Not striking per se, but if you piss them off they could start turning away the majority of applicants so they don’t have to deal with society’s more desperate. The corporates already do that anyways, though.
Record high prices coinciding with record high profits and plunging cost of good sold, followed by even higher prices. They are testing to see what the pain thresholds are. All that’s gonna happen is that business will start to collapse as consumer spending plummets because people can barely afford to survive. Will the system autocorrect or collapse? Will the government ever enforce consumer protection laws ever again? ¯\(ツ)/¯
Occam’s razor says the more simple/plausible explanation, that a huge increase in the monetary supply causing higher prices through supply and demand, is about a thousand times more plausible than tens of thousands of corporations simultaneously deciding to coordinate to fix prices despite that it’s in each of their best interests individually to break with that scheme. With no actual evidence of a concerted attempt across the entire economy to fix prices (not to be confused with a couple corporations having board meetings where someone bragged about raising prices).
Or, in simple terms - it’s not that every single other good in the entire economy has suddenly become worth more as the result of some overarching conspiracy. It’s that they printed a bunch of money and it’s now worth less.
I would recommend anyone who still believes the “greedflation” thing spends an hour reading some articles critical of the theory. Not really looking for a debate about it tbh.
No, just the last word. There’s a lot more to it that clearly explains why it’s a systematic failure that led to this, and it’s a lot more complex that just over supply of cash. You can’t stop looking at other facts once you’ve researched just enough to find an answer you’re comfortable with.
Your previous comment was basically a massive industry wide conspiracy theory though, so their response of a more sensible answer to give you something a bit more concrete to go on was pretty reasonable to me.
Not a conspiracy theory but the inevitable conclusion of a system left unchecked by regulation for too long. We have slowly rolled ourselves to the edge for decades yet have been able to maintain a very precarious balance, until a worldwide pandemic kicked the cart and set it rolling down the hill.
Did the entire planet have too much cash and an urge to spend it all at once? Yes. That only explains the flashpoint where prices exploded. Demand was at an unprecedented high from the world coming out of lock down at the same time that supply was at an all time low thanks to the pandemic. (There’s a lot more to all of this of course, but there are going to be countless PhD thesis written about this macroeconomic clusterfuck and this isn’t one of them.) So far, this all makes sense. Where things go sideways is when supply stabilizes, cost of goods sold start to go down, and yet prices continue to rise. Remember how the fed thought that information was going to be a short, temporary spike that didn’t require intervention? This is why. They expected the system to autocorrect, but it didn’t. Prices continue to rise. People have less money. Prices continue to rise. Interest rates skyrocket in an attempt to cool the economy. Prices continue to rise. Consumer spending slows but prices rise.
Corporations are literally geared towards maximizing profits. It’s not a conspiracy if they are working as intended. The failure, IMHO, is in how we have chosen to manage our economy. Complete deregulation and a slew of other choices have brought us here. Not a conspiracy but also not as simple as “too much money” or “too much cheap credit”. So, amending my original comment, yes it is in part inflation but it isn’t just inflation.
PS: Credit card debt in the US surpassed $1T. We’re running on literal borrowed time and every business around us is trying to find new and creative ways to squeeze every penny we don’t have out of us, by design, without a check or a balance in sight.
It is specifically a conspiracy theory that there’s a price-fixing cartel across the entire economy. You can give rhetoric about unchecked capitalism and all this, but the fact still remains that we’re talking about hundreds to thousands of companies that would have to opt into this scheme (drawing the line fairly arbitrarily at “the ones that comprise most market share”).
I raised this point already - individual corporations are incentivized to break with a price-fixing scheme because it increases market share. Consumers don’t want to pay exorbitant prices if there’s any alternative. Didn’t hear a response.
You keep saying “across the entire economy” but not every sector of the economy was equally affected.
Also, there is good competition in some sectors (where it’s easy and cheap to produce the product and the supply chain isn’t very complicated) and definitely not others. Look at gas prices, which were involved in a lot of the inflation and its secondary effects. You can save a few cents here or there by shopping around, but otherwise the price is relatively similar (and relatively high) everywhere you look in an area.
In some sectors there’s basically no competition at all. My Internet bill rose, do you think that’s because of the money supply or because there’s essentially no competition amongst telecom providers basically anywhere in the country?
