old English)
🇪🇸: 90+7
🇩🇪: 7+90
🇫🇷: 4x20+10+7
And if you think that’s bad, the Danes actually make the French look sane…
🇩🇰: 7+(-½+5)x20
Even Danes generally don’t really know why their numbers are like that, they just remember and go along with it.
While learning Danish I figured out that’s just the arcane incantation for the number. It’s language juju, and you just have to know that it be like it do. Yes, it’s syv og halvfems, but the reason behind it doesn’t matter anymore. The rest of the double digit numbers are a mess as well; 30 is tredive (three tens in old norse) but starting with 50 it’s this weird score (20) and half-to-score system.
When I first started learning my brain was desperately trying to make heads or tails of it and rationalize it somehow. And then I realized that was stupid, abandoned reason, and now I just utter these backwards ass numbers and we all nod and everyone is happy lol. Language is weird.
Downvoted but reversals and dyslexia used to be thought of as linked for a long time. These days, not so much, it’s just because they’re shit at writing (dysgraphia) and processing. They don’t even see the letters backwards.
Anecdotally, and perhaps ironically, they were right, I am dyslexic, and I definitely do perceive letters as permuted quite often. The second link really chuffs me because it’s clearly a non-dyslexic person openly speculating as if they’re authoritative, but this theory of “3d processing” words jives with neither other literature about dyslexia, nor my own experience. I’m pretty sure this is just someone showerthinking about a disorder. The errors I make are pretty incompatible with seeing whole words from the wrong “angle”; letters are switched, sometimes even between adjacent words (I might see “angle” as “angel”, or “and rain” as “an drain”), similar graphs are misread as each other (the classic example is [b / d / p / q], sometimes also g depending on font; [w / m / E], [e / a], [T / L], so on), words can be entirely displaced elsewhere in a sentence…
So yes, like, I definitely do see some letters backwards or upside down or mirrored, etc.
Mostly, I was trying to be funny. It did occur to me as a possibility, but I didn’t comment it in a serious way. I was diagnosed with dyslexia as a kid, but don’t seem to have that problem anymore. Either way, I have no idea where the original or any interpretation of it comes from.
Well, as a society we could solve the problem with money. We’re all too happy to print more money for people who already have lots of it, why not do so for people who don’t?
Because overtime, ppl that already have a lot will get all the money from the poor again cause they can make money from our necessities. Is necessary to give money to the poor in the short therm, but it does not fix the issue.
Sure, but if we’re constantly shuffling the deck, then won’t more people get opportunity to be successful?
People blame a lot of problems on capitalism (or communism, or whatever), but really these are just neutral systems. The problem is people.
People are irrational and selfish. Once their core needs are met, their desire to want things becomes overriding - but they treat it like a need. We need to win, otherwise we feel bad and feel worthless, even if we’re doing pretty ok objectively. Capitalism allows people to pursue these wins, but it doesn’t do enough to curtail people after they win what they need, and then make them work harder for the things they want.
With capitalism, the big con is value exchange. You want to pay as little as possible, or at its core put in as little effort as possible, but at the same time you want to sell your output for as much as possible. So, in order to game the system, people lie about value. An employer pays their workers a pittance, but then sells their output as a luxury. A trader haggles down the sale price of what they buy, then inflates the price of what they sell. The price is never actually truly representative of work (which can ultimately be defined in time, ie 'man hours) but instead is controlled by what the buyer is willing to pay.
These systems aren’t inherently wrong, they just assume that people will always play by certain rules. They don’t account for people figuring out the rules and trying to beat them.
If the system resets every so often then this can help mitigate people gaming the system. It won’t stop people from playing the game, but it will give new players a chance, while incumbants have to stop dragging their feet.
Systems function vastly differently. Social structure directs values, opportunities, and relationships. Denying the differences of systems, and asserting human behavior as inflexible and prescribed, is simply obstructing meaningful possibilities for change.
