|
Rigel posted:I wasn't intimately familiar with the issues debated in the AZ Senate race, but a quick google search seems to firmly suggest that you are wrong about Sinema wrt child concentration camps. She's not even in favor of holding families for very long prior to their immigration hearing. Saying we should not abolish ICE != "family separation is a good idea". Its not like ICE went rogue, Trump ordered it. Nuance? I never thought I'd see the day. No, clearly she's a nazi sociopath that wants to jail children and must be expelled from the democratic party.
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
Ah yes, Venus is lovely this time of year with temps in the low 800's. Sometimes the acid rain can be a bit of a bummer though!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Tacier posted:12 weeks paid bereavement leave seems like an incredibly long time. I rarely find myself disagreeing with those who want to grant workers more benefits, but I can't be the only one who thinks this. I was going to say this. People absolutely should get paid time off to mourn the death of a close family member, but anything more than 1-2 weeks seems excessive. Plus on a personal level I've found that getting back into the routine of things helps me get past the grief. I can't imagine sitting around doing nothing but feeling sad for 12 weeks after a family member died.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it only seems excessive because you've been conditioned by this terrible society. americans get a stupidly low amount of time off in general. I agree that more time off is a good thing (for Americans in particular) but tying it to bereavement is kinda silly. It would make more sense to have a federal minimum PTO and let people decide how to use it. What's the rationale for 12 weeks bereavement anyway? I could see a few weeks to make funeral arrangements, figure out the estate, and get past the initial, most intense stage of grief. But beyond that I don't really see how the next 9-10 weeks really helps anyone and why it should be the responsibility of the employer. edit: Oxyclean posted:I imagine it's one thing if it's a more distant relative, but if it's intimidate family, 1-2 weeks is really not going to be enough for most. Routine might help some, but not all. Plus I imagine it's not like it's 12 weeks of mandatory paid leave. Something that's flexible may be a tremendous help because you might be good to work a few days, but then have bad days crop up a bit later. This is a fair point, I was thinking of it more like a consecutive 12 week chunk to be used right after (similar to parental leave). It would certainly be useful to have extra days throughout the following months to use when you're having bad days, though 12 weeks still seems unnecessarily long to me. I'd imagine there would be much more support for this in the 4-6 week range rather than an entire quarter of the year. Seph fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Dec 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2018 04:56
|
|
|
Another thing about bereavement is that unless the family member has some sort of terminal disease, death can happen suddenly and without warning. Compare that to PTO, maternity, or other extended leaves where there is plenty of advance notice to plan around the employee's absence. That's a huge risk for businesses to suddenly lose one (or more) employees for 12 weeks with no warning. It's long enough to create a significant burden but short enough that you couldn't really hire someone as a replacement. That might not be too big of a hurdle for larger companies who could just hire more staff to compensate, but smaller businesses could really be hurt by an unplanned leave of that length.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
Apple just posted a huge drop in revenue guidance forecasting they will make roughly $8B less in revenue for Q1, down to $84B from $92B. Tim Cook's letter to shareholders is pretty damning: "While we anticipated some challenges in key emerging markets, we did not foresee the magnitude of the economic deceleration, particularly in Greater China. In fact, most of our revenue shortfall to our guidance, and over 100 percent of our year-over-year worldwide revenue decline, occurred in Greater China across iPhone, Mac and iPad." "We believe the economic environment in China has been further impacted by rising trade tensions with the United States. As the climate of mounting uncertainty weighed on financial markets, the effects appeared to reach consumers as well, with traffic to our retail stores and our channel partners in China declining as the quarter progressed. " This is Bad News in two ways: 1) Apple is considered a bellwether for many tech companies. If it's struggling to sell things in China, odds are likely that many other tech companies will struggle too (trade wars are easy to win, though). 