It’s not popular amongst those with f*ck trudeau bumper stickers on their jacked up, under-utilized vanity trucks.
But nothing tied to his name is popular with them.
It’s not popular amongst those with f*ck trudeau bumper stickers on their jacked up, under-utilized vanity trucks.
But nothing tied to his name is popular with them.
I grew up in a blue collar area and the normal lines that get repeated over and over is that unions prevent hard workers from standing out and excelling. They reward and promote laziness. They make the labour so expensive the business cant survive. And on and on.
Yeah, LLM are accidentally right sometimes. But all they really do is pull words and phrases that it thinks statistically fit together.
If someone doesn’t like how I look, oh well, that’s life. Seems this is a lesson most people learn in grade school - some people aren’t going to like you, you’re not going to like some people.
You’re not entirely wrong, but you’re also totally missing the fact that people are 100% judged by stature and not just in attractiveness, but in their value period.
The taller you are, the higher salary people will assume you already are making. During hiring, this means you’ll be offered a higher starting salary to try and make the offer more appealing to you.
Here’s an article that references the study I’m thinking of. https://merryformoney.com/height-salary/ If you care ,you can maybe dig up the original study somehow.
This sort of bias is pretty inescapable in our culture and will be I think regardless of our language. Preferred body shapes do change over time, even within the span of a single generation. Maybe tying more positive words around these words is part of that change.
Yeah. That’s great for us. How well does our food handle the heat?
If we want to fix the bad stuff corporations are doing, simply put a larger cost on those things. It’s that simple. Pollution, Safety, Health, whatever… price the negative externalities (economic speak for bad things humans don’t want) properly and the market will sort itself out.
The part where it goes right off the rails however, it seems now that its cheaper to buy and own the politicians, and buy and own the media to manufacture consent to kill these regulations than it is to operate responsibly. Which seems to be right around where we are now.
This seems like a poor analogy.
“I don’t have experience with the ‘Megamart Pool TM’ brand of pools, but I’ve got my Lifeguard certificate through a training program that operated at a nearby lake.” Oh sorry, we want our applicants to be familiar with our specific pool with 50+ hours of paid visits logged. Please come back next year after you’ve gather this.
Are there not already words to represent the same thing to anyone old enough to read a message? A different representation of something they are already potentially exposed to isn’t something that technology standards should be censoring.
Especially when the defacto replacement for this is a symbol of something that could very easily give young men a serious sense of inadequacy and insecurity.
edit: (you -> young)
I’ve said if he was raped, he should report it. Stop putting words in my mouth lol I think you should stop putting words in your own mouth. Either you’re intentionally trolling or a blatant misandrist.
He was drunk, therefore she didn’t get consent. So she did rape him. Period.
However, you and I both know if he tried to report it, it is a near certainty that it would go nowhere, and he’d be mocked and ridiculed for it not just enjoying how lucky he was to have had the attentions of a woman on him.
It’s a disgusting double standard and you’ve shown that you’re part of the problem.
It’s the gross assumption that the man won’t regret his actions. Or that he wouldn’t be shamed and ridiculed just for trying to claim he didn’t want it.
You do better.
It doesn’t have to all be bad. If the city could get the head out of their ass, they could sort out the codes and get it done. Let people who work downtown live downtown. Shrink the driving and parking infrastructure, turn it into a walkable, bikeable area.
Rents/leases could go way down for the mom and pop shops that can survive in the new design.
Other businesses can move further out where the people are, so the suburbs can become more walkable.
If we made the focus on reducing waste, and making things easy for everyone, rather than how to make rich people richer, theres lots of solutions.
It does add context though.
If I just said “it adds context”, it’s not seen as a counterclaim to your claim. It’s just a new standalone statement.
Depending on where you live, how has home insurance gone in the last 10 years? Trust the money.
Well, all the ones that might have were outed by the national alert system test a short while back. So maybe not.
But they’re not. Unless you’re claiming all Palestinian kids are Hamas, and then if you are, or if your ready to punish an entire people for the actions of an extremist group, you’re committing war crimes and are well on your way to Genocide.
So maybe a more tactical approach would be better for everyone.
Statistically speaking, employers don’t.
This is why the UAW are asking for 40% raise, because that would bring their pay back in line with what they were making in 2008 in terms of inflation.
Virtually no one is going to give up extra time of their live to abuse this unless they have been convinced you are worthy of the abuse.
Then it’s personal.
So my question is if thats your default stance, how much do you abuse your staff? And call it fair because its what everyone is used to?
Or the third option, changing to a better employer.
Since everyone seems to think no one wants to work anymore, maybe theres a lot more better options out than than the shitty employers realize.
Sounds like a simple choice. Moving house to be closer to where jobs are is getting more and more expensive.
So that leaves moving jobs.
I wonder why so many employers are complaining ’No one wants to work’.
It still feels wrong to me, to see it written out, but spoken its different.
I feel like it works to go with say, the 1600’s, which I read naturally as the 16 hundreds. But when I see 1900 I read that as the nineteen naughts, (aughts?) because so often when people are referring to periods in the 19 hundreds, its down to the decade because so much changed between each one. Or maybe I just felt that way because I’m so old now.
Maybe in another 25 years, it’ll be far enough away that 1900’s becomes 19 hundreds in my head.