Denying the differences of systems, and asserting human behavior as inflexible and prescribed
That’s not what I’ve said, at all. I didn’t say any system wasn’t different, I just said that none of them have addressed the real problem. Also, I in no way said that human behaviour is inflexible and prescribed; the point I’m making is that people are flexible, and that these systems do not adequately account for that ingenuity when it is applied maliciously.
Social structure directs values, opportunities, and relationships.
If anything, you are implying that human behaviour is prescribed here. I think it is more accurate to say that social structure influences people. It doesn’t direct them, any more than a lone person with a stick can herd a sheep.
Shuffling up the system influences people to work harder when they grow complacent, and simultaneously gives those who have little a better chance to build something greater. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s better than the status quo, and encourages further change.
You seem to be framing argument around the premise that the driving force behind human behavior is seeking to harm others for fulfilling selfish ends, transcending personal experience and social environment.
I am challenging your underlying premise, as collapsing harmful outcomes into a singular cause, not strongly substantiated or thoughtfully conceived.
You seem to be trying to box me into some sort of scarecrow, so you can argue that instead, rather than actually reading and considering what I’m saying.
You have not presented any challenge here. You haven’t even addressed any point that I’ve made. If it isn’t people causing the problem, then what is it? What is the problem?
Lmfao where did I say nuke them all? You’re really trying it on now.
If you don’t have anything significant to add to the discussion, if all you want to do is try and twist things into a “gotcha”, then you should really just move on. You’re only embarrassing yourself right now.
You’re simply saying vague things and trying to expand the language to sound clever and definitive. And yet, when I have asked you to define specific things, you have deflected.
I have defined the problem: people, not the social structure. I have described how the social structures we have implemented so far are inadequate solutions at addressing the problem; people figure out the structure and play it to their advantage. I have suggested that we need to keep the systems in flux - to shuffle them up - in order to mitigate people taking advantage. Furthermore I have said that this will direct us to better societal systems overall in the long run. New possibilities require ongoing change, on a fundamental, not brief and superficial level.
You have offered little to nothing in this conversation. You’ve taken pot shots, but they’re firing further and further from the mark. You’re positioning yourself against me, as if defeating me will be some kind of victory. I would much prefer it if you worked with me so we can both figure out the objective truth. I don’t want you to say I’m wrong, I want you to prove what I’m saying is wrong, as if you succeed in that I’ll know things better.
Again, though, a problem that can be solved is not a problem simply described as “people”, unless you are making a suggestion that mostly everyone finds disagreeable, such as denying the existence of others, or advocating a collective suicide pact.
Is it not more coherent to frame as an objective how people may live together, as people in society, pursuing their shared interests as people?
Consider an analogy. Suppose a bicycle breaks. Would it not be sensible to try to find the flaws in the structure, and to replace or to reconfigure the parts identified as broken?
Would you take the bicycle to a repair shop, expecting the proprietor to explain simply that the problem is “bicycles”?
Do you see the problem, with framing as a problem, that which is already given as unalterable?
Again, the problems people face is not “people”, but of how we may live as people.
The problem I’ve presented isn’t just “people”, though, it’s more “people will find a way to be unpredictable”. Any system you throw at people, they will analyse it and try to find a way to defeat it. Even if you frame an ideal society, there will always be outliers who try to go against the grain and pursue their own interests, sometimes at the expense of others. Rather than trying to idealise everything and everyone, an effective system should recognise this human trait and attempt to account for it in such a way as to balance out or disinsentivize it.
If a bicycle breaks, the first step is to analyse the break, then to repair or replace the broken part. Sometimes it is more efficient to replace the whole bike, but in many cases that just isn’t practical - outside of commercial consumerism, replacing things isn’t practical in the vast majority of situations. Overall, it is better to focus efforts; rather than replacing the whole bike you just replace the parts that cannot be repaired. If the bike is designed and built well, rather than designed to be disposable, replacement parts will almost always be better than a whole new bike. I’ve had the same broom for the last 20 years.
