I am a Sr. Sys Admin, but I solved this with one simple trick:
I requested 4 x 10 hour days, and I work about 32 actual hours.
I am meeting all my targets so it's fine.
Easy-peasy.
145 karma · joined January 13, 2022
I am meeting all my targets so it's fine.
Easy-peasy.
This is exactly why I tried to redirect you to the core point of my message, instead of the 'addendum'. It was obvious you were looking for some 'leverage' to declare your perceived experience as the 'correct' one.
Now you have pivoted to 'inflation isn't really real, that venue is screwing you' because of zeroing in on one item. I can assure you, prices are similar throughout the city I am referencing. It wouldn't matter one bit which venue I chose.
Perhaps you are OK with staying home and watching every penny and never doing anything enjoyable in life that costs a few bucks. For the rest of the country, they are feeling it in their everyday lives - whether that is food costs, hobby costs, or whatever matters to them -personally-.
Under Trump we were doing demonstrably better. It took an immediate nose dive under Biden, and his entire administrations policies have made things worse - and most importantly, there is no sign they had a real plan to fix that, and it showed at the polls.
It's fine if you want to get hyper-fixated on the one statement you feel compelled to 'debunk' my lived experiences and observations, but that wont change the fact that entire metro areas are becoming either unlivable or pointless to live in unless you are making $200,000+ (in that you can afford the rent but not to enjoy the local attractions).
I'm glad you aren't feeling the squeeze, genuinely.
According to PBS / NPR roughly 60% of the country believe we are in a recession.
You can count me amongst them, because of my lived experiences. I'm not going to continue to quibble about what -I- am doing wrong budget wise accourding to your tiny little insight into my life which this comment provided.. and I think you'll find if you approach most anyone who has legitimate concerns in this manner you will have changed exactly 0 minds.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/23/views-of-the... - 60% number from here
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/2024-exit-polls-fear... - exit polling showing the current economic outlook is WORSE than after the 2008 crash.
By all means though, if you are comfortable then I'm sure 60+% of the country who feels like they are living through something worse than '08 must bet making up things to complain about and hoarding their money secretly to plan an epic prank on... someone
In an interesting twist "American Indians" showed 65% support for Trump! That kind of damages the 'muh racist' narrative too.
Oh and 'Latino's are exceeding the 45% projection at least a bit, so even closer to a 'tie' sitting at 46% currently.
This is per NBC, who tend to lean left: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
I'm not going to be posting more details regarding my location on a public forum however.
"I don't spend anywhere close to double what I did even 10 years ago."
I bet you also have had to tighten your belt buckle to achieve that - if not, you are an anomaly.
Really though my anecdote about my personal inflation woes is not the point, and I just included it as an after thought to provide some context. The core message I am trying to convey is before that, and I don't see much value in comparing individual items in different geographic regions.
If you are genuinely as unaffected as you say, good for you - the only people I know who are in that position are retired already and insulated from changes more than most.
1)Got the platinum plan which provided half a trillion dollars to black communities
2) He also was very involved in the 'first step' act, helping address 'over-incarceration'.
3) He secured funding for HBCU via the FUTURE act, some of which were at risk of closure.
4) Prior to covid, black unemployment was at record lows (5.4%)
I keep hearing it repeated over and over again that black people hate him and he is racist, but I have yet to see a non-hyperbolic example. Whereas Biden is on video making incredibly racist remarks throughout his career like "I don't want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle" and speaking at a 'Grand Cyclops" KKK members funeral... not to mention he was largely RESPONSIBLE for the 1994 Crime Bill, which led to the over-incarceration of black people to begin with.
Surely you have something at least that damning, if you are going to casually label him as anti-black - right? I mean I know that supposedly the fact that the KKK guy later said 'oh no this was bad for my image' absolves him of THAT infringement for some reason, but it doesn't square the other stuff.
I'll keep the rest short, but the point I am trying to drive home to anyone reading this far: Just because you were told 'trump is super duper racist and hates minorities' by the TV every day, doesn't mean it was reflected in his actions.
Muslims:
Less of substance here admittedly, but he did sign an executive order in 2019 to promote religious freedom WORLDWIDE, which included efforts to protect Muslims from persecution.
Asians:
As a large contingent of 'small business owners' the tax cuts for small businesses were a major boon.
Mexicans:
Honestly the fact that you listed this one is kind of weird - like what is he supposed to do for citizens of another country? Or did you mean Latin Americans but just reducing them to 'mexicans' would elicit the mental imagery you were hoping for?
All the Mexican Americans I know voted Trump, and if you look at the voting history in 2020 he got 32% of 'latino voters' and in 2024 that is looking like a jump to 45%. So roughly half seem to support him.
