iOS user: "DUDE have you seen [new iOS feature]? This is the bee's knees!" [10 minutes of gushing omitted for brevity]
Android user: "...Yeah, we've had that for 15 years."
Even the iPhone itself was just a more advanced version of a PDA or other handheld PC device that existed years before it. Logically, phones would have advanced similarly with or without Apple.
Doesn’t look like a black rectangular piece of glass to me. I think the point they were making was that there was a design paradigm shift when the iPhone came out.
KkI wouldn’t even say the iphone was more advanced than what came before it haha.
I still have 2 fully functioning Palm TX devices from 20 or so years ago, they were released mid 2005 while iPhone was June 2007 I think?
Looking back, I cannot fathom (aside from marketing) how apple beat palm in that market.
Here are the specs, keep in mind the TX was released several years before the original iPhone Ram: Palm TX: 128 Mb iPhone: 128Mb Screen palm TX: 480×320 iPhone 480×320 Processor TX: 312Mhz iPhone 416 Mhz
So, for a 3 year or so delay, the original iPhone imo still doesn’t completely dwarf the TX, but I’m also not through as there are plenty of features that the TX had but the iPhone lacked.
The TX was also touch screen (I find it much more responsive) and was meant for a stylus instead of fingers. To this day, I still love writing and drawing on the TX. Oh, and the stylus fits neatly into the TX on the right side. Also, it has a nice little replaceable flip cover for the screen.
But that’s not all, it has an SD card slot for expandable storage, something the iPhone omitted.
It also has wifi 302.11b support and Bluetooth as well, yes, Bluetooth in 2005 and it was very easy to activate and use.
But no, that’s not all, it also had an IR transmitter/receiver! Something the iPhone helped to kill. Those things were underrated!
They made the TX the perfect universal remote! I had a program on the TX that listed every T.V/DVD/VCR/Cable etc. Manufacturer you could imagine, you’d just select the manufacturer for the device you wanted to control, aim the TX at it and bam, you had control.
This helped me a lot as essentially I could control almost any device I could see. Lost remote for the DVD player? TX got you. It wasn’t just for t.v’s and whatnot though, many things run on IR and I miss when smart devices supported it.
Ah, and I’m still not done, the TX had BUTTONS. Actual factual buttons. Not only was it 100% touch screen, but it had 4 buttons and a directional pad with another button in the middle iirc.
Those buttons made it great for emulation and I believe I had a snes emulator on it though that may have just been Nes, either way, the buttons were much more fun to play with than touch screen, it made the device actually feel… made for what you were using it to do.
In fact, everything on the device felt made for what you were doing, and not just an afterthought. It came preloaded with plenty of useful apps. A web browser that was even YouTube capable for one, which in 2006 or so when I got the TX blew my mind, YouTube in my Palm?
Maybe I went a little overboard in this comment but my point is, damn, some more competition may have been nice.
Oh, and one last thing, My TX devices still run like the day I got them, hell, the battery life is insane as well. I left one on for at least 2 weeks and it still had power last I checked. How many original iPhones that were opened in 2007 are still running? Heck, even an iPhone 5 from 2012, how many of those are still up and running?
Yet my 2005 TX runs just the same as it always did. It’s insane to look at a device from 2005 and feel like in 2023 we should be taking notes, but we should.
Our devices won’t last that long on standby today because they’re filled with bloatware processes that refuse to stop running. The TX powers up instantly after it’s been sitting for days and will be on 99% battery. My modern smart phone will kill its own battery within a day or two, tops, just sitting on my desk without me touching it.
Palm needs to make a comeback. Devices with SD, IR, buttons, built in stylus etc. Should as well.
Oh, and the OS was perfect. Calendar, web, paint etc, an Aux jack, these little things were and still are badass. If it wasn’t for the limited capability due to not being able to access the web like before I’d probably still use them daily.
But I’d never use an original iPhone daily, they just aren’t good for anything that I can’t do with any other device.
Not that I’m anti IPhone as I realize my comment seems, don’t get me wrong I do prefer androids for my uses but iPhones aren’t too shabby either. Top notch hardware, all of their devices sharing the same hardware also mean their apps tend to be better optimized and more reliable, etc. They’re dependable, reliable devices but… my Palm from 20 years ago can do things no iPhone can, like still run after 2 decades, control IR devices, have an SD card inserted etc.
The closest thing I’ve had to a TX was an LG Stylo 6, and for it’s day if was a decent device but the screen cracked in my pocket within a year and the battery life had shortened significantly. I was carrying around mophies and chargers like nobody’s business. My TX though? 2 decades without even a scratch that I can see on either of the 2 that I own, and when I’m using it the battery almost seems limitless as I can go for quite some time using it without seeing that 99% battery drop a digit.
I know we’ve changed battery types a time or two since then but can’t help but wonder how are modern batteries are so unreliable in comparison? Planned obsolescence is a factor, surely because I’m seeing a year or so tops before major performance reduction with these lithium ions of late. Whereas the TX still outlasts them 20 years later,
Just love my old tech and wish it were updated! I’d love a new palm device built as well as the TX was.
This is sort of hard to answer because of the number of varieties of Android from different vendors could have things that weren’t in core Android but some user will be like I had a Samsung phone in 2012 that did that or something, so I’ll just base my answers on Android core.