If the bike was designed poorly, I would expect the bike shop owner to tell me I’ve bought a poorly designed bike, and to explain how other bikes were better designed and could better deal with the wear and tear I was experiencing.
However your analogy doesn’t really fit. The issue here isn’t the bike, it’s how people are riding it. A racing bike has a certain configuration; a mountain bike has a different configuration; your average consumer bike has neither of these. Capitalism requires people to give a fair and honest value to things. Communism requires ultimately the same, but as defined by fewer people. Both of these are like selling a BMX to someone who wants to ride on the road or trails, rather than a halfpipe.
I don’t think any system is unalterable. In fact, I would say that trying to advocate for comprehensive change is almost always a losing battle. You would not convince a mountain bike rider that they should do away with gears and ride a BMX. Rather, we should be taking the versatile mountain bike and make small changes to it to cover more different types of terrain, including that which BMX typically dominate.
However, if you really wanted to make a better BMX, you wouldn’t scrap the BMX and start from scratch. You would make iterative improvements on one aspect of it until you found the sweet spot, then you would move to another area and focus on improving that.
That’s what we need in society. Constant, iterative improvement, while simultaneously allowing for objective review of progress to ensure things are going in the right direction. Trying to flip things over all in one go really just gives opportunity for incumbant players to dictate the change such that they remain on top, then after the change the typical narrative is “Well, we’ve had one change, we can’t be having another now, not so soon”.
You repeated the particular language several times, though it has no value to anyone except you and someone who may read your mind.
though, it’s more “people will find a way to be unpredictable”.
What do you mean? Do you mean that inconsistency is an intransigent trait of humanity? Do you mean people become restless? Do you mean people try to preserve order, but fail?
Your language continues to be nebulous and imprecise.
Any system you throw at people,
Who would “throw at people” a system? Are you describing an autocracy, or a foreign occupation?
Can people identify a system, or simply organization and practices under which they prefer to live and by which they feel empowered?
Do people seek change that they identify as valuable?
I am not understanding how you are deriving your understanding about how societies occur and evolve.
they will analyse it and try to find a way to defeat it.
Do you sincerely think that most in every society are revolutionaries?
Why do systems last so long, if everyone is constantly trying to depose the current one?
Are you simply lamenting that every society eventually transforms into a different one, that none last forever?
there will always be outliers who try to go against the grain and pursue their own interests, sometimes at the expense of others.
In every society, some will conform better than others. Every society has systems of accountability, to discourage and to repair harm.
Are you suggesting that no society is stable, because not everyone is always content with the status quo?
Rather than trying to idealise everything and everyone,
Who has done so? Are you referring to a particular antagonistic? Are you generalizing about everyone?
Capitalism requires people to give a fair and honest value to things. Communism requires ultimately the same, but as defined by fewer people.
Systems express a set of structures, relationships, and values.
I am not sure you understand the meaning of capitalism and communism.
What do you mean? Do you mean that inconsistency is an intransigent trait of humanity? Do you mean people become restless? Do you mean people try to preserve order, but fail?
I mean what I’ve said. The more people you have, the more time you consider, the more likely that some outliers in that group will seek to exploit the system and game it in their favour. Given that all societies now are quite large, this probability becomes an inevitable certainty; all societies have this problem, so we can generalise and say “people behave this way”.
Who would “throw at people” a system?
Peter Thiel has been doing this on private islands. Not that I support that jagoff in any way, but that was the answer that instantly popped into my head.
Are you describing an autocracy, or a foreign occupation?
Any of those. I’m not talking about any specific social structure, just human nature. I’m saying that social structure needs to account for fringe aspects of human behaviour, because once society becomes large enough then these fringe aspects become significantly large also, even if overall they are the minority.
Can people identify a system, or simply organization and practices under which they prefer to live and by which they feel empowered?
Do people seek change that they identify as valuable?
I am not understanding how you are deriving your understanding about how societies occur and evolve.
I’m not talking about how societies evolve, or any specific structure, just a specific aspect of human nature.
Do you sincerely think that most in every society are revolutionaries?