A huge part of inflation is still rising rental rates. In my city about six companies own most of the large apartment buildings that people live in. Something tells me they’d have no problems raising rents between the six of them just because they easily can.
Company A raises prices and reports record quarterly profits. Company B is aware of this because both the price raising and quarterly profit report for Company A are public. Company B raises prices too so that they can get also get more profit. Company C either does the same thing, or there is no company C because rubber stamped mergers and acquisitions for decades have allowed a handful of companies to dominate every industry, sometimes multiple industries.
None of this is a conspiracy. It’s Econ 101 level “how things work.”
Econ 101 covers supply/demand curve, i.e., how markets create prices as an equilbrium between consumer/producer, and how a company arbitrarily spiking prices will cause them to lose market share because their customers don’t want to pay more for the same thing.
I’m sorry you’re under the impression that the economy is controlled equally by tens of thousands of corporations. Its much more like 2 dozen control nearly all money that presently exists. They wake up everyday and fix prices. They’ve been doing it a lot ever since 2008 and the utter downfall of consumer protections. I also have no fucking clue what you mean when you say that not fixing prices is in their best interests?? Like, you realize that by price fixing they make billions of dollars more than they should be? How tf is making even more money not in the interest of a corporation? They literally profit off of wars. Any possible thing that increases the amount of capital they generate is in their own best interests. Even employing children, or slaves. Capitalism is designed specifically to be exploitative of as many people as possible to generate as much capital as possible.
I’m sorry you’re under the impression that the economy is controlled equally by tens of thousands of corporations. Its much more like 2 dozen control nearly all money that presently exists.
There are 8 million businesses in the U.S. We have problems with monopolization, but to the level where a cross-economy price fixing scheme could possibly be implemented, we are not at that point. That’s an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof, not something to just believe dogmatically because you don’t like capitalism.
I also have no fucking clue what you mean when you say that not fixing prices is in their best interests??
You could start by just asking me. This is basic game theory. Market price of a good is 10 dollars, ACME and BLLC corp meet and fix prices at 15 dollars. ACME corp goes to market at 15 dollars, BLLC corp goes against the secret agreement and goes to market at 10 dollars. BLLC gets ACME corp’s customers as long as they retain their price at 15. Now take the same example and spread it across hundreds, thousands of companies, keeping in mind that this level of coordination would leave behind proof, witnesses, and take an extraordinary level of coordination. Non-participation in a price fixing cartel for a minority company could mean capturing the entire market, and anyone who was participating would immediately be incentivized to exit it.
This is what is being posited, versus the dirt simple explanation that more money has been printed and has thus decreased in value. And we know a ton of money was printed.
Price-fixing cartels aren’t impossible, however, they do become completely impossible to create or maintain at a scale like that. There is simply way too much competition. It’s an extremely elaborate, poorly substantiated theory to explain something there’s an obvious, well-substantiated explanation for already. I don’t know how you guys think about applying the scientific method, but to me, that ain’t it.
Keep in mind we’re not talking about simply “6 companies dominate a single industry”. The burden of proof for “greedflation” is simultaneous price-fixing behavior across the entire economy. Across essentially all corporations.
It’s an established phenomena. But, just because it’s established as a concept, doesn’t mean it’s prevalent, or especially not that it could be used to explain simultaneous increases in prices across the entire economy.
Here’s an introductory article on price leadership:
Breaks it down into “barometric”, “collusive” and “dominant” categories. Going through each one -
Barometric being the phenomena where all the firms in a space look to the dominant firm for indication on what to do with their prices. Assumes heavy market concentration in the dominant firm and a marked imbalance to analyze market trends or predict upcoming cost shifts on the part of other companies. Does not make any sense in a space with several near-equally sized entrants in the market exist with similar capabilities for determining prices and macro conditions.
Collusive being where they have actually agreed to fix prices together. This is of course illegal and requires ongoing coordination across basically every major company in the economy. This is mostly what we’ve been talking about in this thread and requires extraordinary proof, because the level of coordination required to make this happen is extreme, especially across not just one industry, but every industry. Or, to be fair, at least the basic industrial/manufacturing industries upon which all other industries depend.
