My take is that regardless of what system of government you use, there will be the affluent/aristocrats that run everything, get all the nicest shit, etc, and the unwashed masses who get whatever is left over.

This is a people problem, not a system of government problem.

The only way to balance everything is to basically make everyone in the country responsible for voting on all policy, which is impractical at best; the only alternative is to have a very altruistic leader in charge of making the final decisions.

If the leader can’t consistently make decisions that benefit the people at the cost of his own happiness, affluence, wealth, etc, then what is demonstrated by this meme, is always going to be inevitable.

IMO, someone that altruistic will not hold power since those that are supposed to implement their orders, will quickly turn against them, resulting in a coup, and the leader being ousted for someone more selfish, who will reward the those with power unfairly by taking the rewards away from the “lower class” to give to them.

Everything is doomed to failure. Move to the forest and start from scratch.

I should do this too. By and large there’s no reason to keep paper around anymore.

What do you do for backups?

I’m far too verbose all the time.

I don’t even want to read everything I write most of the time.

Good intentions, easily taken wrong.

Look everyone, the corporations are trying to be inclusive!

… No? Nobody cares? Okay. That seems right. They don’t care about us unless we’re going to buy their shit, so that seems fair to me.

Eat the rich.

Well, for me, it’s not that I don’t write because I can’t, or that I don’t want to; I just work with/on/around computers/devices so much that I usually find paper to be inconvenient.

Getting a thing signed by e-signature vs having to print, sign, and mail/deliver a document to someone is just a lot easier for me.

I absolutely can write, and I sometimes find putting pen to paper to be therapeutic, but ultimately I tend to use digital forms of record keeping and note taking, much more than physical copies.

What I would consider is a writing tablet where I can quickly scribble notes into, similar to writing on paper, that then get transcribed into text by OCR or something… I don’t have the money for that.

I basically don’t write anything anymore. So no matter how “lazy” it might be, a dashed line like you suggest is a skill issue that I couldn’t master at age… 7?

I still haven’t because I don’t put pen to paper often, if at all. If I need to write 100 lines of the same thing, that’s what copy/paste is for.

My work doesn’t afford me to be focused on a single task until completion. That’s the nature of the job I have, and there’s nothing that I can do, nor anything my manager can do about that.

Forcing myself into rigorous scheduling is a trap for my mind. If a task takes longer than expected (which is frequent because I’m also very time blind), then I feel like I’m running behind and I have to rush to catch up. If something takes less time than expected, I end up in the mental trap of “I don’t need to do x until y time” so I go do something else, and that distraction usually puts me behind my schedule, back to the first problem.

I end up constantly panicked because I’m running behind all the time. At the end of the day, though I may have completed everything, and done so in a reasonable timeframe, the only emotion that lingers is the feeling of disappointment in myself, that I couldn’t keep up with the schedule.

That feeling leads to depression, which leads to me giving up on the entire system, after skipping it for several weeks and being “several weeks behind” on everything; and that leads to further depression.

If your scheduling thing works for you, awesome, I’m glad you found something that works for you, for the reasons I’ve stated and so many more, it does not work for me.

However, I recognise that you’re saying this because you found what works for you, and it’s brought so much order to the chaos that is normal for your mind from before; and you want to help others find the same happiness you have using this method. That’s fine, and I hope your comment helps someone. I’m not that someone. I appreciate what you’re trying to do here regardless.

I have my own solution now, and it’s working quite well for me. My doctor and I built the therapy that I use to maintain order in the chaos of my life and mind, and I recognize that my therapy isn’t going to work for others. Which is why I’m not saying what it specifically involves. I will say that medication is part of it. It works for me, and if anyone wants to pursue something similar, they should talk with their doctor about what therapy might be right for them.

I won’t tell you that your methodology doesn’t work, it clearly does. It works for you.

The only point I’m trying to make here is that, though it may work for you, it may not work for others, and they will have to find a different solution and/or therapy for themselves which works for them.

There is no universal solution for ADHD. For some it can be managed with mindfulness, scheduling, and a force of will, and little more. Others may need assistance in the form of gadgets, widgets, and thingamajigs (maybe fidget things? IDK)… Others may only need a small amount of medication to manage it, and others may need multiple medications before they see the results they’re after.

All of these methods of therapy are valid for the people that benefit from them. Most of them won’t work for most ADHD people, they’ll have to find which one is going to work for them, and it’s likely that one or more will work, they’ll just have to figure out which one is the best for them by working with their doctor to figure it out. Hopefully that doctor is a psychiatrist with a specialty in ADHD; but I digress.