No. I’m talking more about sociopathy, ie those who manipulate others for their own benefit. However, I would say sociopaths are a minority, but when a group of people is large enough the number of sociopaths and their behaviour becomes a significant problem.
Most of what you’ve been saying here is focused on the system. The argument I’m making is system agnostic; I’m talking about human behaviour, in particular the fringe behaviour that becomes inevitable in large groups of people, ie in modern societies.
It seems like you’re speaking in defense of a specific social structure, but you’re reluctant to actually talk about that structure or even name it.
I am not sure you understand the meaning of capitalism and communism.
This is kind of a running theme with you. You imply that I’m wrong, but don’t offer any counter point in return. This is an incredibly disingenuous way of arguing, you don’t really say anything of any substance but expect me to provide your argument for you.
If you want to talk about the merits of communism, or any other system, I’m game, and I’d love to hash out definitions with you so that we’re completely on the same page. I think your reluctance stems from the ways in which the terminology is poisoned - much like “retard” was once a technical medical term but since became a slur, “communism” has become something of a dirty word in some circles. That doesn’t mean the ideas behind it are wrong, and I’m happy to talk about the ideas using whatever words.
I return to my original observation, that you are viewing human behavior as inflexible and prescribed, rather than being shaped by personal experience and social context.
In your view, every society is a failure in its essence, because humans are in their essence incapable of forming any society that is not a failure.
I encourage you to think about how societies may differ, one from another.
It is the only meaningful path.
Dwelling on the presumed intransigent darkness of humanity leads to nowhere. It is neither constructive nor particularly accurate.
It’s not that human behaviour is inflexible - indeed, it’s the opposite, humans are so flexible that they do things that are hard to predict. Given a large enough population and enough time certain negative behaviours will inevitably happen. With modern societies, this becomes a near certainty. If you stretch it to the absolute limit, then all things will happen, good and bad.
In your view, every society is a failure in its essence, because humans are in their essence incapable of forming any society that is not a failure.
Still, you’re trying to put words in my mouth, twisting what I’m saying into an absolute statement that I have not made, so you can argue against that. I do not appreciate this. You are being offensive.
Ignoring the capacity for people to do bad things is the height of negligent ignorance. That isn’t to say that everyone does bad things and has bad intent, just that everyone has the capacity to, and if you have enough people and allow enough time bad actors will surface. Any society of any significant size that purports to last long enough must acknowledge and accommodate this fact. This is the foundation of criminal law, which is present in every society.
That doesn’t mean that every society is a failure, just that there is room for improvement. I’m simply saying that the models currently used to form a society aren’t accurate enough and don’t adequately account for human behaviour. We need to adapt our models and make them better, not rely on philosophy from 100+ years ago.
I feel doubtful that a society being permanently stable is necessarily the most important objective.
Try to understand what people need and seek in their lives, and consider how certain organization may promote or impede their capacity to reach or to achieve such needs and wants.
Try not to worry about the absolute count of negative events or negative actors. Most important is the structural resilience against such stress.
I feel doubtful that a society being permanently stable is necessarily the most important objective.
That’s exactly what I’ve said from the beginning. Society needs to be more flexible, and if our current models are to be effecitve they need to be “shaken up” so as to prevent extreme exploitation by those who gather power and influence over society.
Try to understand what people need and seek in their lives, and consider how certain organization may promote or impede their capacity to reach or to achieve such needs and wants.
Again, that’s what I said near the beginning. Society should aim to meet the core needs of the people. After that, society should provide the opportunity for people to meet their desires - but this must be tempered so as not to meet the desires of some at the expense of other peoples’ needs.
It’s not about any asolute count of negative events or negative actors, rather that such things will inevitably happen. Structural resiliance against such things is exactly what I’m saying is lacking in most societies - all too often sociopaths are allowed to take the helm and steer society towards depravity, for their own personal gain. A perfect societal structure must account for this, and our current implementations across the globe do not.
Exploitation and autocracy are expressly encouraged by particular structure, though, whereas antagonized by other.