2) It provides a solid data point that is in line with the chatter that China's economy is slowing down faster than expected It'll be interesting to see how this impacts the trade negotiations since this is basically bad news for both parties. It's hard to say who's hurt more between China and the US at this point, but if we continue to see American companies suffering like this we could start to see more fracturing from the business wing of the Republican party. Seph fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Griffen posted:Then explain to me where I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I'd like to know where the flaw in my logic is. Congratulations, you've constructed a hypothetical that makes your decision look good! Let's consider this one: 1) You think there's a recession so you take your money out of the market 2) There's not, and the stock market goes up 30% 3) You're now out 30% This actually happened to a ton of people in 2016 who thought they were clever just like you. Everyone back then was calling it a bubble too. Unfortunately for them, they bet on black and it hit red. You'll lose out in the long run because the market has a positive expected value - any time you're out of it you're losing that expected return. You happened to get lucky this time and you called it right, but don't mistake that for skill. You could have just as easily been wrong and lost a ton of money.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Sure, I'll just tear down my 150 year old fireplace to mount the TV in a more optimal position to binge Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It's not like I have 4 other TVs in my house. Tbh the TV is fine, what triggers me is the off-centered center channel speaker.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:More people are blaming them than before the new year, according to the polls, so it's heading in the wrong direction. They got blamed last time, too. I don't think it's incorrect to say that the Democrats get blamed for shutdowns, no matter the cause of the shutdown. There's literally a single, online, opt-in poll that's showing a shift against the democrats. You're reading way too much into it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
Axetrain posted:Probably gonna start season 3 of The Expanse. i'm legitimately jealous you get to watch that for the first time
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's because she doesn't have a penis, that's it (not that there's anything wrong with women having penises, of course). Has there ever been a freshman lawmaker as young and as visible as AOC? I can't think of any. In fact I can't think of any freshman representative that I've paid attention to besides her. So I wouldn't take the (fair, IMO) criticism that she's unpolished as sexist. She just happens to be new and in the spotlight.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
Lycus posted:loving billionaires, stop running for president. I'd be surprised if there's not some group of political consulting firms that specialize in fleecing billionaires by pandering to their egos. It seems like such an easy sell to get a rich ex-CEO with an inflated ego to run for president.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
just lmao at all the posters ITT claiming that NYT and WaPo were "dinosaurs" for not running the story, and how buzzfeed is the future of journalism
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:All y'all in this thread are so ready to drop hot takes on the state of the media and accept framing, it's a developing story, give it a bit. the one person who could unequivocally reject the buzzfeed story came out and said it was not accurate. that's not "framing" - that's a cold hard slap in the face to buzzfeed's credibility. yes, the NYT has poo poo op-eds and good ole Maggie should be tarred and feathered, but their investigative journalism remains some of the best in the world. an investigative journalism department like that can't just be grown in a year or two - it takes years to develop the culture, credibility and connections that a shop like the NYT or WaPo has. Seph fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jan 19, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
eke out posted:again, not true you're right it could still be 99% accurate based on a generous interpretation, or it could be 0% accurate based on the how most people are reading it let me take out all the fluff to make it more clear: "Buzzfeed's description of specific statements... and characterization of documents and testimony... are not accurate"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Is this based on some outlier poll or is he just making it up wholesale?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
"Successful trip to Asia" lmao That's like when I was fresh out of college and didn't have enough experience to fill a page on my resume so I just wrote a bunch of bullshit that I thought sounded good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 02:36
|
|
|
Mr. Powers posted:It turns out "doesn't work for everybody" can be interpreted as either "doesn't work for anyone" or "there are some people for which this doesn't work". I didn't think through the phrasing enough. Don't beat yourself up too much, I thought it was pretty clear. This thread likes to jump on people for the stupidest poo poo sometimes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Themagicalgoat posted:Didn't this thread used to ban obvious trolls? How many posters are pure enough for this thread? Five to ten, tops? It'd get real lonely if you banned everyone with a dissenting opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:hamilton and uber are not in any sort of direct competition anymore than "turtles" and 'apps" are. There is no way or need to rank the importance of either and it's hilarious that people have gone on for pages trying to figure out if a musical or a taxi app are better. It's clearly a metaphor for the STEM vs. liberal arts debate, framed by someone who is anti-STEM. Noted lovely company Uber represents all STEM majors while the incredibly successful musical Hamilton represents the liberal arts. Also, let's conveniently ignore all counter-examples to keep the anti-STEM circlejerk going!