Finally there’s the “dominant” category. That’s where a single dominant firm (or cartel of multiple firms) is setting prices - particularly, setting them downwards - and other smaller firms are forced to lower their prices to survive. This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense with upwards price-fixing, because less dominant firms become more competitive as a result, not less.
Here’s what it looks like from a business perspective: if I am a meat packing company, I need to go to the farmers and buy the pork that is going to be processed by my factory. The pig farmer says I will sell you my pork for four dollars a pound. I asked for him to sell at two dollars a pound, but he simply refuses and sells to somebody who paid is willing to pay a higher price.
Now, I can do two things to lower the price:
I can collude with all of the other meat packing companies and refused to buy pork at four dollars a pound, and we set our willing price at two dollars a pound. If we get enough other companies to collude together as a cartel, then we can force the prices down. This is generally illegal.
The second option is through consolidation: first, I get enough money to buy up all of the other meat packing companies. Then when I go back to the pig farmers, they only have one buyer to sell to, which is my business. So I get to set the prices, which will be at whatever price I stipulate. Walmart is famous for doing this.
No… Not to my understanding. Inflation, while an average, is not equally rising across all things. It is possible for the few that control food to raise prices together. Same with clothing and other industries. I think it’s also exacerbated by the shipping fiasco during covid and the fact that corporations always want more profit. As a general rule, any time prices rise for any reason, and shipping can make everything rise together, if people still pay that price, it will not be lowered.
Yeah, so we barely touched on the actual shortage issues from COVID in the thread here. That is for the most part a short term phenomena, and prices can actually resume prior levels after disasters and such like that, while actual monetary supply increases are typically permanent. And yeah, some industries (like energy) are pretty fundamental and can affect prices in a lot of other places, and there was additionally the energy shortage triggered by the Ukraine invasion. All these factors can cause price seeking and instability, but the key thing to point out is that that’s transitory, because after some time the costs of goods reequilibriate. But if you’ve increased the money supply 50%, then the price increases become permanent.
If you’re going to bring in Occam’s Razor, it’s probably less tenable to argue the ‘a conspiracy is more complex than the alternative’ argument when there’s obviously a set of shared motives driving labor costs down while at the same time pushing up profit margins. The fact that profit margins are up does a lot of damage to the ‘it can’t be greedflation’ theory
argument when there’s obviously a set of shared motives driving labor costs down while at the same time pushing up profit margins.
Well, just because they have shared motives doesn’t mean they’re going to act in concert with each other. They’re competitors. One’s market share loss is another’s market share gain.
The fact that profit margins are up does a lot of damage to the ‘it can’t be greedflation’ theory
It might help to clarify what “it” we’re talking about here, or for that matter, what exactly we’re referring to with “greedflation”. To be totally clear, companies will raise prices when the market will bear it, and when they have a monopoly or cartel, that can be nearly indefinitely. The thing I’m objecting to in the first place here is the notion that that’s just universally the case across the entire economy, which strikes me as ridiculous and a way for the government/central bank to deflect blame for monetary inflation. And to your point - for any highly competitive market, it’s a very elaborate explanation versus just that supply and demand has caused prices to increase because the supply of money has gone up, which is a very simple and fundamental phenomenon in econ. As a rule of thumb, the more diversified the market is, the less likely that is to be the case.
We did see a big supply shock when Russia partially cut out of the global energy market, causing the market to chase after oil from the remaining producers, causing an increase in price. That’s not some new phenomenon, that is also just basic supply and demand. It does cause price shocks, even if their costs didn’t go up, even if labor didn’t see the benefit. That’s not, however, some permanent state of “inflation” like monetary inflation which is just never reversed for the entire remaining lifetime of a currency - supply shocks are transient (at least until the fossil fuels actually run out).
The problem with consolidation is that companies that gain a majority market share are operating at the lowest of margins, so there is little room for new competitors to move into that market space.
Since these companies already own the market, it is too expensive for another company to enter that market space while competing successfully. The larger and more established companies already have economies of scale that are tilted in their favor. The only way for a new company to compete successfully against an entrenched business is by leveraging new technology or huge investments to bring their cost lower than their competitors.
And we’ve seen that happen in the past with agribusiness, they get large investments and just buy up all the other companies and put them under their own umbrella.