Again, you’re skirting around saying things. If you want to say that capitalism is bad and communism is good that’s fine by me.
Personally, I see flaws in both systems. They’re different, but both are susceptible to exploitation, albeit in slightly different forms. It’s only through constant review and viligilance that the rot can be kept away.
I’d agree with that. Communism has not really ever been implemented successfully, for a number of reasons. One of those is incumbents from the old system trying to twist the new system into something else, all for their own benefit so they can stay on top. Another is influence from non-Communist nations eg the US.
As I say, I feel doubtful that you genuinely understand communism.
You keep saying that but offer no actual corrections to say where I’m wrong or what is right.
You keep saying that but offer no actual corrections to say where I’m wrong or what is right.
The reason is because of much of what you have written, for example…
in many countries that have applied communism people still get exploited.
Various examples occur throughout your comments appearing as reactionary or liberal obfuscations of communism, and its differences with capitalism, or that seem unaware of general criticisms of capital.
You may feel my characterizations are inaccurate, and you may be correct, but I feel that they are representative of your argumentation, by its heavy assimilation of various tropes common within bad faith engagement with leftism.
Now who’s using terminology they don’t really understand. Just because you’re a member of a clique/cult with its own specific definitions for terminology does not make that terminology valid. The bad faith engagement is your own, as you assume your definitions are universal, rather than taking a common sense approach, or even establishing definitions before building an argument.
To some degree money is creating problems and obstructing solutions, but as long as our society is based on money, it is necessary to antagonize wealth consolidation and to support universal income.
The question is whether someone has “enough” money. Until you can live comfortably, more money DOES buy more happiness. Once someone can comfortably live and engage with interests, more money doesn’t buy more happiness.
When someone says, “money doesn’t buy happiness.” what they’re actually saying is they have enough money and they do not understand how poverty works.
And what else will I complain about when I go downtown? I want to be able to complain about how we need to clean the riffraff of the streets, but it gives me no joy if we’re actually getting them off the streets! I need something to fucking whinge about!
I also live downtown, and my primary issues are homeless stealing things off our front porch, the neighbors that think every night is a good fireworks night, and the 2 homes that previously had 6 scruffy lookin guys hanging out in front of them for months that are now in cinders.
Bias Rating: RIGHT Factual Reporting: MIXED Country: USA Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Website Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
So what’s your point then, that homeless people are a lost cause and therefore shouldn’t be helped? Attempts to house the homeless have resulted in property damage in the past, so we shouldn’t bother?
Perhaps you should take a step back and try asking why those projects failed and how to fix the problems instead of concluding that free housing programs could never work.
If you really want to analyze the situation with some nuance then maybe try looking at real sources instead of opinion articles from right-wing “news” sites:
My point is that a lot of homeless people aren’t to be trusted to take care of the space they live in. There would have to be some screening to make sure that these people are capable of not destroying the public good they are being offered for free. I don’t think it’s really debatable that there are some truly awful homeless people, violent, mean, entitled, and not fit to live in a proper society. It’s something people need to face the facts on. So we need to find out how to help the good homeless people before we let the bad ones ruin it for the rest of them.
Disclaimer: I’ve never sat down to watch either, but if the choices are “turn left” or “winding, twisting course” I think I’m going with the one that has more variety.
It’s more of an engineering sport than a driving sport. Don’t get me wrong– the drivers are absolutely top notch and do an incredible job and it’s entertaining to watch. But since it’s sooooo engineering and development based, you cars that perform different on different tracks (cuz of elevation, temperature, track design, surface).
I’m not sure what you’re referring to but not at all! It’s the inverse of a “spec series” (which still benefit greatly from engineering) where you get handed parts to use. Teams can design the vast majority of parts themselves and do
There are a bunch of restrictions in F1, which largely make it harder to make fast cars. But think of it the other way around: Those restrictions make the engineering harder, and all teams have the same restrictions. That means you have to optimise even more within the limitations you have, because you’re not allowed to make some of the “easy” optimisations like cutting weight by removing the roll cage.