I’ve tried most of what you suggest and it did not work for me. That’s fine. It works for you and I’m happy for that. The fact that I couldn’t use that method to overcome my challenges, doesn’t, and shouldn’t imply that I’m somehow worse for it, or that I lack willpower, or that I can’t make the hard choice or make the sacrifice to make it work. I’m easily one of the most willful people I know, even before I started my current therapy. The condition is simply more complex than a matter of having the willpower to overcome it. That may work for some, like yourself; or it may work for short periods of time, like it did for me; or it may not work at all for others. Everyone is different.

The difference with ADHD, especially untreated ADHD, and the idea of “sometimes you have to force yourself to do something” is that, as a person with ADHD, trying to force myself to do stuff, without the assistance of medication, can often be a bit like trying to nail jello to the wall.

It might work for a short time, but eventually, it’ll be laying on the floor, not doing what you want it to do… Much like me.

The paralysis is very real and very strong. The contrary feelings fighting eachother in your head, one voice saying how important it is and that you need to do it, another that’s breaking down the task into every motion required, so one job becomes a quintillion individual steps, which makes you feel overwhelmed and anxious at even the thought of trying to do the job, and another voice berating you for being a lazy fuck who can’t even do the most simple shit, like get off the couch and do the thing.

In the end you just feel horrible, both about the thing you should have done and about your worth as a person, leading to depression, which exacerbates the issue further.

It’s a cycle of violence that most ADHD people have suffered with for their entire life.

This reminds me of a punishment homework thing I was given in my youth, I had to write out something a bunch of times, which was a shit punishment to begin with and only happened once in like, grade 3 or something. Maybe even grade 1 when we were learning to write, idk. Maybe it wasn’t a punishment (it felt like one).

Instead of writing the letter “i” at the start of every line like I was supposed to, I just put a long line down the page to be that letter on every line.

The only part of this that I remember to this day is that I got it back with that line circled in red and the word “lazy!” Written next to it, with points off of the assignment for it.

That’s literally the only thing I recall about it, that finding an “easy” way to write the same letter across multiple lines was lazy, therefore I’m lazy and worthless. I don’t even remember if I passed or failed it, because that was less important to my young mind than being called lazy for simply trying to optimize my working time.

I dunno, but at this point I kind feel like that teacher was a bit of an asshole.

Depends on the sample size.

If it’s just this guy doing it, then yeah.

If it’s this guy who has done the procedure 20 times with 20 successes, and another doctor who sucks, who performed the procedure 20 times with 20 fatalities, that’s different.

It’s likely that the sample size is much larger than one or two doctors.

That’s mode

Gamblers fallacy does go both ways. There’s also a thing in gambling, not part of the gamblers fallacy, more of a superstition thing, that there can be runs of, what is more or less luck. The gamblers fallacy would have you believe that after 20 successes, a failure is “due to happen”. According to math, that’s not the case, and in the event of something that requires skill to execute, almost nothing is just luck or statistics.

So the last one isn’t so much the gamblers fallacy, if anything it would be the superstition that the run of successes will continue; however scientists will look at this more as a game of skill. While 50% of all patients who have the procedure do not survive, or whatever, the last 20 of this doctors patients have survived. Clearly their skill for the procedure is above average. Even from a statistics perspective the rate might be 50% but you’re in the hands of a doctor pushing that number up to 50%, rather than dragging it down to 50%. So on all fronts, if you hear this, bluntly, you have an unknown risk level, somewhere between 50% and 0%.

Thanks, I hate it.

Take your upvote and get out.

My only trick to this is to have something more urgent and more important to do. Like an essay worth 80% of your mark in a class you can’t fail for college.

I get so much done when I’m in crunch mode. Things like the dishes, cleaning, laundry, even that oil change I’ve been putting off for months.

Everything gets done, except that very important assignment of course.

H2 from natural gas is more efficient, but obviously creates pollution. Because of the relative efficiency and the prevalence of natural gas in society, most companies have gone to natural gas conversion to hydrogen, as it’s easier to implement, not because it’s greener.

To touch on it, when I’m discussing economics, I’m talking about the discipline of economics, not specifically the economy. The money economy is only concerned with the dollars and cents of everything, economics as a discipline, considers all factors, both in and out, and the adverse effects of everything, both financial and sometimes not financial (since nonfinancial effects can affect the future financial viability of a system).

I’ll be clear, storage isn’t the debate on hydrogen being inefficient. Hydrogen storage is more efficient than most other storage systems. The materials are minimal, a pressure tank with the appropriate seals and safeguards, and the tank can output 100% of the hydrogen that goes into it. There’s no concern with cycle life, as the system can cycle infinitely as long as the structure of the container isn’t compromised. The waste produced when a storage vessel is no longer suitable, is essentially metals that can be fully recycled or otherwise reconstituted into other items without any degradation in the quality of those items, with few exceptions.