Notification badges were a big one I wanted on Android that iOS had done since the beginning. You could sorta have them with nova launcher for a while, but it wasn’t as good. Eventually Android came around, I think?
I think the ability to swipe up and navigate opened apps also existed in iOS long before Android, though I think Samsung may have copied it shortly after, as they do with most solid iOS innovations.
iOS’s privacy controls have always been better than Android’s, though that’s not super surprising given Google’s market is advertising, Android did eventually try to add granular privacy controls but it feels lacking compared to iOS.
Also screen recording, is it even in Android yet? It’s been in iOS forever.
There’s a lot more than that, but reading any Android community and you’d think that the copying only happened one way.
Haha I agree with that actually, I’m an Android fan but don’t see the issue with all the copying. If iPhone users want it and we have it, why can’t they? Also, conversely, if there’s an iOS feature that I don’t yet have so what if I finally get it?
I can’t too much understand being all too competitive about this. plus, comparing them is apples to oranges. Apple, who I actually used to work for 😂 is one company making one device.
Android? Anyone can make one, anyone can make apps for them. Of COURSE we’re going to get some features first.
And yes, you’re also right, depending on the manufacturer some Android devices have had features we’re just now getting today many, many years ago but as we’re not consolidated into one company sometimes they’re forgotten or omitted from later Android barebones cores.
Screen sharing being one of those things lol. I’ve had it on a few devices throughout the years but probably couldn’t pinpoint the device as I’ve switched between Google, Motorola, LG etc. And also try more 3rd party stuff than most. I believe the first time I saw it native was OS10 or whatever it’s called as that was my last phone, a Motorola Ace something from Verizon.
Good phone btw! Had some badass features that iOS most likely doesn’t have yet, like can you flick your wrist twice to activate the camera instantly anytime for quick shots? Or can you shake it twice to activate the flashlight?
However, the fucking cameras on that thing were awful. Advertised as 48Mp but really just a 12, 2 and 16 megapixel camera strapped to the back. Why? Because not Apple. With an iPhone you know that you’re getting something consistent with great hardware. Some of the androids I get may have a feature or two that iOS doesn’t yet have, but I also miss out sometimes and have to pay for that feature in other ways because androids are the wild west of smartphones.
Love my androids for my personal needs, freedom and the price but can definitely get why iPhones work better for some.
Also, yes the privacy shit is insane on these devices. I constantly have to fight to keep it from spying and sending reports about my usage to anyone that will listen.
Floating apps. And split screen. I was playing Pokemon Go with reddit open in the corner in 2017 and it was old then. I dunno when iOS got it, but it’s recentish.
Neither floating apps nor split screen were ever released for iOS. Split screen was added a while ago for iPadOS, but floating apps (Stage Manager) was released just last year.
Wait, floating apps as in being able to keep an app in the corner (like YouTube) when I’m using another app primarily right? iOS just got that?
It’s definitely old for Android as I can remember it being a thing for at least 5 years, and before that it was P-I-P “Picture in Picture” even on old CRT t.v’s with cable boxes lol. My old “Web TV” setup had PIP and was already old when I got it in the early 2000’s
No, that has been a feature for years on iOS and iPadOS. I’m talking about movable apps, like a desktop, a feature many android phones have. Only iPadOS has this feature to date.
i guess the p and l are the important bits and the rest can just be inferred, since paracetamol is very commonly used and they’d get tired writing it in detail every time. other more specialized drugs with p___l (or close to it) as its name would have more squiggles i assume.
It’s (shorthand)[teeline.online]. It says “prc(t)ml” with the p being in the obvious spot (though it should be just a downward line), the r is the diagonal line after it, the c is the little curl, the t should be more pronounced, but it should be a horizontal line slightly above the rest, the m is a concave-down swoosh, and the l is the final curl. No vowels b/c they’re largely redundant.
It’s a super common prescription and most doctors probably couldn’t spell it offhand. Combined with dosing info it would be more obvious. Also if they do happen to be wrong it’s unlikely to actually cause harm with acetaminophen/paracetamol.
Edit: another benefit is disguising to a patient that demands something to take. Essentially a placebo.
In addition, there’s a psychological phenomenon where our brains only need the first and last letter of a word in the right place, and all the right letters in between in any order, to suss out a word. Our familiarity with a lngaauge will put it together, so presumably the same is true for healthcare providers’ common words.
Your e-----------e d-----t w----k w-----------t the c-----------t of the l---------s i-----------------n.
If they’re commonly used words the scribbles end up becoming a form of shorthand that doctors can recognize, but they’re meaningless to anyone who isn’t already familiar with them.
In adtidion, trehe’s a pshyocloigal pheonmneon where our bairns olny need the fsrit and lsat lteter of a word in the rghit pclae, and all the rghit ltertes in bteewen in any oedrr, to suss out a word. Our faiilamirty with a lagnuage wlil put it toehgter, so pseurambly the smae is treu for haehtlcare pvoerdirs’ cmmoon wdros.
Not sure but I think you mean chunking. When you know a word you don’t need to read all letters by themselves but know roughly what the word looks like as a whole, so you can read it faster. This also inrotrozutes a failure rate of course, but works pretty well.