The loan on my van is paid off, The bank is paying me interest on my savings again, I have a years worth of costco rice stored, and the campsites by the river where i live in my van is empty because everyone too broke to go on holiday. Life is sweet. (No part of this comment is hyperbole)
Mechanically, not upgraded, no. But it was an empty van with an aluminium roof rack when I bought it, and I did the fitout myself. Awning, solar panels, batteries, inverter, fridge, shower, ventillation etc.
There is inflation I agree, but I think a significant percentage is from price gounging, around 30%. I saw a study detailing this that I could find and link if you want.
If you’re wondering how it can happen simultaneously accross whole countries and much of the world, you can look up the concept of “price leadership.”
No, it’s inflation. Too much money chasing too few goods. Caused partially by years of central banks across the world injecting new money into financial markets and partially by the massive dump of new money into the consumer economy in 2020-2022.
100%. I don’t know why anyone expected anything different - we’ve been printing and printing and printing money for the last 10 years. Chickens are home, roosting.
That’s fucking moronic… The US government has had that money printer running since Nixon… It’s just garbage all around regardless… even though they are and have been some slightly less garbage parts
This particular theory is far too prevalent. Corporate executives are tugging themselves silly at the sight of people blaming the government instead of the people who paid them.
Prices are going up because people are willing to pay higher prices than they were. We still have not found a new ceiling. It’s not “all the money printed by Trump” that caused a giant spike in inflation (that only played a small part). It’s record profits in a variety of industries convincing anyone and everyone to charge more.
To be fair, of the 44B, they’d use 30b to blow up children’s hospitals, give 13b to some rich fucks, 800m would disappear and the rest would fund something nice
Have you ever looked at US federal spending? 27% goes to healthcare, 21% goes to social security, 13% to income security, 13% to defense, then the rest is split between education, veterans benefits, transportation, and regional development/other.
I know people like to meme the government spending, but the majority goes to healthcare, elder care, and veterans.
I can’t wait until Snowden resurfaces and shows us how much of that 27% healthcare actually goes to healthcare and how much is skimmed to line people’s pockets.
Fritz Haber invented synthetic fertilizers he also developed chemical weapons during ww1. Whats your fucking point? Lots of good things were created by terrible people and lots of terrible things were created by good people.
Or someone triggers this remotely after it has been off for like 2 years. You sit on Monday morning meeting. You get up to the screen to present your new project and boom.
You are mad and calling this dystopic but ... it's specifically been made to work in its location? Isn't this exactly what we want our environmental changes to support?
Shouldn't this be a sort of utopic example? "Look what we can do if we think carefully about interacting with our environment.'
If it's all lies or something, bring the evidence and I will be there supporting you. Otherwise, what is it you want, exactly?
It doesn’t need to exist. It is a tourist location. That’s why this is here. People charter flights to fly out to there to see Death Valley and play golf at the lowest golf course on Earth. I’m not discontent with a golf course being there, more that people insist on going to see the hottest place in the world and the driest place in North America because there’s more to do that just say, “Hoo boy, sure is pretty and hot and pretty hot.” It just adds to an ever-worsening climate. And, I know…corporations, not people, are mostly responsible for climate change…I get it. But surely there are better uses for this runoff water than a golf course.
If the most reasonable way you can devise to have fun is to charter a flight to the desert and play golf, then I daresay you have a pitifully weak imagination.
You don’t care about the environment. You hate golf. And you picked a site that does everything right and works with the local ecology. It’s a VERY poor example.
Correct. I cannot imagine how installing an air conditioned compound with a swimming pool and a golf course in the middle of the desert could be anything other than ecologically disastrous. But then again, I tend to be skeptical of marketing claims — unlike you, apparently.
I’ll crap down anyone’s throat if it means my life is just a little bit more comfortable. Thank you for empathizing with my plight and arguing that a golf course is more important than public green spaces.
I mean people don’t have to just stay home to get close to a golf course that isn’t *literally siphoning the only source of sustainance for hundreds of miles."
There’s a golf course down the street from me, on a main road to one of two local hospitals, surely you can find one within the nearest 10mi and if you can’t? You probably have bigger things to worry about than swinging a club at a 1inch sphere at your feet.
If you’re visiting a country that doesn’t have enough grass to sustain pissing on a tree, you’re going to the wrong places for golf.