This is like the argument that football is exciting because it’s a highly strategic sport: the most interesting and exciting things about it are happening on the sidelines in the coaches’ heads while 40% of the time nothing is happening on the field.
So if the most exciting part of the race is the engineering that went into the car, then what’s the point of watching the race? You’d be probably be more interested watching Bill Nye.
But for someone who is a nerd about it, some of the most exciting parts are Thursday and Friday when the teams show up with upgrades. Seeing it come together on a Sunday is awesome, but sometimes less dynamic.
Testing is also a part of engineering like dusten didn’t just build a super sonic baseball gun and just left go yea I built that no he actually shot it sirusly we don’t just engineer random shit for the sake of engineering something we engineer to make a thing to accomplish a task so of course we’re going to want to see these machines used that’s what engineering is all about like imagine if we had pro soccer players get ready for the game and we just cut straight to the end of the game
It’s the difference between a marathon and an obstacle course.
Nascar has some really crazy shit, like building a twisted car to turn left, canting the engines to perform better in turns, making the car as flat as possible on the right to get better aero when up against the wall. They do some wild stuff with the cars, and stretching the rules or “cheating” was, and probably is, a huge part of the sport.
When it comes to the racing itself, the track layout is usually designed with top sustained speed in mind, which means that a lot of the driver’s finishing position is determined by their ability to battle it out with the other drivers, instead of their ability to optimize the course. Not to mention, that simple “left turn” is deceptively complex. Drivers account for track conditions, like foreign debris, rubber “marbles”, bank angle, and temperature, atmospheric conditions like air density, car conditions like damage, fuel, tire wear and tire temp, and race conditions like remaining laps, position and proximity to other drivers, when they make that “simple left”. Throw in make-or-break pitstops, where the car gets fuel, tires and repairs in less than 10 seconds, and the fact that almost all of this is happening at 170+ MPH, and you realize that oval racing isn’t just a bunch of hilljacks turning left, but a modern gladiator-style chariot race.
No hard feelings. I’m not a big Nascar guy either, but I went to ~10 Brickyard 400s when I was younger. Totally agree with your sentiment about mild left turn and car shuffling. If that was all I could see, it would be pretty boring. I have the same feeling about horse racing. Just zero appreciation for the Kentucky derby. Just a bunch of multi-millionaires’ horses running around with some other dude on their backs in my opinion. I’m sure there is a complexity that I’m missing, but I’m happy just not knowing.
Most tax programs which apply to capital gains apply to the sell and exchange of the stock. Dividends are also taxed (at least here in the states). So yes, you get taxed no matter what you do unless it’s a net loss
That’s why the quiet part is to borrow against the assets in perpetuity. No tax on money you take out in loans using your investments as collateral! This is effectively a home equity loan for the rich. Now, you can’t keep paying interest on your growing loans forever. Why, ScrotusMaximus, that would be unsustainable! Not to mention that baby faced intern fresh out of grad school with 300k of student loans to be repaid keeps pointing out your interest only loan to his supervisor and posting on Work Reform.
So move onto step two! You and your other insider buddies are going to do a little pump and dump action. For this phase of the plan we are going to crash the market, and write off the impaired value of our investments and debt. Scrotus, that sounds complicated, you might say. Sure, maybe for a peasant such as yourself, it might be. All we have to do is make our investments worth less on paper! A little bad press, some failed deliveries, an enshittified platform, a war breaks out on the wrong people. Nothing is actually changing hands. That would be silly. This has the added intentional bit of killing off the bank or investors we owe money to, figuratively of course. We’re not actually killing anyone, mind you. That would be a crime and as we all know crime is only for the poors.
A year or two passes. We are on our yacht living off the loan money. We are in the final phase of our plan: no one bought the snake oil, the enshittified apps aren’t making ad revenue and that war sure hurt that new market. Our investments are worthless and we can’t borrow anymore money to pay for the yacht diesel or scantily clad deck boys. Gosh darn it, Scrotus, now what?
