I have to fight them off constantly due to their managers forcing them to upsell. I have to grab my two knuckle buster tasers, arms outstretched, and spin ferociously until they back away fearing my impressive RPM.
Ill be honest, I’ve seen people (mostly family) that work their ass off to retire and once retiring they basically give up. They don’t take care of themselves, exercise or do anything mentally stimulating. Just watching the news and tv then doing the bare minimum to stay alive.
Because of that their health is very poor and they physically cannot do much and honestly seem to live a pretty miserable life.
They also have lots of chronic pain from working so hard that affects them in retirement. My mom worked in a chair for 12 hours, 60 hours a week and has severe chronic pain from sitting. Being out of shape she can’t stand for very long and chronic pain means she can’t sit very long, she has to spend most of her life in bed.
Personally I believe it’s the best to live life now and have a “soft” retirement, reducing days and hours worked as you age. Human biology is made to work (physically and mentally) and the lack of it degrades our bodies and health.
So It’s technically “never retiring” but personally I think it’s the better option.
You can still have a very succesful retirement but just shift that working energy to yourself. Take up some hobbies and work on them often. Go hiking, cycling, skiing, or paddling. Spend more time with the family, maybe even moving in to help raise grandkids if space allows.
Retirement does not equal sitting on your ass the rest of your life, that sounds more like a mental illness.
I could be wrong, but I think the point that @weeeeum was making is that by the point you retire, your body and mind are so wrecked from having been overworked for 30+ years that ‘just go outside’ is an agonizing prospect. Yeah, if you make it to that point and can still go outside and do fun stuff then great. But if you retire at 65, are male, and American, then you’re retiring at the average healthy life expectancy for your group and on average have about a decade of declining health to ‘look forward to’. Chart
A lot of that can be attributed to poor lifestyle choices as well, like smoking, alcohol, drugs, or inactive lifestyles. Some of that can certainly be attributed to too much work, poor conditions and low wages, but humans can certainly be healthy past 65.
And even if people are too sick to enjoy themselves past 65, I don’t see how working longer is better than retiring in that state which is what the article ultimately wants.
Yes, this is what I meant exactly. My mom has the aforementioned chronic pain from working 60 a week for like 20 years, and my dad had a stroke, partial blindness and high blood pressure after being so stressed at his work. My grandpa is nearly deaf from his time on an aircraft carrier in the Navy to get his GI bill. My great uncle died from asbestos exposure (from the Navy), for his GI bill and never saw retirement at all. Everyone aspired to retire early with tons of cash but ended up ruining their bodies or outright dying.
Instead of looking for a cutoff point to “finally live life”, we should work comfortably and progressively easier as we age, mind and body intact.
I agree that human bodies need mental and physicial stimulation.
Work is often onesided by the end of a career one is burned out on one and uncomfortable with the other.
Your idea is an improvement but i see no reason why producing economic value should be the only way one can be actively healthy.
Many people struggle to staying fit, to make full healthy meals because of theid work/life balance, this is return has an effect on how normally is shaped around our children who lack healthy examples.
Its been shown that when provided with more free time, extra cash. Most people will spend it on improving their health, balance and start builidnf new active habbits based on their own aspirations that can last long into elderhood. Like gardening.
It’s less of a pain when the work you do is fun and interesting, but ironically when that’s the case you’re usually making even more money for someone else.
I dunno, working in construction contracting has taught me that time in man hours is the ultimate pricing value point, that everything can be boiled down to. Someone who gives up their time should reap the most benefits. Someone who owns a business and pays others to work should be heavily taxed.
Earning a bit more does help make it more palatable, but it still isn’t fair.
I think employees generally get such a raw deal that a fair deal would be refreshing and positive. However when you look at massively overpriced roles, eg consultants, they’d probably say it wasn’t fair to give them a fair deal.
I generally agree. However, I was curious whether you had any thoughts related more directly to one of the earlier comments, concerning how fairness, within the context of employment, might be evaluated.
Most people do not have the luxury of turning down a job offer, as the alternative is hunger and homelessness, which the employer uses as leverage to underpay their employee.
If housing and basic food staples were a human right (free) only then would you see fair wages in the open market, as people would have the option to turn down unfair jobs, forcing the employer to make them fair or hire no one.