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Honey Trap Queen posted:Racism, just a dissenting opinion. To be honest I don't really give a poo poo about any of the poster-specific drama ITT, my initial point was that this thread can sometimes be a purity contest and if they started banning this thread would become even more of an echo chamber. Seph fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jan 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
heyitsamanda posted:Uh, my brother drives with Lyft and Uber, and I have to say 100% gently caress the taxi industry. And he *crushes* out ~$1200-1500/week in the metropolitan area we live in. I also dated a taxi driver for ~5 months in NYC, and from that (granted its anecdotal) experience I can say the taxi industry is sketchy as gently caress. Before uber made taxi drivers irrelevant anyways, the medallion hustle and leasing of medallions and control that gave Capital was bullshit. I think a lot of the pro-taxi people ITT have never had to deal with taxis on a regular basis, especially before ride sharing apps came around. In my experience there was massive problem with customer service, scamming and racism in the taxi industry in NYC and Boston. Often it was a gruff, abrasive driver who would try to take the long way back or demand cash upfront because "the meter is broken". Also, good luck getting in a cab in the first place if you were black/latino or had to go somewhere outside the urban core. It's gotten better since Uber/Lyft came around since they know they don't have a monopoly and a captive customer base anymore. The taxis are reaping what they've sown for decades with monopolistic pricing and terrible customer service. Seph fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:So you're advocating for a regulated system where people can get a ride from one place to another and the drivers and cars are licensed and regulated and, in addittion, the drivers can make a good living? If your point here is that somehow taxis fit this description then you're wrong. Most of the medallion systems are exploited by people with capital who contract out the jobs just like Uber. In Boston, some cabbies were paying medallion owners $500/night for the privilege of driving their cab. They got to keep whatever they made on top of that. Ideally the solution would be a simple system with no artificial cap on licenses, a mandatory government-sponsored app that would allow tracking and real-time monitoring of the cab, and the ability to register your own car as a taxi (with a certain set of parameters, say make, model and age). Basically Uber but without Uber.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:I feel like I've lost my mind. People scam you. If you regularly pass out in the back of a vehicle that is driven by someone who is paid by the length and/or time you're in the vehicle they're going to take the long way. This has nothing to do wirh public transit. It just means you're an idiot. Cool. Let's blame the victim and excuse the decades of terrible customer service and outright scamming in the taxi industry.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:the medallion cap is there to prevent cabs from flooding the streets and destroying city streets by drastically increasing the wear and tear on the infrastructure It's the law of unintended consequences. Sure that sounds fine in theory, but when you put up barriers to a low-skill, high-demand job it gets abused by those with power.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
Giggy posted:This thread is just screaming "I'M A CUSTOMER AND DEMAND GREAT RESPECT." Ah yes, we're so entitled because we want to avoid taxi scams, poor service, and racist drivers selecting against POC. Tell me more about how taxi drivers are just poor innocent people crushed by capitalism, and how it's me who's the rear end in a top hat for wanting a better system for consumers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:this happens in Uber and Lyft all the time You're right, it's not perfect, but it happens way less than with regular taxis who face no repercussions. Unlike uber/lyft drivers who are penalized if they cancel too many rides after accepting. Compared to the numerous occasions I've seen of open taxis blowing past a POC hailing them. There's also the fact that taxis don't often search for fares in areas where POC live (Bronx, deep Brooklyn, Dorchester, etc.) so even if the drivers aren't racist you're at an inherent disadvantage compared to an app where you can summon the car to your doorstep. Seph fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Debate and discussion? In my D&D?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:I truly can't imagine a life where I have opinions on how a taxi cab company has treated me versus their drivers. What a world! It's almost like people live in different areas with different transportation needs! Who would have thought some people need to take taxis a lot am i rite???