If you’re visiting a country that doesn’t have enough grass to sustain pissing on a tree, you’re going to the wrong places for golf.
I’m not sure I understand? Did you mean county?
It sounds like this course is located at a natural oasis fed by a natural spring. If the course wasn’t there the water would probably feed some plant life and a bit of wildlife. With proper management it’s likely that their water use is more efficient than it would have been naturally. It isn’t unusual for resource aware golf courses to actually improve biodiversity in a region while being water consumption neutral.
Golf courses aren’t just grass, they plant all sorts of other vegetation, much of it native. This supports native wildlife that wouldn’t otherwise be there.
Have you ever actually been to a responsibly managed golf course? Many in the southwest US are run this way, and tons more are moving in that direction to reduce water use.
Birds, insects, and reptiles are common even in the desert. A species can be native to an ecosystem or region, without naturally occuring in an small locality.
If humans manage water more efficiently than nature would have in this locality, it stands to reason that the resulting local ecosystem would be able to attract and support more native wildlife.
This is observable and provable for golf courses which manage their resources with a focus on limiting their natural resource use and increasing local biodiversity.
You just hate golf courses, which is fine, but you sound pretty uninformed.
Yes, that’s the point. But if you divert the water then you’ve killed them. Bringing in different ones isn’t a value add, it’s just green washing marketing. You cannot introduce a human structure to manage water more efficiently than nature. The local ecosystem has spent thousands of years developing around that water source.
It’s thinking like yours that got us into the position of having to remove dams and concrete river channels.
You cannot introduce a human structure to manage water more efficiently than nature
If you actually believe this then there’s nothing anyone can say to help you.
If a naturally occuring spring runs directly into a wide flat area in the middle of the Mojave desert, then it doesn’t naturally reabsorb into the ground as the hard pack just makes it sit on the surface. Since the water is shallow and sitting on the surface, it evaporates instead of being used to water native plants or support native animals.
The golf course in question is not a dam, it’s putting the already available water to use more efficiently. Growing non-native grass, but also native plant species, and providing native insects and animals a way to utilize that water before it would have otherwise evaporated.
Dams destroy native ecosystems by flooding and displacing them, or removing available water downstream. The golf course in question does none of those things.
“Nature is perfect and humans are capable of nothing but destroying it” is a great take BTW. You could have saved a few people some time by leading with that.
Yes. Those first few months of covid showed what we could accomplish if people got their heads of out their asses. Problem is, people like smelling their own shit too much.
You said surely there are better uses, there are, but wouldn’t they bring in more traffic conversely though? No matter what you do, it would be a tourist destination almost definitely. So why not do something to effectively limit the the people that would go there, while also being a pseudo reserve.
Well they’ve also denied an oasis to the entire local ecosystem. They can claim that golf course ponds fulfill the same purpose all they want but nothing wants to live next to golf carts and flying golf balls if it’s big enough to recognize it. People think deserts are wastelands but in reality that water is even more critical because animals can’t just pop a mile down to the next spot. Then there’s the effect on local plants, they’re diverting all of this water and they probably killed the entire local plant system.
Sustainability also means taking care to build in places you won’t impact as much. There’s no world in which growing grass in a desert is sustainable. It doesn’t matter how much technology you throw at it unless you figure out how to get everything you need from the air itself.
I have two, one is actually complicated and one was so obtuse that I never would have figured it out in a million years:
Actually complicated: I still don’t know how it happened, but somehow an update on Arch filled the boot partition with junk files, which then caused the kernel update to fail because of no disk space, which then kind of tanked the whole system. It took ages, but with a boot disk and chroot-ing back into the boot partition I eventually managed to untangle it all. I was determined to see it through and not reinstall.
Ridiculous: One day when using Ubuntu, the entire system went upside-down. As in, everything was working perfectly fine, but literally the screen was upside-down. After much Googling I had no luck figuring it out, then I accidentally found the solution - I’d plugged a PS4 controller into the USB on the laptop to charge it, and for some reason Ubuntu interpreted the gyroscope on the controller as “rotate the screen display” so when I moved it, the screen spun round. I only figured it out by accident when I plugged it back it and it spun back to normal lol.