Haha I don’t think it’s about fear. It’s probably about having hundreds of years of using those measurements, and it being very baked in to the language used between people to communicate.
Nobody wants to have to translate between kg and stone all the time. It’s tedious. If you live in a country where all your interactions are going to be in one measurement then you’re probably just going to go along with everyone else.
Even down to ‘goin down the pub for a pint’ being a commonly used phrase which doesn’t have the same ring when it’s '‘goin down the pub for a half litre’.
That’s the thing, they do use kg. So it is not something they don’t know about. Just that stone for people’s weight specifically somehow is still in use.
For the pint, I do not think it is about the volume when someone says that. As of they are only going to drink one anyway?! Replace it with beer and it is a perfectly normal thing to say.
Yes. The Brits still use a few non-metric measurements at times. In fact, it was America’s British heritage that got us Americans into the bad habit of using imperial over metric in the first place.
Stone only makes sense for people used to pounds, shillings and pence. For instance, “This costs 3 pound, 4 shilling and 8”, and, “I weight 12 stone, 6 pounds and 3 ounces”.
The piece that gets continuously underestimated is who moves in these small initial jumps. It tends to be the more technically inclined, who over the next couple years, their recommendations will lead to friends and family moving as well, at a slower rate.
The piece that gets continuously underestimated is who moves in these small initial jumps. It tends to be the more technically inclined, who over the next couple years, their recommendations will lead to friends and family moving as well, at a slower rate.
Sure. And here we are. I’m sure these companies consider us a real fly in the ointment. But I’m not inclined to believe the past is perfectly predictive of the future. What you described is also, in my perspective, how things have gone in the past. But will it happen the same way this time? I don’t know. I’m not confident based on what I’ve seen. They are trying to close in the walls on the internet and they are confident that people are too lazy to stop them.
You arent wrong. But, acectdata and mine own, convenience drove that. People are fucking lazy and hate nothing more than to be inconvenienced. When chrome was getting traction, explorer was trasshhhhhhhhh and every one knew it.
Chrome might be a bit bloated but its no explorer. If it doesn’t hurt people to stay, I don’t think we’ll see a shift.
Times have changed. The userbase that dropped IE was a vastly different one. With the internet being more accessible and more alluring to the massed (i.e. because of social media) convenience is king.
Back then internet users werent normies, but nreds and tech savy people. Also, chrome learned from IE’s mistakes. It wont stop functioning and will keep updating, so the average normy user wont mind.
I genuinely don’t know how Ill use the web without ad block. Cause I damn sure ain’t going back to paying for anti-virus like in the 90’s for a web experience that is objectively worse and less magical enough to risk it.
Drive by malware and viruses from ads has gotten scarily good at infecting systems without you knowing. It’s worse than ever as it’s not just a sketchy site issue thing anymore either. Even reputable sites have ads that only take one misclick to infect you now
Browsers at least, unlike social networks, don’t benefit from networking effects. How many people use a specific browser doesn’t directly affect the usefulness of that browser, as users of different browsers can interact with each other to the same degree as users of the same browser. For now at least, as Google’s Web Integrity API could obviously change that if websites start to require and some browser are unable or unwilling to provide it.
How many people use a specific browser doesn’t directly affect the usefulness of that browser, as users of different browsers can interact with each other to the same degree as users of the same browser. For now at least, as Google’s Web Integrity API could obviously change that if websites start to require and some browser are unable or unwilling to provide it.
True. I MUST use Edge at work and honestly, its fine. Its not some radical departure from Firefox, i dont have to think too hard about the differences.
Google broke on Firefox for a while a day ago for me. Went to some other search engine.
Jumping from social media is hard.
Jumping from applications is not.
teamspeak became Skype which became discord.
And many of us did leave Reddit. I didn’t even leave because I cared about the protests or what Reddit was doing. I left because many posts were deleted, people left, subreddits became abandoned.
Lemmy became better than Reddit basically overnight.
One of the authors of this paper is from the Chicago School and the Hoover Institution. Both are pro-business, anti-worker think-tanks that have been this way for decades. They also don't do any research of their own, but cite other papers that show the 5-20% reduction.
However, the methodology mentioned in the papers is suspect. First, they show that remote workers have the same productivity, but work longer hours. So the net output doesn't go down, they just spend more time working. Which raises the question: How many more breaks were they taking throughout the day? Being remote means a much more flexible schedule, so it's not uncommon to take longer breaks if you're a salaried worker.
Another study was IT professionals shifting to remote work at one company at the start of the pandemic. This one showed an 18% reduction in productivity. But considering the timing of this and that company culture and procedures can contribute to this, it doesn't seem to be a valid data point.
Then they bring up some common criticisms of WFH, which I've seen and refuted since I started working from home 2009: People can't communicate, working in groups is harder, and people can't control themselves. Yawn.
Honestly, the fact that they cherry picked hybrid work as being equally productive shows me this isn't about productivity, it's about keeping offices open. Which makes sense considering one of the authors is affiliated with groups that want to prop up the commercial rental business.
If the source of the article is suspect, where is the research by tech firms with a vested interest in cloud and communication platforms publishing counter studies?