I think the standard way of salary negotiations (labour supply and demand) is the only way to define fair salary. If this salary is not sufficient to make decent living, and if we want to correct for that, then it should be corrected by other means, such as UBI, out of compassion or other reasons, but not for rareness reasons.
Well, for one; Wages keeping up with inflation and productivity would go a long way to being more fair.
But I’m curious why you’re asking me what is fair, I already laid that out in my second paragraph in my previous comment. As I said, if the absolute basics to living were freely available, people would be free to reject unfair offers, and thus, in a theoretical ‘free market’ wages and benefits would increase to a truly fair and equal level.
So, your statement is that it is fair to guarantee the basic of living regardless of the person works or not. How do you respond to criticism that it is not fair to forcefully take money via taxes and spend them setting up standard of living for someone else?
How do you respond to criticism that it is not fair to forcefully take money via taxes and spend them setting up standard of living for someone else?
It wouldn’t be for someone else, it would be for everyone. Most people are okay with the idea of Universal Basic Income, because everyone gets it, even the rich, it’s fair.
Imagine applying that universal concept, but to food and shelter. It would not only help the most destitute, but also the innovators. Research has shown that people are more willing to risk becoming entrepreneurs in Canada due to healthcare not being tied to employment. Imagine if we took away the risk of homelessness and malnutrition from not working for someone else? Hundreds of thousands would now be in a beautiful position to start their own business with far less risk to their, or their families, well being.
I would also place emphasis on the Basic part of Basic Necessities. It would only be feasible to provide just the most economical basics, which would mean a small square footage dwelling (think large apartment blocks, cheap to build, but efficient to heat and maintain), running water, electricity (with a kwh power-limit per month, anything over that would cost money), internet since it’s a required utility in the modern age, and core/cheap but nutritious staple foods. We’re not talking luxury apartments and food here.
(Personally, I would argue Universal Basic Income is not viable within our current system, as that extra money would be quickly siphoned out of everyone’s pocket by increased rent and artificial price increases all around to capture this extra capital that would be floating around. It could only work if there were limits on rent and other basic necessities).
Being OK and being fair are different things. And I think significant amount of people, at least in US are against this, so, for them it would not be OK or fair. The reason I was bringing this up is to point on difficulty to define what fair is if it relies on things that are not fair to be implemented.
I mean, some people are against social security, welfare, and medicaid despite how significant of a difference they have made to reduce starvation, poverty, and medical induced bankruptcy for the disadvantaged. And no matter how much evidence is shown of those societal benefits, they would reject it because it does not align with their world view or is not in their immediate interest.
As complete 100% consensus is generally impossible to achieve, I would argue the thing that helps the most people is generally the most ethical choice, but that’s just my 2 cents.
Out of curiosity, how do you think those sorts of programs being implemented would be a net-negative for society as a whole?
I do not know if they will be net positive, it depends on metric the comparison is made with. I think on pure economic side it is not beneficial for GDP growth. Just take EU and compare it with US. I think the system in US is more fair and closer to true, fair value of labor.
But I think the fair world is a world without compassion and with huge separation between rich and poor. I think on ethical grounds we should make the world less fair, more equalized, despite of the fact that it reduces GDP growth, because there are other metrics possible, like human happiness and well being.
Our conversation started from me noticing that people in this discussion expecting that fair value for labor is higher than what is typically paid. And I think the reverse is true because there are things that artificially increase wages, like minimum wage in many states. So, “be careful what you wish for” kind of thing.
But I think the fair world is a world without compassion and with huge separation between rich and poor. I think on ethical grounds we should make the world less fair, more equalized, despite of the fact that it reduces GDP growth, because there are other metrics possible, like human happiness and well being.
I’m a bit confused by your definition of fair, to the point where I think that we hold the same precepts, but we may using different words for them. I would make the case that increasing ‘fairness’ is equivalent to making things more equalized. I would use both terms interchangeably.
In any deal, if one party has more leverage than the other, in principle it’s not a ‘fair’ deal, even if the disadvantaged party rationalizes that it could’ve been worse, or that the other party didn’t fully exploit the power of their advantage. In the context of labor, reducing the leverage that employers have over workers is evening out the playing field, which I would say is more fair.
To be clear, in an ideal world, neither party would have leverage over the other, and people would work for someone else or with each other only due to it being mutually beneficial in equal measure. In reality, things will never be that ‘perfect’, but I think it’s absolutely possible to remove the more egregious points of leverage.