Ridiculous: One day when using Ubuntu, the entire system went upside-down. As in, everything was working perfectly fine, but literally the screen was upside-down. After much Googling I had no luck figuring it out, then I accidentally found the solution - I’d plugged a PS4 controller into the USB on the laptop to charge it, and for some reason Ubuntu interpreted the gyroscope on the controller as “rotate the screen display” so when I moved it, the screen spun round. I only figured it out by accident when I plugged it back it and it spun back to normal lol.
I had a similar one. I had a usb-powered fan cooling pad that my laptop was sitting on. My laptop would randomly go into boot loops when I turn it on. I thought it was a grub issue so I always had my usb stick ready to re-install grub. Did some dusting one day and forgot to plug in the cooling fan, then the boot loop never happened again. Turns out it was the fan plugged into the usb that was causing it.
Semi-related note… displayport cables can cause a no-boot condition too. I think it was the existence of Pin#1. I had to duct tape that one pin and my computer finally booted up.
A couple years ago on Reddit I saw a story where a dude working IT support had to drive to a remote office or replace a workstation that wouldn’t boot. When he got there the lady whose desk it was had some shitty USB fan or maybe an led Christmas tree plugged into one of the USB ports. He unplugged that and the pc booted fine.
Ah I remember that one! Classic. I also remember a story about someone who lost an entire PC in their apartment. It was running and connected to the network, they could ping it, but couldn’t physically find it lol.
Thanks for the sympathy- my mom hasn’t been very emotionally stable for my whole life. She’s not perfect and sometimes I think she’s wrong, but I know she loves and cares about me
I read a book called Adult Children of Emotionally Immature Parents. My mom is similar, and it gave me a lot of insight into why she behaves the way she does, and how I may have developed unhealthy coping mechanisms as a result. Highly recommend.
I’ll look at it- my mom is one of the people I care about most so it’s hard for me to criticize her. But, I also understand sometimes she doesn’t act in a supportive way
You should at least recognize that you’re holding a double standard here: she’s able to criticize you all she wants yet you know she cares and loves you, but it’s hard for you to criticize her because you care.
That kind of double standard is an unhealthy dynamic that hurts both of you and your relationship with each other. And don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it was either of your intent for it to be that way, but it has ended up that way regardless of best efforts.
Oh, just because someone is abusive or unsupportive doesn’t mean that they don’t love you. It just means that their interactions aren’t healthy for you and you need to establish boundaries.
Regardless, I hope that you’re doing well. I don’t know what your project is, but I can certainly tell you that it’s much more impressive than anything I’ve made
That’s true, but I feel like the internet is quick to brand people having moments of failure as abusive. Nobody is perfect, and I can’t expect my parents to be perfect. Imo, calling my mom abusive is far too extreme.
Well, and anybody can say or do things that are abusive.
Different people have different levels of tolerance for abusive behavior. The question is, when does it go from, “a person prone to occasional abusive bullshit” to “a person in the habit of committing acts of abuse”?
It’s a lot like addiction in the sense that it’s a sliding scale, but people largely outside of it will freely brand the slightest hint as a full blown catastrophe.
Yes, in this world there is no one who wants what is good for you more than your parents. Many people forget that, if your parents have problems, you need to take care of them.
True, parents usually have a deeply ingrained emotional need to protect and nurture their children but:
Not all parents do. Narcissists have children all the time. When they do, they cloak their emotional vampirism in ‘love’ like they do in all relationships.
Even parents with the best intentions have to work HARD not to pass on their generational traumas, abuses, and bad habits.
Only the child can truly know what will fulfill them as a person. Parents often substitute what they wanted for their younger selves for the child’s best interest.
For those still thinking I have no idea what I am talking about and you and your parents are different… please look into “enmeshment” for your own sake
I agree with you on the first one. There are fathers who do not deserve to be called fathers, and they should be punished. (It is too complicated to discuss in a paragraph, each case alone, and the future effects on the child…). We live in a sick society. In the case of the OP, it is simple,this is not necessary, and his only task is to take care of his father and not repeat the mistakes of his fathers in the future to break the cycle. But I don’t agree with the last one, children don’t know exactly what they want (we adults don’t know what we want sometimes let alone children) but parents should respect their opinions and guide them and teach them how to make the right decision instead of making the decision for them. Have a good day.