Also, with both studies cited, the best argument is that workers are happy to work more than 8 hours a day. Does that mean you should expect workers to be on call for longer than an 8 hour day because they are working remote?
If the source of the article is suspect, where is the research by tech firms with a vested interest in cloud and communication platforms publishing counter studies?
Right, but you're no better than alt-right people on Facebook ignoring the research that's literally one click away because you're afraid it will disagree with you
I’ve been posting the Economist link in several comments. I left it as presented to show where the link came from in case people argued with the source.
This source just states that there is a disagreement over whether work from home is more or less productive and provides survey information to show the difference in opinion.
That isn’t making the argument that remote work is productive, just that workers view it as more productive and the study isn’t conclusive. The closest this study gets to saying if productivity increases is “In theory, both sides could be right[.]”
The source of the article is an economist at one of the most highly regarded economics programs in the world. Im less sure that the source is “suspect” and more that people do not like the conclusions they make.
Yeah. And it isn’t like there aren’t other reasons to maintain full remote work. It just happens to be that one of the reasons may not be accurate anymore based on further study.
I know in my line of work, employee retention is the main reason why full remote or hybrid is being maintained.
Exactly, Im not saying the conclusions are correct only that the program is one of the best and trying to portray it as biased because of that is inappropriate.
Yawn… even if it’s true, who give a shit. Even before the pandemic, when people had a lot to do, they stayed at home so they could focus undisturbed to meet deadlines.
Ignores salient points made, what-about-isms to reassert bad point, doubles down on the science is a competition thing while illustrating complete lack of knowledge of scientific process
I’ve said that, if you want to argue the studies presented, present other studies. The only one presented I had comments on and quoted the text.
doubles down on the science is a competition thing while illustrating complete lack of knowledge of scientific process
Science is about presenting data in a way that can be reviewed and verified. I’ve asked for studies that back up the assertions made while providing references to my assertions. Where is the data to back up the claim that remote work is more productive?
If the source of the article is suspect, where is the research by tech firms with a vested interest in cloud and communication platforms publishing counter studies?
Probably swimming in their Scrooge McDuck piles of cash since WFH became more widespread?
It’s the landlords losing money and the owner/C-suites not being able to see their minions in one place that are pumping out these articles.
So I go back to my original question, is there a study that says remote work is more productive? Where is the science to back it up? The science should be out there if it is true.
And are you honestly telling me that major companies wouldn’t love to sell all their real estate and go full virtual? Why not cut that business expense to save money? Major companies have cut everything else, why not cut this too? Why wouldn’t an activist investor start pushing to release this capital as a dividend?
Hell, you can start depressing wages, since you can source your staff from lower QoL places and use those places as your bench mark for pay.
First off, thank you for providing. This was the most thorough list of sources given by anyone.
The buisness.com article is based on a survey of remote workers. The survey states that remote workers feel more productive at home and that they work longer hours. This correlates with anecdotal evidence presented here, but it isn’t a measure of actual productivity.
The Monitask.com article refers to two studies that make the claim that remote work is more productive, but one study is blocked by a paywall and the other study isn’t even linked. There is one article about a call center in China, which the Economist article I’ve posted notes that later data shows that the work was not as efficient as previously stated.
The ApolloTechnical.com has a lot of good articles, but there are some self reporting surveys. The article does note that not all research indicates increases in productivity, including one study in 2012 and reported in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization that found that creative tasks see increases in productivity at home while dull tasks see decreases in productivity; I like this study the most as it seems to do more academic rigor of creating an experiment to study against.
The businessnewsdaily.com article is another survey of remote workers, so no objective study on productivity.
There is some good science in the articles you posted, but there are also a lot of self reported surveys. Given what you presented, I can see someone believing that remote working is always more productive.
That said, there seems to be additional studies being performed that are making the claim more disputed. However, the articles you provide also give other very good reasons why remote work should still be allowed.
Just saw that I have responses to things! New Sync user, don’t mind me.
Looks like you got your sources, but wanted to address major companies and real estate. Commercial real estate has way longer leases than residential. And their landlords don’t have any incentive to let them break lease early. Who else is going to come rent that space?
Of course these companies want to “make use” of those wasted dollars. Even major companies aren’t immune to sunk cost fallacy.
Corporate leases are longer than residential ones, but they only go for 3 to 5 years generally. We are seeing a shrinking of leases because of this, which is causing office occupancy rates to plummet. We’re seeing companies shift to a hybrid model, but few companies seem to want to go full remote.
Then they bring up some common criticisms of WFH, which I’ve seen and refuted since I started working from home 2009: People can’t communicate, working in groups is harder, and people can’t control themselves. Yawn.
Exactly. I work for a global company, so the way I communicate with the people I work with everyday is via zoom. What’s the point of commuting to an office just to get on zoom anyway to talk to people?
Don't forget that Forbes and The Economist were all in favor of outsourcing jobs, which leads to me having meetings with people all over the world even when I'm in an office.
So if working remotely hurts group work, a lot of it is their fault for sending jobs overseas. Unless they also want those jobs to eventually move back here so we can have happy group work fun time.
They want whatever keeps their property value highest and overhead lowest, they’ll claim they want onsite workers and then turn around and hire remote people in India because it saves money.
