The poor spend a higher percentage of their income on imports than the rich do.
The poor definitionally spend a higher percentage of their income on just about everything because their income is significantly smaller
Readit Newsmecha_ghidorah commented on One-third of Amazon warehouse workers are on food stamps or Medicaid twitter.com/DanPriceSeatt... · Posted by u/ZuckMusk
mecha_ghidorah commented on Bossware is a big legal risk kolide.com/blog/your-comp... · Posted by u/nickwritesit
I was surprised (perhaps I shouldn't have been) to encounter bossware-like surveilance in an interview process.
About 6 months ago I was interviewing with InterSystems, a company that does healthcare software. Only when I signed in for the online coding interview did I learn that they required I have a webcam on myself the whole time.
I don't like using coarse language. But it was the first time I struggled to not use the phrase "fuck you" in my email to the recruiter.
I genuinely don't have a webcam. I mean my work laptop does, but I wouldn't be using my work laptop to interview with people. My home desktop doesn't have one though because I'd literally never use it, and no way I am buying one to take an interview test.
mecha_ghidorah commented on Stop Acting Like You're Famous ajkprojects.com/stopactin... · Posted by u/ashleynewman
We are always serving someone or something.
For many, money is their master. Or prestige is their master. Or self image is their master. Or personal desires are their master. Since this thread quoted bible, I will point out Jesus said (it is rendered in red letters) that "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money" (Matthew 6:24).
Anyway, I am not trying to hijack this thread and sermonize or anything. Just tying up a loose end that forms a important basis for how I personally have grown to understand the world.
> "Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. "
I really wish I understood the original language for this because both sides of this or sound essentially synonymous to me, so I don't really get the "either" part of it.
That may be the case for Instagram, which was developed separately and then acquired, and which still uses separate accounts that AFAIK can be created without a Facebook account, although they can be connected to one.
Messenger though has always just been the chat function on Facebook, which can nowadays also be used via a dedicated website/app if you like. It doesn't even have separate account infrastructure on the backend, unlike Instagram. Looks like they're getting around that by essentially creating a second Facebook account, with social media features disabled.
Back in the day I had a messenger account without a Facebook account, you used to be able to create one with just a phone number
I disagree—It ratchets up.
Before Starbucks, the median coffee was worse. They showed the world that coffee is something more than Folgers or something you drink out of a carafe that’s been warmed for 6 hours.
When Starbucks came along it showed the world that coffee is a highly customizable beverage that could be served in thousands of modern stand-alone cafes around the world. That idea spread like a wild fire to the point where Starbucks became the norm, so today’s specialty cafes that this article criticizes popped up to elevate coffee even more.
Today we’re probably near some peak of “craft coffee in a loft cafe” that will become the new norm and the whole process will repeat itself again, elevating coffee even more. Even if this process reaches a global maximum we’ll see demand for novelty spread out into tea, Kambucha, etc.
> Before Starbucks, the median coffee was worse. They showed the world that coffee is something more than Folgers or something you drink out of a carafe that’s been warmed for 6 hours.
You mean they showed America. Lots of places weren't doing carafe coffee before starbucks
Why is it short term? Are employees less familiar with the technology they’re using day to day more likely to stick around? I’d guess the opposite?
It kinda depends on the candidate. Someone who already has experience may not stick around long because they aren't learning new skills, where as someone who isn't familiar with a particular technology will have added satisfaction and reason to stay from developing mastery of a new tech
Ehh this type of thinking is reductive.
The primary issues are a combination of nature vs nurture. The age of argument, the solution has always been some combination of both.
But when you look at our western society over the past 60 years or so, you see that -fundamentally- the nurture part of the equation is being heavily influenced by capitalistic forces. For example, news used to be once a day, then 3 times a day, now 24/7/365. There isn't more news now than 100 years ago, so how do you feel all that time and how do you keep someone engaged? (If you have been paying attention, you know the answer is selling fear, sex, violence, and other negative emotions are traits of the human species.)
But really, the easiest way to counter this toxic mindset was said best by mister Rodgers: just look for the helpers. Look for the guys running into the fray when everyone else runs away... Those people are just as human as you or me... They are the true character of the human species. For we are a communal species that depends on one another, we always have, we aren't a bad species... We are just letting our man made systems bring out the worst.
> There isn't more news now than 100 years ago, so how do you feel all that time and how do you keep someone engaged?
So, I agree with your point, and I also agree that there isn't enough news to fill 24/7 coverage... but there is definitely more news, or at least more news that may be of interest to any given audience, than 100 years ago because we live in a more globally connected society where issues in another country can absolutely have direct impact on us because manufacturing/materials sourcing became something that now happens on a more global scale.
Why iphone? We had internet on mobile phones before that point.
But I agree with idea that internet became dumber with more people in.
I think mostly just the iPhone exploded it, and also made a lot of things much more low effort. Like take for example people constantly posting photos of themselves and food and what have you on social media - pre iPhone high quality photos required a separate camera and a computer in order to upload onto social media. Post iPhone you could do it all from one device.
Couldn’t you just say not enough Democrats support it without somewhere interweaving blame on Republicans?
If Republicans are voting against it too they are also to blame though? If some Republicans would vote for it then it could pass. I'm an Australian so maybe there is nuance here I'm missing about how the US of A's legislative process works, but I don't understand why you think they don't deserve some culpability and a mention?
Artificial scarcity? Maybe. There aren't but so many households with children that fit inside the venn diagram of can afford med school, has the intellectual capacity and bloody-mindedness to actually finish med school, and is interested in going to med school.
< can afford med school
I mean arguably subsidizing med school would be a pretty sensible thing for a government to do if it wanted to increase the number of doctors. The other elements of the venn diagram can't be modified I agree, but affordability of med school doesn't have to be there