I agree with you on the first one. There are parents who do not deserve to be called parents, and they should be punished.(It’s too complicated to discuss in a paragraph, each case alone, and the future effects on the child…). We live in a sick society. In the case of the OP, it is simple,this is not necessary, and his only task is to take care of his mother to not repeat the mistakes of his parents in the future to break the loop. But I don’t agree with the last one, children don’t know exactly what they want (we the adults don’t know what we want sometimes let alone children) but parents should respect their opinions and guide them and teach them how to make the right decision instead of making the decision for them. Have a good day.
Holy shit some of you really suck if you dont understand how lame it is to not hire people who disagree with you. Im not conservative by any measure, but who wants to live in a world where you cant do a job if you slightly disagree with your coworker? Thats insane.
Yeah, Firefox works fine for me, problem is a good number of websites on the modern web just actually do not work correctly on Firefox because theyre designed by lazy morons.
Sometimes this can be fixed by just spoofing it and presenting as chrome, other times not.
In Opera’s defense, I have considered installing it for its game recommendation thingy alone and not actually using it as a browser, simply because modern online game stores basically recommend either massively marketed stuff or seemingly completely random 5 dollar trash, or stupid meme game that is extremely popular right now that is basically also trash and is forgotten about when Twitch moves on to the next thing.
In the past I remember Opera’s game thingy actually being decent. Any current users that can attest to this?
It depends on what websites you frequent. The vast majority work fine (though they are still heavily optimized for Chrome and not much else), but there are some exceptions like publishers of educational material or other websites with overzealous ideas of web based DRM. I’ve seen some banners that straight up tell you “You need to upgrade to a proper browser” and then link to the Chrome installer…
Yeah, its not that the entire website won’t work, it’ll be some vital part of it.
Various Federal and State and Local government websites will have a captcha that just doesn’t load, or have a search map or filter system that bugs out and doesn’t work.
Happens with a good number of slapdash apartment websites too, and some smaller businesses.
Theres a few things I have to regularly use that just do not actually work on Firefox so I have to keep Chrome around… =(
Again though, sometimes you can get them to work by just using a browser spoofing addon to tell the website that you are actually Chrome. Which is insane because… basically that means theyre just intentionally making Firefox not work even though it does.
Also just getting a bottom banner asking if you want to use the app. I only ever get there from searches so, no I don’t want the app. One of the only websites deliberately making their mobile site unusable to push an app.
I’m trans and have surgery coming up so I’m often trying to research a lot of stuff related to that. Seems half the useful info out there is on Reddit and I have to get around the fucking NSFW wall all the time. I’m so frustrated that so much of that information got tied up there and in discord channels
Do you walk into the dealer and state affirmatively “I am not buying a car here because I don’t want a subscription!” and then turn around and walk out?
Won’t matter. The company knows you don’t want this. They also know that enough other people will pay for it that it won’t matter. These subscriptions are not new. If people put their foot down and refused to pay for them they would go away, but the opposite it happening.
They do this often at the Culver’s near me. It’s a fundraiser for school / extracurricular activities. The group works for a few hours and Culver’s donates the receipts for that time.
It’s better than having them go door to door selling wreaths and shit.
The school is funded already through taxpayers. The fact that “the children are working to fund the school” is an acceptable line of logic is already dystopian.
Traditionally, children do fundraisers to fund extracurricular activities, like a field trip. If the school is taking that money to add to their budget, that’s crossing the line into exploiting kids’ labor for money.
Where do you live that public schools are properly funded by taxes? American schools are embarrassingly underfunded, and teachers are tragically underpaid and typically have to spend their own money to buy supplies for their students.
The fact that public schools used to be properly funded by taxes and aren’t any longer is part of the dystopia. Do you think I’m defending the current system?
I was surprised to find out how much the U.S. actually does spend on education, given how shitty it is. Idk where the money is going, but it’s definitely funded
I’m not sure if I’m reading the data wrong or what, but that usafacts.org says 35% of people 25 or older have at least a bachelors degree. When I checked the census data, it says only 27.4% have that… data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2021.S1501?q=EDUCATI…
Part of this comes from the fact that most public schools are funded from local property taxes, so naturally wealthier residents have better public schools due to better funding as they naturally pay more in taxes
Most School systems are financially gutted to the bone. It’s dark but most red counties school districts are near bankruptcy and blue areas are slightly better off. So expect more of this as public schools try to keep the doors open.