Everything that falls out of their mouths is a piece of shit intended to save some 7 figure earner enough money to buy another vacation home.
You can criticize the study without engaging in ad hominem attacks. The University of Chicago’s economics department is one of the best schools for economics in the world. You might not like the fact that they are not advocating your political bias but that does not change the overall quality of that program.
Saying that a conservative economic school is pro-business and anti-labor is not what I'd call an ad hominem, but a statement of fact. Saying they want to prop up the commercial real estate business isn't ad hominem either.
It is not a conservative school. The clearest sign someone has never studied or understood academic economics is when they attempt to assign a partisan bias to the institution.
This. Economics is a social science where every theory or opinion aims to achieve different varying desired outcomes for different people and in achieved in different ways, with spectrums for every step along the process. The entire field is on a spectrum, that also generally aligns with the political spectrum because politics, like economics, strives to achieve a certain outcome for a certain group of people, in a certain way. Trying to disentangle the field of economics from people. and the politics that people create, is a red flag for not actually knowing what economics is.
Ah, so it's not that they're conservative, it's that they desire the same things conservatives want. But they're totally apolitical, and it's just a happy coincidence.
Unless you are one of those people that only learned political philosophy from the internet or are so Euro-centric/racist that you think the binary European democracies use for European democracies applies to all political ideologies, and it absolutely does not, then you would have to clarify what you mean by “conservative”. For example if you think both major parties in the USA are “conservative” then the above likely applies to you.
Just because the two options you have to choose from are shit doesn’t mean they are still both shit - it is hilarious watching you Americans cry socialism about policies that in most of the civilised world would be considered right or centre-right.
Google the definition of conservative and tell me how that changes based on what country we are talking about.
“ favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.”
I’d love you to try and convince me that neoliberalism doesn’t fit under the above.
You really need to take a second to ask yourself why you are using “the civilized world” to mean Western Europe because the history of that specific perspective is problematic and is the root of a ton of racism.
Conservative means different things in different societies. A conservative Iranian, Chinese mainlander, American and Austrian are going to have very different perspectives. If you have any education in political philosophy this would not need to be explained.
You literally use the term “civilized countries” as the positive part of a negative comparison. I assumed nothing it is exactly what you wrote.
Don’t feel bad about this though as it is common if you only learned about political philosophy from reddit/internet forums rather than a formal educational setting. A typical into to poli sci 101 class talks about binaries and a responsible instructor demonstrates their limits. You clearly did not learn that.
The point of comparison was to the “civilized nations” that whose views WOULD make the USA’s parties right leaning. For that to make any sense “civilized nations” has to be Europe as they are the pretty much the only nations that are inarguably to the left of the USA. Your language makes you intention clear.
If course there was the much more likely option that you have no formal education in political philosophy. I suspect that is the actual case as it is much more likely that you are mistaken in your understandings of the binaries , as most are, than being racist.
This really isn’t a study, so much as a lit review. Sort of. Anyway, in the fully remote section they cite three studies that argue show a fall in productivity. The first (Emmanuel and Harrington (2023)) found an 8% drop in call volume as a call center shifted to fully remote work at the onset of the pandemic. But their comparison group was a group of call center employees who were always remote. So even if you buy the argument that the change call volume is solely attributable to a drop in productivity, you cannot conclude that the productivity shift was caused by working from home, the group that shifted from on-location to remote work did 8% worse than the group than the always remote work!
The second study (Gibbs, Mengel and Siemroth (2022)) is, again, an analysis of call-center employees (this time in India) who shifted to remote work at the onset of the pandemic. They find no change in productivity, but that employees are working longer hours at home, which they argue means a real 8-19% drop in productivity.
The final study (Atkin, Schoar, and Shinde (2023)) is another firm from India which involved a randomized controlled study which finds an 18% drop in productivity for data entry work.
So, just taking their lit review at face value, one of their studies directly contradicts their argument, yet they somehow present it as if it is evidence of a causal relationship between working from home and productivity. Another study shows no effect, so they break out some razamataz math to try to turn no effect into a negative effect. Only one of the three studies shows a plausible effect.
Since these are the only three papers they cite to support their argument that fully remote work causes a drop in firm productivity, let’s look at them in more depth.
If you go to their references section, you find that there is not a Emmanuel and Harrington (2023) cited. Hey, that a bad sign. There is an Emmanuel and Harrington 2021, but its an unpublished paper. Maybe it got published and they just forgot to update the cite? I plugged the title into google scholar, and find one result, with no copy of the working paper, and no evidence of any sort of publication record from any journal. Plugging the title into regular google returns a “Staff Report” of the federal reserve bank of NY. So not a peer reviewed article. They employ whats known as a difference-in-difference design to compare employees who shifted from fully in person to fully remote. They report a 4% reduction in productivity for these workers, not the 8% reported in the original article. I just skimmed the article, so maybe they get their 8% figure someplace else. What is interesting to me though is that their DID models seem to show there is not any difference between the different groups for most of the periods of observation. IDK. I’d have to read more in-depth to make up my mind.
It seems like these conclusions, whatever you make of them should really only be applied to call-center work during the pandemic.