It just so happens the bank that loaned us money had to be bought out by JPAmerica Bank with taxpayer bailout money thanks to the votes from our friends 😉 in government, and good news! They’re willing to work with us to refinance the loans because an investor bought our shitty debt for pennies on the dollar! What a sucker, amirite?
No tax on loans! The poor hate this one trick
This message brought to you under an Apache MIT BSD license to distribute.
How do you feel about limiting loans against assets and total wealth based taxes?
In general I try to avoid talking about these things because people get touchy and act like the situation is hopeless. Captial Gains taxes does have an affect and it does improve the situation. And obviously what you brought up are clear concerns with how it is often setup today. So I’m interested in how we could continue to make things better in that regard
Yes that’s why I said “total wealth based taxes.” If you want to make a meaningful contribution to the conversation maybe actually read what other people are talking about
I get it. You want dialogue, discussion, and deliberation. Nothing hasty.
There are lots of angles to consider, and one thing for sure is no one ever gave them much thought.
Perhaps it would take at least two more decades of development and planning to achieve any kind of tax code that is more sensible and equitable than the one currently in place.
I’m not really in favor of a wealth tax. Maybe, if we really need to claw back our mistakes, but I think there are better approaches.
A tax on loans based on wealth seems great though. If you have the wealth, why are you borrowing? What are the legitimate uses of secured loans?
Capital gains taxes should be higher than payroll taxes. Always and forever.
Marginal tax rates exist for a reason, and it’s absurd that we stop progressive taxation after $700k. The difference between making $800k/year and making $15m/year is ridiculous. At $800k/year you at least want to make the business last for a decade. After you cash out for $15m in a year, are you really accountable to anyone?
They pay 42% of INCOME taxes, which are only 40% of the annual federal tax receipts. Which means their income tax only amounts to about 17% of the overall tax receipts. Their FICA contributions are capped and they pay no FICA on anything over about $140,000. FICA tax accounts for 25% of overall federal tax receipts. The majority of remaining tax receipts are consumption taxes and property taxes, both of which are regressive and impact lower income citizens more.
Your statement implies that the top 1% pay 42% of all taxes, which is untrue. When called out on your lie of omission you cried like a bitch and tried to shift the goalposts to seem like you didn’t lie.
The comment I replied to said the rich don’t pay taxes. What was important is that the rich pay a lot of taxes. I forgot a word and when it was pointed out I told them it was a fair correction.
Their analysis counted all federal receipts. 13% of federal tax receipts were corporate taxes. So they implied that the rich pay less than they do of all federal receipts and I was curious if they would respond to me asking.
No goalpost shift. The point was the rich pay taxes. They reminded me I forgot a word and I accepted the correction like an adult.
You accepted the correction and then added your own edit asking about corporate taxes - the implication being that person who corrected you isn’t being honest. Projection.
No. They counted 1% income tax liability vs total federal receipts and I was curious if they considered that. It’s a separate issue. My point was rich people pay taxes, and they do. A lot of taxes.
There’s so many other issues too, such as the fact that old job posts don’t really get removed, employers/recruiters also spam multiple websites with their job posts and forget to check them, and some of the job descriptions don’t even match what you go and sign up for.
No salaries mentioned on lots of posts, multi stage interviews that somehow demand your free time during work hours, so good luck interviewing for other roles while you have a job. Take home assignments that take multiple hours sometimes, sacrificing a whole evening.
Recruiters that will ask for all your information again, despite having found your phone number from your CV, and once you go through that, tell you they have nothing for you and that they’ll be in touch.
Questions that mean nothing in an interview, including acronyms I haven’t used or even heard of outside of interviewing for other jobs, because my job doesn’t need or use them, we just do the work.