The discussion is entirely around how hydrogen is created, and how it is converted back to whatever energy format that is desirable, such as electricity. Coming from electricity, electrolysis is about 70-82% efficient, with 1kg of hydrogen, which has a specific energy density of 143 MJ/kg needing about 50-55 kWh of electricity to create. The most inefficient part of the system is conversation back from hydrogen to electricity, where internal combustion style generators are common (basically a slightly modified natural gas generator), but less efficient than fuel cells. Fuel cells generally have 40-60% efficiency.

Batteries on the other hand have much higher efficiency, but never 100%. Since they’re generally not self regulating, systems for battery management are required. Charge controllers and voltage conversion (or inverters) reduce efficiency further, but generally battery systems are considered to be better than 90% efficient. The downside with battery systems is the relatively short life of the battery and the large amount of waste produced, in comparison with something like hydrogen.

Hydrogen can achieve much higher energy density and the container weighs next to nothing when empty, while batteries weigh approximately the same whether charged or not.

My main argument for hydrogen surrounds the fact that we’re pretty close. 80% efficiency in hydrolysis and 60% on fuel cells, with storage being significantly cheaper on materials and significantly better with cycles, with much less to recycle when the system is replaced or otherwise decommissioned. You can pack a lot more energy in the same volume of space using hydrogen compared to batteries because it can be significantly pressurized to several atmospheres.

There are benefits here that batteries simply cannot match. If we can get the fuel cells and electrolysis to a level that’s comparable to batteries with efficiency, then hydrogen would really become the better option.

With over 8.2 billion people on the planet, we certainly can research all of these options at the same time. Only a very small fraction is even doing the work right now. That number can increase a lot, but we choose to pursue what is financially profitable rather than purely looking towards scientific discovery. Capitalism at work.

If companies can’t sell it, they don’t care. So it doesn’t get done. We should do it anyways because there’s potential here.

IMO, there’s two main factors at play. First, the speakers in most stores suck. They have to buy them at volume (quantity, not loudness), and install them everywhere. The primary reason they have them is for paging, so they can make announcements and request that people go places. Music just gives the speakers something to do while not doing announcements.

Due to the amount of speakers they buy, and their primary purpose being for announcements, they don’t exactly buy high quality speakers. If the store has existed for a long time (maybe 10+ years), then it’s likely they’re analog, so the quality is also affected by the amps they’re using, and the cables, etc.

As long as the system can still do paging/announcements without issue, the business really doesn’t have any reason to spend money on upgrading it.

For the most part, most companies have connected these to some kind of satellite radio or music streaming system (like Spotify, but more business centric). It’s just plugged into the ancient sound amps for the analog system, often by someone who isn’t an audio expert, so levels are often all over the place, sometimes to loud and blown out, other times too quiet and details in the music are too quiet to be heard.

As long as the speakers still perform the announcements/paging that the company requires, they don’t care if the music sounds bad.

There’s a lot more to say on it for contributing factors, but the main drivers for it are not to play music. With the shift to digital and everything needing to update their music providing device, coupled with untrained people doing the connections for the new music solution to an ancient speaker system, it’s unsurprising that it sounds like garbage.

This is the way.

There’s a lot I can say here, but to be terse, the money paid into (un) employment insurance is more than what is paid out normally, since some people will pay for it all their life without ever collecting, that money isn’t just stored indefinitely, it’s used for other things.

As a result, if a large portion of the population suddenly find themselves without work, the system will be unable to sustain itself, whether “short term” or not. All systems that rely on EI overflow funds would suddenly have a deficiency in their money flow, and considering they the people pay most of the taxes while billionaires and corporations get tax breaks so that they pay nothing, the entire social support systems would collapse quickly, as the country plunges further into debt, devaluing the countries currency.

The entire economic model is built upon things maintaining and continuing mostly as they are, pull any thread too far and the whole thing unravels.

I stopped dressing to “impress” after about 4 years in my field. The amount of crap I’ve fixed that was done by more tenured/“experienced” people is too much to count.

At this point, I’m wearing what’s comfortable. If you don’t like it, too bad. I’m here because you need me, not because I want to be.

I’m still paid fairly paltry amounts, so I dunno if I’m the “highest paid” person. Management certainly doesn’t listen to me, but they keep signing the cheques. If you want to pay me to tell you about problems so you know about what you’re refusing to do anything about, I’m okay with that. Your company, your decision.

In my country, Canada, it goes hand in hand with welfare. One will often lead into the other if things go on long enough.

There’s a lot of complexity to it that I won’t get into, but the unemployment system likely can’t handle a rapid influx of new request, even from those that have paid into it.