The people using existing leverages will try to prevent that by removal kicking and screaming because they don’t want their advantages to be reduced, however they should try to be content with an equal power dynamic if they consider themselves at all moral. In all other areas of life humans have decried unjust imbalances of power, and I don’t see how labor relations would be subject to different rules than, say, competitive sports. We don’t stack the deck against one team or the other, we try to make it fair.
So when you say a fair world would is a world without compassion and even more division between rich and poor, I must ask, how are you defining the word fair?
Fair: without favoritism, cheating, impartial. A fair fight is when two people fighting without any help from anybody. Giving one guy extra boost (say, special gloves) because he is weaker is unfair, but more equal.
I think equality in freedom is fair. Equality in means is comparison and not fair, since you have to be partial and take money from the rich and give to the poor. It would be fair only if the rich actually stole from the poor against the law of the land, but if the rich earned himself (say, he is a successful lawyer) then equalization of means is not fair.
You make money for someone else in exchange for the safety of a consistent paycheck. Its like the old feudal system, in theory you are being protected in exchange for your labour.
Of course in practise you are at the mercy of the company, and in the feudal system the protection you were afforded meant you needed to pay for your own armour and fight to the death to protect your owner.
Eh, I’d argue that can make it more palatable, but honestly I do think, at least in most cases (I can think of outliers), it’s generally pretty exploitative to profit off of someone else’s labor that they themselves are not actually wanting to do themselves, especially if the threat of homelessness and hunger is the prime motivator for the person doing the work. Like, it’s not really fair in the grand scheme of things.
A simple way to fix that I guess would be if every company was a co-op. Since then everyone is profiting equally, and no one’s labor is being exploited for the exclusive benefit of another.
If you’re one of the lucky few sure. But you’re kinda part of the problem. The vast, overwhelming majority of people on the planet work jobs they don’t really like just to keep a roof above their heads.
That’s the issue, not if someone else makes profit or not. If nobody makes profit from your work, but you still work job you really do not like just to keep roof above your head, then what’s the difference?
Why would someone need to work a degrading job simply to remain housed, other than because such impositions support the profit motive for landlords, lenders, and employers?
Why do you think it is because of that? Do you think the temp agriculture jobs, for example, would suddenly become having huge payments if farmers, who hires temp workers, have no profit? Please consider that farming is subsidized in US, because it is difficult to make profits there. Or do you think that cleaners who work in non-profit organizations have huge salaries and interesting job?
I doubt there could be much meaning found in the possibility that corporate farms “suddenly” would have no profits.
Corporate farms are structured around the profit motive, which is supported by the claim they assert for exclusive control over certain plots of the land, and for exclusive ownership of the products from using such land. For farm workers not to be exploited, they must stop upholding respect for such claims. Plainly, their lives would be vastly better in consequence, as the full value of their products would be distributed among themselves, with no share being taken from them by anyone else simply from a claim to private ownership.
yes but a factotum is a person who does general, menial jobs, and Bukowski was writing about his (assumed true) experience finding work after being rejected for thrww1 the WW2 draft. (EDIT: typo)
I think 3.5" are usually priced better per tb than 2.5" drives and performance is usually better too. So unless you feel like burning money for an inferior solution, are have some space constraints that doesn’t allow 3.5" drives, I wouldn’t go with 2.5" drives. They’re more energy efficient though, but you’d need a fuckton of drives for that to make a worthwhile difference in your power bill.
The key here is “better performance at similar price points”. There are absolutely amazing 2.5 drives made for server applications, but they cost so much money you’re better off getting SSD these days.
One of my clients referred to Zip disks a few days ago. That really sent me back. Only my rich friends had Jaz drives, whereas the rest of us were still using Zip disks and optical media. Those early USB thumb drives at USB 1.0 speeds were also painfully slow.
My portable storage journey progressed from 5.25” floppy disks, 3.5” diskettes, Zip disk, CD-R/RW, DVD-R/RW, 2.5”/3.5” external HDDs and now portable NVME SSDs.
I remember learning that 3.5" disks were still called “floppy” disks, despite being rigid plastic. My teacher took apart a disk and showed us how the inside was a film, but all that did was encourage us to take apart the disks and make desk toys out of the springs.