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:Holy poo poo. It's like someone put Hillary, Obama, and Trump into a blender and then added extra authoritarianism. I mean, holy poo poo. On the other hand, maybe parents should be responsible for their kids going to school and this is a good motivator? It's been shown that having deadbeat parents can lead to many issues down the line that end up being society's problem to fix (e.g. crime, teenage pregnancies, high school dropouts). Plus, what she mentioned specifically was for elementary school truancy. If your 8-year-old kid has recurring unexcused absences you're a loving terrible parent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Problem: parents aren't sending their kids to school It's a carrot and stick approach like she said in the video (which you probably didn't watch). The elementary school offers programs to help get kids into school. If the parent, despite all the programs, doesn't send their kid to school, then they get punished. I'd go a step further and say if they repeatedly let their third grader skip school then they should probably lose their rights as a parent all together. Kids deserve better than lovely deadbeat parents.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Do you think the foster care system is going to be better for those kids? The foster program certainly has its flaws, don't get me wrong, but I'd almost certainly say it's better than a homeless mother who isn't looking out for their child. The state should absolutely take every possible measure to help parents get their kids to school, but at some point responsibility has to fall onto the parent. If they are unable or unwilling to get their child to school I think they are unfit to be a parent in general.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:gently caress you Obviously the goal is to try to reduce homelessness and separating a child from their parents should be an absolute last resort. But we have to acknowledge this problem is happening now and requires an immediate solution rather than waiting for the homelessness problem to be fixed which will take years and years (and realistically might not ever be completely solved). A kid who is repeatedly missing school for years is statistically a lost cause. And please don't do what this thread is great at and spin my post like I'm advocating to round up all homeless mothers and send them to jail immediately. All I'm saying is at some point, once all other options are exhausted, there needs to be a punishment for denying your child the fundamental right of an education.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 23:58
|
|
|
Uncleanly Cleric posted:Are you loving serious? It sounds like you had parents who were looking out for you and trying to provide the best they could. That's not what I'm talking about. This is a situation where the mother couldn't even get their kids to go to school.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Thank you for sharing your unbelievably ill-informed, useless, and completely wrong assumptions So what sort of fundamental obligations does a parent have to their child? I'd argue food, shelter (could be a car, or some sort of encampment, not necessarily a house) and education. If they're failing to provide all three then they're not fit to be a parent IMO. Do you disagree with any of that?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:surely, surely, we can jail some decency into these Welfare Queens. You're really good at coming up with straw men. My family was a foster family so I have first hand experience with the foster system. Every kid that was a part of our family was 100% better off than they were with their birth parents. We even ended up adopting two of my brothers from the foster system. Some of my foster brothers and sisters came from really lovely homes/situations and that's probably why I have zero tolerance for deadbeat parents, since I've seen first hand how it fucks up kids. I'll concede that Kamala Harris' specific plan was too heavy handed, and 6 days is too few to charge the parents with any sort of crime. But I do think that there needs to be some sort of punishment if a parent repeatedly fails to give their children the basic necessities even after being offered support by the state.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I go on a big posting spree about how bad it is every few months when it comes up because it is just so spectacularly, shockingly, and completely unconscionably bad. While there is a public perception that there are some bad placements (homes), the reality is that most foster placements are really bad on a multitude of levels. I can only speak for my personal experience, but my family was a foster home for a while and the other foster families we associated with all were extremely loving and supportive to the foster kids. This was in Austin in the 90's for what it's worth. The social workers did seem incredibly overworked but it didn't really have an impact on our day-to-day life, it was more of a hassle when a kid was joining or leaving our home and we had to deal with the legal system. Of course it's entirely possible that we were in some sort of good-foster-home bubble, but I do know there are lots of good homes out there genuinely helping out kids in need. Seph fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:What's your opinion of Trump putting kids in cages and tents? You're right, wanting parents to send their kids to school is exactly the same as putting kids in cages.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Grape posted:I don't get it. What does this prove? To who? It's to poison the term "Green New Deal" as partisan, over-reaching legislation. He is hoping that the narrative will be any green legislation is "impossible to pass in the Senate" - which makes it harder for the Democrats to gain momentum even with more moderate legislation. It's a good play that has little downside for him and can definitely make the Dem's lives harder.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 10:22 |
|
|
Grape posted:That seems incredibly dumb and ineffective. It might not work, but it also costs McConnell nothing to hold a vote and have his entire caucus vote against it. If it does work, he's hurt the Dem's chance of passing green legislation for almost no cost. It's a no brainer from his perspective.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2019 03:10
|
|