When we had cats, I made sure that they were spayed and neutered. But they’re not good for the bird population. They should be kept indoors, not to mention how easily they catch fleas. It had gotten to the point that none of the over the counter solutions worked, and you need to take out a small loan to afford to properly treat them.
They’re not good for the birds, but perhaps even more importantly, the outdoors isn’t good for them. The life expectancy of an indoor cat versus an outdoor cat can be 10+ years longer.
Backyard on a leash and monitored is very responsible! When people say outdoor cat, they are typically referring to cats that are allowed outdoors with no leash and no supervision.
Growing up, (I’m in my 50s) we had an orange tabby that went indoors and outdoors as much as he wanted. The cat supplemented his kibble by killing and eating (confirmed by observation) birds and rodents in the area. He lived to be 23. Most cats like him that I’ve known all had lifespans into the high teens.
I think you mean feral, as opposed to outdoor. In which case I would agree with your statement.
I should add, that as an adult, I currently own two cats obtained from rescue services and both are exclusively indoor cats.
Then can you quote your source for your statement? My experiential information is counter to your claim, so I would like to see your data so I can improve my understanding.
i could throw in my own anecdotal experience of being raised owning dozens of cats over my life, that the outdoors is very dangerous to tame cats. my dad counted it as a win if a couple kittens from each litter of our tamed barn cats would make it a year. even out in the country we had “traffic” kill a decent amount, and the wild animals did the rest. not to mention eating partially rotted dead animals and getting sick, etc.
but I prefer data, which shouldn’t be that hard to find. :)
Weirdly enough, actual lifespan comparisons seem to be very hard to find. Studies showing slightly higher disease (4%) rates. Higher rates of eating things their owner didn’t give them. Higher dangers from traffic, cars, etc. but I have yet to an actual study with lifespan numbers, let alone the 3-5 yrs vs 10-15 I’ve seen bandied about.
I’m still looking for it as a lower lifespan sounds logical, but I’ve seen enough things defy apparent logic to not just accept the statement without supporting documentation.
Let me clear. I support in principle the statement that indoor cats live longer, I just haven’t found the proof for it yet.
It should seem somewhat obvious after thinking about it for a moment. Outdoor access means more exposure to diseases and parasites, exposure to predators, and exposure to traffic.
Appreciate not getting a snarky comeback. My personal experience has been outdoor/indoor cats lead long, satisfying lives. But my experience could be an outlier which is why I asked for your source.
Will definitely give this a read once I’m done work. Again, much appreciated
Unfettered? No. Feral cats often aren’t cared for and live suffering lives. They have significantly shorter lives. They’re domesticated animals and aren’t suited to life in the wild. We bred that out of them. They fare better than dogs, but they deserve better.
I just buried one that some asshole dropped off near my house. My dog doesn’t do well with cats and I found them scrapping in the yard. I pulled them apart, literally the cat had several claws stuck in my dog’s face. I went out a few times to make sure that it was ok. After about 20 minutes it was gone. Three days later I go out to see my dog barking at the road. It seemed like the cat was back. Either running away from my dog or distracted by her, it lay dead in the road. It has been run over by a car or a truck. Blood everywhere. I put my dog in the house and scooped it up into a bucket and buried it with my shovel.
This wasn’t just some feral cat. It was friendly and had known the love of people. Unfortunately, that love wasn’t enough to do what was right. It deserved better. This happened about a month ago and it still bothers me.
Get your pets spayed and neutered. If you can’t afford to house the results of your irresponsibility, then at least do right by them, and make sure they go to loving homes, instead of dumping them off at someone’s farmhouse in the country.
Yeah being homeless sucks, what does that have to do with cats reproducing?
Even if we assume that all unplanned kittens end up homeless, it’s still some twisted version of financial cat eugenics. “Your life will probably not adhere to my standards of what a good life is, so I will prevent you from existing in the first place for your own good. I will cut off your balls because your kids would be homeless.”
Now apply the same logic to humans. I know we are talking about cats but from a moral standpoint it should make no difference, the degree of “bad” might change, it’s less bad if you do that to an animal and more bad if you do that to a human, but in both cases it’s still bad. I can’t think of anything that this logic doesn’t apply to, even when it comes to something we do all the time like killing, if you do that to a human, that’s murder, which is obviously terrible and if yo do that to an animal, that’s acceptable, because we need it for food to survive but it’s still bad. If we could get meat any other way I don’t think anyone would be opposed to that.
If you don’t want to get castrated by aliens\AI overlords then don’t do that to your pets.
Dude, cats don’t have the ability to make rational decisions. They’re pets. If you want to run a cat breeding house, that’s on you. Just keep them inside.
I've seen this same suggestion years ago on Blender tutorials. Generating a scene isn't about making it realistic, it's about fooling the audience into thinking it's real without making it too hard to create. Look at videos from Ian Hubert on how to fake it well.
They did this in the Hitman 1>2>3 progression and got H3 down to like… 36 gigs… they reused doors when posssible, fruits in bowls, etc. Instead of bespoke items for each game in the series, they compressed and repeated stuff, and got the entire trilogy game down to the size of one of the individual games.
I just got back into H3 a week or two ago and was caught off guard by the install size! Last time I installed 2 I had to disable a ton of map DLCs and rotate em out as I went to not take up most of the storage on my Steam Deck SD card.