Puertoricans:
If you are going to exploit a minority group to make a mis-guided political point, at least type out the proper 'Puerto Ricans'... but I see clearly you just want to appeal to the 'coloring box of oppression' and throw some minorities out there and see what sticks.
Again, this group went from 30% supporting trump in 2020 to 40% in 2024 -- something tells me droning on and on about how the 'insult comic' harmed Puerto Rico (who does have a garbage crisis) didn't really have the effect you or the media or whoever formed your opinion were shooting for
Anyway, now that the facts are out I think it would be pretty hard to seriously claim Trump is a racist bigot without also conceding that 'your guy' is demonstrably more so -- but at the end of the day these identify politics games are getting tiresome, and no one is listening anymore.
Unless of course, you never cared about facts.
This is exactly the change that needs to happen - the fact that entire subdivisions of housing are being built specifically so these multi-national conglomerates can use them as an investment vehicle, AND all the existing homes are being snatched up by them is criminal in my eyes.
The most impactful thing anyone could do to improve the housing situation in this country is to prevent these operations from using single family homes as investment vehicles. I don't know the 'exact right' way to achieve this - but I'm certain the exact legislative language could be hammered out to make things better for EVERYBODY except the bottom feeders.
But yeah, he 100% can take a different direction than the administration that printed more USD than had previously existed in the entirety of the countries history.
'Trump can't wave a magic wand and un-do what the current admin did, so it doesn't make sense to change directions best to stick with the current administration that doesn't think there is anything they could or should have done different' is not the rationale for my position.
Just look at how the stock market responded today - clearly I'm not the only person who thinks 'this will position our economy much better than it is today'.
I'll put it this way: When I was making $60k 5 years ago, a night out for two in my preferred 'fun time out' would be: $35 concert ticket x 2, $20 ride x 2(to and from show to avoid dangerous driving), $6 drink x 6/2 -- so a complete fun time out was roughly $140
Now the same concert venue and ticket is $85 x 2, the ride is $40 x2, the drinks (if you don't abstain due to the previous costs) are $14 x 6 and suddenly $140 turned into $354 (more than double). And honestly depending on the day or event that could be more.
This is just one example of how 'going out and enjoying life outside your cubicle' has easily doubled in cost.
You can zoom in on any portion of the economy and find similar. Laundry detergent isn't only up 20%. Gas isn't only up 20%. Insurance isn't up 20%. Groceries have easily doubled, regardless of which basket item you decide to focus in on to obscure that.
Great question though - How have they managed to crash the 'living wage' economy so badly that I either have to live like a broke college student with six figures, when I used to be able to go out weekly.
Averaging out the inflation across the economy doesn't really work for those of us 'making it' -- but if you already made it and the increase in price for laundry detergent, gas, food, or whatever else doesn't actually impact you I'm sure it's difficult to see how bad things have got.
I think you'd have to ask Biden or Yellen or someone in the outgoing administration exactly how they pulled it off though.
EDIT: This graph actually does a decent job of demonstrating that exactly what I experience was happening nationally: https://media.gettr.com/group28/getter/2021/12/14/02/c8e93c4...
The inversion happened in April of 2021 per the graph, and per my memory.
However, if you "talk to" them, you are in a much better position to actually hear and respond to their concerns - with the added bonus of seeming actually human.
The way you frame it seems to imply that people are voting for him because he talks 'like them' while ignoring the 'to' them. I believe the hot leftist term for this is 'code-switching' which just means talking to your audience with language they understand and relate to -- and it's usually portrayed as a virtue, not a defect.
In reality, these people voted for Trump because as a result of him talking to them like equals rather than down to like subjugated servants left many feeling that he was in fact advocating for policies that support their best interests and would be impactful in their day to day lives.
Obviously personality matters more than it should - but in Trumps case the entire media apparatus was single-mindedly determined to make sure they dictate what his personality is, rather than his words or actions. So if anything this win shows that policy matters more than personality at this point anyway.
Now of course, if you see his policies as wrong and evil and dictatorial and the embodiment of fascism, none of that will matter and no lessons will be learned from this absolute rejection of the democrats platform.
I worked in an advanced Alzheimer's ward for about 4 years when I was younger. There is a look that happens in the eyes which is a sure-sign they are effectively gone - it's like a light has been turned off. (even if they have moments of lucidity, there is a clear switch that is talked about in exactly these terms if you work in these places and are close to them every day.)
Biden clearly had 'the look' back in 2021, and was making enough gaffes for people who maybe aren't as familiar with the signs of mental decline could clearly see it.
Just because you didn't, doesn't mean everyone else was wrong and saw what they wanted to see.
If you are going to argue 'well, that's just like your perspective man' you have to at least see how that same argument can be turned towards you.