When looking at homes in the more rural areas I noticed that the schools basically shoved all the kids from a good bit around different towns and areas into one. I’d guess to consolidate as much funds as possible in an effective manner, rather than having to pay for more infrastructure that was really needed.
While I would have liked the slower pace….all I could afford out that way were 100 year old farmhouses with very questionable bones. One you could literally walk the dip between the kitchen and living room. Another had electric, propane and fireplaces for the heating in different areas of the home. Had to tell my wife to stop looking at those.
I remember having school assemblies in middle school with some third party fundraising company trying to get us to sell…I don’t even remember what as a fundraiser for the entire school. At the time it felt weird and as an adult looking back I find it far more concerning that that’s how they made up the budget shortfalls instead of raising property taxes by fraction of a percent
They got mad at her when an item was missing out of a 4-bag $80 order (they unbagged and checked everything there on the counter).
That one seems valid. That person got burned before with the staff not bothering to do their job and were NOT going to short their friend whatever item(s) the staff kept for themselves. Sure, you can say the counter girl didn’t do the bagging, but she’s the one that the customer is supposed to tell, and it is hard not to be angry when you’ve paid for stuff and you’re getting shorted – AND there’s almost surely another person relying on you to get it right this time. It shouldn’t take so much effort to just get the stuff you paid for.
… but they WEREN’T doing their job. I’ve been a counter cashier at a burger joint. Most of the job was getting the order correct and taking in money properly, but I also has to to things like add extra relish packets and see that I was giving them the correct food. That’s the job. You give the customer what they ordered. That is the EASY part. The hard part is dealing with the people trying to scam you with bill-switching/wrong-change schemes (though I suspect those are less common as fewer people use cash now).
That’s true, but I don’t know how much of a stink was made. If someone is unbagging everything at the counter, they’ve probably been burned before, so I can see some reason to take a harsh tone – enough to show they’re tired of the BS. If, instead, they started throwing things and screaming obscenities, yeah, that’d be an overreaction.
It is the exact textbook definition of obstruction of justice. It doesn’t get any more obstruction of justice than to literally hide identities with the express stated goal of obstructing the work of the Department of Justice.
He’s taking a page out of Trump’s “it’s not a crime if you brag about it on tv” playbook.
Fortunately for the FBI, and for anyone who still believes in democracy, most of these idiots brought their smartphones with them so video hasn’t even been necessary to secure convictions. And lots of them recorded video themselves, OF themselves, in order to brag about their crimes online.
Of course, why take precautions? They didn’t expect to lose. They expected King Trump to be crowned and bring his chosen people to paradise, and they wanted to make sure they weren’t left out.
Yeah, although something tells me that a lot of them aren’t exactly the type who think very far ahead regardless of what they expected the outcome of that day to be.
That’s hilarious, I forgot about that part. Parlor probably didn’t bother to strip out the metadata either, did they? So, full GPS coordinates with every image and video… hahahaha
But there is actually a good argument. Someone who the DOJ have decided wasn’t worth the hassle to properly investigate might still be identified and reported by a co-worker or neighbor. Which then begins to force the DOJ’s hand (they are still cops so they might ignore it but…). I personally think everyone who crowded outside the building deserves to be locked up, but I can see an argument that only people who entered the building or who actively caused damage should be charged.
Because yes, facial recognition and DMV databases are already a thing. But, much like with a red light ticket, a decent lawyer can work wonders to argue out “a robot claims that I commit a crime”. Whereas having a human in the loop removes that gotcha. Hell, if my cousin is any indication, you don’t even need a lawyer to argue against a red light camera or an automated speed trap and just need to care enough to show up to the courthouse for a few hours.
Also, regardless, this is indeed (attempted) obstruction of justice to protect insurrectionists.
It’s theater for their deep state struggle fundraising. Gotta shake down the marks for the cash. You think he’s got a sugar daddy? He’s not a Supreme Court justice………
That’s the murmur sound you hear at the very end of the clip as he’s about to finish talking: a slew of reporters either pointing out that he just casually admitted to a serious criminal conspiracy or lauding him for protecting the conspirators, defending on the specific media outlets they’re from.
lemmy.world
Top