Okay now you have to follow through. Go out and marry one of those falsie-long-lashes freaks. No divorces allowed. You must gaze adoringly into her eyes at least twenty times a day for the rest of your life.
Post is still not a lie, as your statement followed the post. You can’t say that someone in the year 1900 was a liar if they said “no man has walked on the moon”.
Technically you wrote it, not said it. Therefore your comment is a LIE
They had it so easy but didn’t realize that that’s not the norm at all. They still expect the same to happen now. As if one can work through college and pay off all debts, or if just going to college meant landing a job, or even if you landed a job it would do little more than just make you live paycheck to paycheck.
They had it so easy they’ve all been conditioned to believe that life is simple and easy. Not that it had nothing to do with their “effort” or “skills”, was easy as a direct result of complex external geopolitical and economic conditions (by chance), or that previous generations fought hard and paid for those conditions.
People are also shit at math, and inflation is unintuitive. My boomer parents are extremely sympathetic to the situation of younger generations, but still thought their mortgage in the 80’s was comparable to current. After I punched it into an inflation calculator it was about 30% less than I would pay on a 2 bedroom UNIT; they paid that on a 2 bedroom HOUSE, and only for a couple years at peak interest rates.
TL;DR: people are simple creatures and civilizations are complex machines 99.99% of us couldn’t possibly understand; even the most intelligent and best intentioned. Every one of the best minds in all of history were deeply flawed in some way (in hindsight).
Even if it were literally 99.99% of people that didn’t “get it”, that’s still almost a million people across the world who do understand it. How many politicians and “leaders” are there in the world?
There are barely over 500k elected officials across the entire united states, for ALL elected positions. Only a few hundred of them really “need” to understand the big picture…
It should not only be possible, but fully expected that people seeking the f*cking POTUS position be the kind of person who DOES get it.
Not even just that. My dad didn’t go to college, he joined the military at 18. He walked away from that and landed an engineering job with no degree. Now, he’s in a position that would ask for a masters minimum making nearly 300k a year.
I joined the military and walked away with bad knees and a list of phone numbers to get a job in the trades. Don’t get me wrong, I took it, but damn I’m sure as hell not making anything near what he was at my age.
Boomers were hardly coddled by the greatest generation. My grandfather was downright abusive by today’s standards. He would pour hot sauce down his kid’s throat when they cursed, probably hit them though they don’t really talk about it. Was it “beat them with a 2x4 and lock them in the shed” level abuse? No, but they didn’t exactly come out well prepared for the world and how they were raised probably was a part of it. I know I wouldn’t consider any of my grandparents’ punishments for my child, they are not the model for how to raise kids.
This bullshit celebrity hero worship has to stop. Fran was funny (and quite fetching) on The Nanny. What she is doing during the strike is great and all, but she is also anti-vaxx.
This is the problem that happens when our society puts these celebrities on a higher level than everyone else. Appreciate the work they have done on and off screen, but realize that they are just human and in the case of Fran, she is a little loopy when it comes to vaccine issues. She’s not someone we should look up to. None of these celebrities are. Look up to your dad or a fireman or that really good social studies teacher you had in 6th grade.
Don’t put anyone on a pedestal. Not politicians, not celebrities’, not twitch streamers, not your girlfriend. You can love, respect and even like people, but don’t worship anyone, it leaves you blind to their faults and it’s a pain in the ass being the one on the pedestal in a relationship.
You can pass people’s messages around, and the messages that are not about them but that their presence and actions help spread, without putting them on a pedestal.
Yeah. Put me on a pedestal instead. I’ve got some nice ideas. Like what if we made a car with a square steering wheel? I mean we won’t know the downsides until we try.
I don’t know man. My dad, my teacher and the fireman have no public presence so they won’t be the face of any media workers’ strike. And at least one of the above is also an anti-vaxx and/or an asshole. This lady is just doing her role and I don’t think it makes much sense to undermine her work on this subject because her poor takes on others.
But isn’t that what our society does these days? Or at least certain segments of it.
They take someone who is X and then elevate them to some unreasonably high status that no one person should attain, and then that same society drops them like they’re a hot potato when they find out that the person isn’t perfect.
To be clear, I don’t disagree with your take. We shouldn’t be undermining someone’s work because of some stupid opinion on this or dumb decision to do that.
But think about what’s become a rather popular event over the last couple of years. Some actor gets shunned for saying some stupid shit about vaccines. There has been a whole rash of events where statues of people long dead have been taken down. Buildings dedicated to certain people were renamed. Columbus - the poor guy’s legacy has been dragged through the mud because of people who can’t separate the fact that he was a great explorer but he was also a bit of a douchebag.
We need to stop elevating these people to the level of a deity, and then we won’t be shocked to find out the person was just human and a bit of a womanizer or a prick about money or he didn’t like certain groups all that much. Praise them for their singing or acting or the new world they explored.
You say on one hand we should stop putting people on pedestals, but then in the same thought you go on to say that Columbus’ “legacy” was ruined just because he was a bit of a douchebag.