Don’t forget the tech listings that require 5 years experience in a particular programming language when the language has only even existed for the past 2 years…
Catch-22 situations, where it’s impossible to meet the qualifications. 🤦♂️
During the interview they tell you it only requires 2 days a week in the office. You tell them you don’t have a car… they reply there are trains from where you live to where the office is located… you look it up and they’re right, it’s just a 2 hour commute each way. You start to think “8 hours a week, is like 1.5 hours a day for 5 days, could be worse…”. Then you realize their hiring process requires 3 more on-site interviews before even getting an offer.
Take home assignments that take multiple hours sometimes, sacrificing a whole evening.
Do NOT do this.
Taking a live proficiency test is one thing, particularly if you’re applying for more senior roles, but doing actual projects for free in your spare time should be a hard pass. Full stop.
Not doing a home assignment(or work test as we call them) would mean never getting a job within the industry I work in, or at least not within the country I’m in.
And as someone that have been on both sides of this they are a great tool especially as it gives something to focus on in a technical interview. Though I would say that a requirement for this is that you always give/get actual feedback.
I feel like these are the real issues - I can’t tell how much of OP is meant to be a joke … “You forget to check the website and you miss the time”. I mean, that’s on you. Also it’s often easy to blag the magic words an interviewer wants to hear, the real danger is that the job is NOT as advertised.
The number of interviews I used to sit in on, and wonder WTF the interviewer was thinking… One asked a service designer “if you were a type of cake, what would you be?”
The only possible use I could imagine, was to test how people respond to irrelevant stupid questions, since that happens a lot in some workplaces. Do they get frustrated and make it awkward, or shrug it off politely.
Good point. So how would you say I did… was the frosting part too much? 😃
But really, I wonder if it’s also a neurodivergence test; in an actual interview setting, I’d probably tend to think about it seriously and answer sincerely, then follow up with details if prompted.
Haha, yeah you might be onto something there. It felt like a way to pull the rug from under people to see how they cope, which wasn’t nice. I try to put people at ease in interviews, rather than try to catch them out.
I was ambushed with a “so, what do you do for fun?” once and the sudden context switch made me pause for so long that I must’ve seemed like I had no life outside of work 😬
I was ambushed with a “so, what do you do for fun?” once
Same, I said “I like electronics and taking things apart”, for an IT position. Got the job, ended up on printer duty. That wasn’t what I meant by “fun” 😐
I would disagree, those issues are valid too. Why does every website needs its own account, phone number etc? I get so many spam calls when I start looking for a job because of this. Just e-mail me. I’m not going to check your website every day for 2 weeks just to see if you get back to me.
The spam calls also put less value on actually answering my phone, because half the time it is a spam call. Why does every recruiter need to call? Why does every site need a number when I just need one answer, yes or no. I have my CV, I have my skills on my CV, and with one reply I can send you a very short list of what I’m looking for in 2 minutes, not every job needs a 30 minute phone conversation only for the recruiter to decide they have nothing for me.
And yes, there are magic words the interviewer wants to hear as well. As someone who sometimes struggles in higher pressure situations (which my field does not require at all btw), and also struggles with using the correct vocabulary or recalling random phrases and key words they want to hear, it’s frustrating to no end.
Honestly, I feel this should have all been streamlined by now, especially when I’ve already worked somewhere for years and my company has been satisfied with my performance - why is this not enough? Why can’t this be quantified somehow? An alternative which very few companies do is give me a technical/practical interview that’s actually like the job as advertised. Much easier for remote roles, but can be done in person too. Let me do the job, show you I can do the job, and then you decide to hire me based on that.
I do relate to your last point though, the amount of unrelated riddles or whatever get asked to ‘see how I think’ or something is ridiculous. Even when I get the answers right, the interviewer themselves don’t seem sure. I don’t get it.
In my industry, practical interviews are very common, but they’re not always reliable. I can get as much from asking someone about their process and being talked through a case study they’ve chosen, as giving them a practical exercise to perform on the spot. I’d usually do both.
I’m not disagreeing with the overall inefficiency and frustration of the whole process, I’ve felt it on both sides. It’s messy - bad or overstretched HR teams, slow managers, unclear budgets, poor choice of tech platforms…
lemmy.world
Top