SSD longevity seems to be better than HDDs overall. The limiting factor is how many write cycles the SSD can handle, but in most cases the write endurance is so high that it’s unreachable by most home/NAS systems.
SSDs are however really bad for cold storage, as they will lose the charge stored in their cells if left unpowered too long. When the SSD is powered it will automatically refresh the cells in the background to ensure they don’t lose their charge.
Thanks, yeah i’ll go with 3.5" ones then, only reason i considered it was because of some really good deals. But I’d rather stick with having a uniform set of drives. Thanks for your input!
I mean the term oligarch has a clear definition that differs from billionaire, but to be honest pretty sure many billionaires meet the criteria…
Quickly from wikipedia
A business oligarch is generally a business magnate who controls sufficient resources to influence national politics.[1][2] A business leader can be considered an oligarch if the following conditions are satisfied:
uses monopolistic tactics to dominate an industry;
possesses sufficient political power to promote their own interests;
controls multiple businesses, which intensively coordinate their activities.
Edit: also this smells a bit like tankie propaganda pointed towards liberals and conservatives
Gates, Besos, Zuck and the foss hater msft boss whose name I can’t remember for sure. I honestly have no idea if Elon meets the 1st requirement - though simply being the richest man on planet highly hints towards it
That sounds like bullshit though, the bullet would have the same speed when released from the shell in addition to speed generated by the blast in the shell. Did the plane fire and then accelerate enough to catch up to the bullet? That’s pretty convoluted and unlikely, you would have to actively try to shoot your own plane.
EDIT: The dumbass shot at a slight down angle and then engaged the afterburners. Skill Issue.
Yeah, the initial velocity of the bullets would be the sum of the plane’s velocity plus whatever velocity the bullets gain coming out of the barrel.
But, what apparently happened is perfectly believable (if extremely unlucky). It’s not that the F-11 was faster than its bullets, it’s that it flew in a way that its path intersected the path of the bullets it had fired. As soon as the bullets left the barrel they would have started slowing down, eventually ending up on a ballistic trajectory. The F-11 would have stayed at approximately the same speed, but if the pilot hit the afterburners it would have sped up considerably.
Still, the likelihood of the speeding up plane hitting the slowing down bullets is extremely low.
Wings evolve from legs though, generally speaking. This means that a four legged dragon with wings would have conceivably evolved from a six legged creature. You can get hand-wings or arm-wings, and we’re not entirely sure but think insect wings may have also evolved from legs or some other kind of similar structure.
But pretty much you can either have wings or legs/arms. You have to trade them in. That’s why the whole angel/demon thing doesn’t work either. The traditional harpies work but they’d be furry and not feathered. I haven’t worked out the wingspan for them but you could probably come up with a reasonable guess. They’d be more bat-people than bird-people, and I suspect that their chest areas would be less generously proportioned than is typically seen in the artwork. I’m not going more into the physics of that one though.
None of these things exist so real life evolutionary biology doesn’t really have a place in this discussion, lol. Although you are correct.
Besides, since they are fictional you could just come up with some reason. Dolphins for instance have no legs, but still have the vestiges of them in the form of very small unconnected bones where their legs would be. They also have a dorsal fin on their backside and tiny little arms. So it stands to reason that, conceivably, wings could have evolved separately in a similar (note ‘a similar’ not ‘the same’) way to a dolphin’s dorsal fin.
You could jump from this concept (marrying real world evolutionary biology and fiction) and explain orc, trolls, etc… as ape descended life much the same as humans. Maybe merfolk evolved in the same way animals in the cetacea infraorder evolved from otter-like creatures. Maybe they have small unconnected bones for legs in much the same way that dolphins do.
History is not only on my side, it will be on my side, we shall overcome the hatred and misinformation campaign of the Monster Hunter fanbase that seems blithely unaware that their definition of dragonhood is universe specific and not some kind of scientific consensus.
Just to be clear, we will overcome by eating you babbling apes with our dragon jaws.
Like, come on.
Those guys make armor from the skulls of sentient creatures.
How have I never noticed this?!? What the fuck? I’m like middle aged and have liked dragons as long as I can remember, and I never noticed the difference. Dayum dude, don’t trust me as a material witness, that’s for sure!
and completely unfunny, never done anything in his entire career except gape at the camera in mock surprise-- you could throw a rock in Antarctica and hit someone with more talent
slrpnk.net
Top