Like how logically inconsistent are your own thoughts? Columbus was a piece of shit who genocided multiple ethnic groups. He never should have had statues in the first place. He didn’t even find what he was looking for. He was an arrogant fuck who got lucky, and the world probably would have been better off if he drowned at sea.
And nobody “dragged him through the mud”, they just took a realistic look at who and what he actually is, which is supposedly what you’re proposing.
What is so difficult to understand? The person - all people in general - are multi-faceted and as humans we are all flawed. Someone can be a murder but also be brilliant on the football field, like OJ. Stop putting these people up on a pedestal. But at the same time, are we supposed to simply ERASE his accomplishments on the football field? Everything is so obnoxiously polarized.
That’s what people these days want to do. On the one hand they elevate every stupid celebrity they can think of and then everything comes crashing down when they say an off-color joke. If someone is a great singer… great, listen to their music, but stop fawning over what they wear and what they drive. Stop listening to every stupid comment they tweet. They are a singer, chances are they aren’t a scientist which probably doesn’t make them an expert on climate change or vaccines or whatever other topic. One day people are paying double for some celebrity endorsed sneaker and then the next they are burning those very same sneakers in a pit because he said something about endangered trees.
Off color joke =/= genocide. Great footballin < murdering. The people upset about the endangered trees are not the ones burning overpriced athletic shoes made by child slaves.
I’m going to assume you are a troll, because to do otherwise makes me feel sad.
Was he really a great explorer though? The guy dramatically underestimated the size of the earth and he and his crew probably would’ve died from thirst or starvation or whatever if they hadn’t run smack into the new world halfway to India.
By that logic then, the majority of world famous chemists and other scientists out there shouldn’t be heralded as great minds because they only accidentally discovered a certain medicine that cured a disease or a new element or some other new compound that eventually was put to great use.
Yet somehow you guys are always the first to play the victim even to something that’s still theoretical. Like your comment here. Amazing example. Same with the person you responded to. Not a single example of anything like that but here you both are comforting each other over it lmao
If you look at some of the biggest figures of our past in world history, the vast majority of them had some kind of vice or did some kind of thing or participated in some kind of event that would have gotten them cancelled in today’s world. It is ridiculous to what standards we hold people today, but in the end, they are just that - PEOPLE. Highly flawed individuals, just like you and I and everyone here. That doesn’t change the fact that they changed history (for better or worse) in one way or another. The problem comes when society then elevates them to some demi-god level and then everyone gets all flustered when that extra-marital affair or off-color joke or comments about some topic comes to light.
Talking about someone’s glaring flaws isn’t the same as expecting perfection. That’s an intillectually lazy way to see it. Wanting people to only sing the praises of anyone is actually expecting your version of perfection.
If it’s relevant to the person being discussed it’s fair game imo. Just like it’s fair game to point out her better actions if it’s in a post dunking on her. Famous people are gonna be scrutinized more than the guy working at the gas station that’s just how it goes. I don’t expect perfection but what alternative do you even want here? I’m not down with ignoring bad behavior then because we want their help now. That’ll never sit right with me. If someone is in a position to be emulated by fans and they make the decision to spread dangerous ideology then fuck em. I’m gonna bring it up at every whisper of their name. It’s the closest thing to actual consequences for their actions that most rich/famous people ever get anyway.
Why does it matter if it’s relevant to the person, if it’s not relevant to the subject or current event in question?
To answer your question, the alternative I want here is better working conditions for actors. I view her as working class, not rich. The difference between a millionaire and a billionaire is about a billion dollars.
The guys her union is up against actually are rich, and they’re even worse. The working class is being divided and conquered.
I don’t expect perfection…? Being anti-vax is a big deal to me. That’s not a harmless ideology. It’s moronic and anti-science. This isn’t just some little thing I disagree with it’s, in my opinion, a huge moral and intellectual failure. I think it’s completely fair that this gets brought up because it’s directly relevant.
I wish we lived in a world where we could count on people to just do the right thing but we don’t. On issues that put everyone at risk I unfortunately have to stand on the side of mandates until people learn how to act. Personally I’d still rather that they just get naturally excluded from society but we’re all too split for that and too many people have to needlessly die in the meantime. I’m aware fighting for women’s rights to choose is kind of hypocritical in this situation but nobody has come up with a better solution that doesn’t just let people be wilfully ignorant and get other people killed in the process.
I think less than 193 tbh… In Latvia, a Social Democrat party has proposed surveillance cameras and pigs in schools. I’m pretty sure in other countries there has been talk as well
Exactly that. They use police to protect capital’s interests just like the other countries. So they need to expand police powers. Just look at Weimar Germany for historical examples.
Here, it’s the opposite. The social democrats and their allies were in government for a long time and the second the more conservatives (still pretty left compared to the USA though) got power they proposed a fuck ton of laws including visitation zones where they can search people without suspect. That law actually goes into effect very soon.
My country had police officers in all schools for a month or so after the First Ever School Shooting In The Entire Country happened, but only because parents demanded it.
I think most countries will eventually go through one. For the UK it was Dunblane, after which the government went “no more handguns then?” and we all went “yeah, I suppose”, because only a handful of people kept them anyway.
No, see they’re mostly there so children learn to obey through intimidation talk to police, and they definitely never use it as a punishment detail for officers who got in trouble for anger issues
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.