You are absolutely right that it is not black and white - I fully believe that back in 2021 he had enough moments of lucidity (which generally are somewhat reliable, which appear to be tied to the circadian rhythm hence 'sundowners') -- so if all you watched were his scheduled speeches I could see how you may have been left with that impression.
There were plenty of other opportunities to watch his decline in real time however.
Here we have someone sharing a real world example of out of control inflation, which is true across all groceries no one grounded in reality would deny that.
Rather than acknowledge these concerns in anyway, you took time out of your day to imply because they used 1 unhealthy example this runaway inflation is actually a good thing because they will be forced to eat 'healthier'. Completely ignoring how expensive those 'healthy' items are as well (and that they continue to rise).
Then you use your anecdotal experience to further your dismission with 'well, ackkkstually ime prices don't go down so your concerns are invalid.'
This exact attitude is why there is nation-wide a mandate to eliminate the left from all pillars of power. And this is coming from someone who campaigned for Bernie.
In the current political climate, with the current border policy, that sounds an awful lot like a two-tier entitlements system where the more significant help will go to 'illegal immigrants', 'asylum seekers' etc.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-propose-25k-payment-s...
Also $25,000 really doesn't mean much when the entire housing market is set to double or even triple when you look at the last 5 years and project into the future. If your mortgage is still going to be $2,500 for a run-down house that would have cost $40,000 25-30 years ago but it's more like $400,000 and rising now... it's not exactly the 'lift' I think most people want.
Honestly as someone who has been scrimping and saving to try to buy a home for the last 6 years, I would be somewhat annoyed if suddenly every broke first generation person is thrust to first in line for the limited housing supply we have, driving prices up further. The fact that it is specifically structured to exclude people with roots here is kind of a slap in the face -- there is no reason it shouldn't just be tied to income, so suddenly it is needlessly political.
My point isn't really to argue the merits of either approach though - just wanted to give you some insight into why as a 'first time' but not 'first generation' potential home buyer I find her plan to be a short-sighted attempt at grabbing votes. Not that it matters now - clearly there is a mandate to swing the opposite direction we have been going.
I'll also add this though: Under the last Trump presidency, I made literally 50% less than I do now (thankfully got a solid 50% bump right before covid happened) and I had MUCH more disposable income. It's crazy that I am longing for the days and economy where I made $60k and could go out AND save money regularly. Now I have to plan any extra expenses, I have moved back in with family to be able to save, and even without the $1,800 rent payment I am still behind where I was in the last Trump economy.
I can't be the only one.
I am happy to see that the entirety of responses are effectively 'lol, actually read the law it is a disaster'.
My heart grew 1 size today.
"What's curious is how people seem to fall for this and just accept what they're fed w/out looking into details." Pot, meet Kettle.
I just opened a folder in file explorer, clicked 'rename' and then tried the following combinations: Enter L Ctrl + Enter L Alt + Enter Win + Enter R Ctrl + Enter R Alt + Enter
None of them let me put new lines in the filename - it either did nothing, or 'closed' the rename view.
I'm starting to check this out now: https://cursor.directory/learn
Also whether or not he is a hypocrite is up in the air - the post you responded to certainly didn't make that case with any merit (despite implying it).
David Gilmour's point is correct, and the other users is assuming he hasn't used his money to help upcoming artists (which is also irrelevant) while also unilaterally deciding that David Gilmour can't speak about anything without immediately ponying up with receipts because he has too much money.
Call me crazy, but I'm for free speech without attaching a requirement that when you hit a certain monetary goal that your speech is no longer valid (even hypocritical) if you don't immediately and publicly give x% of your money to be counted as 'acceptable speech'.
The fact this has to be said for something as uncontroversial as 'the music industry eats its own, and has gotten worse in recent years' is wildly preposterous.
"Is that a real example?" Yes. It was one of the people who were specifically asking that this action be taken, after they cleaned out all of their local home depots and drove them out there and was having trouble with activation.
That is just one person out of many who are trying to help, while you spend hours hovering in this thread looking to use your carefully crafted but incredibly transparent attempt to look very 'logical' and 'unbiased' as a cudgel, while you attempt to de-legitimize and minimize their efforts.
Again, I feel sorry for you and hope you find peace within yourself (or at least go back to reddit).
"Are you referring to FEMA? Since there is at least one cajun navy style person who requested this that I am aware of, I would largely agree."
No - I am referring to the on the ground actual FIRST responders who were there helping immediately (and continue to volunteer their time, money, and skills) -- not the government agency that came in after. Are the only first responders that matter FEMA? Is this supposed to be some kind of logical fallacy gotcha like "OOOHHHHHHhhhhhh that dude that bought 50 StarLinks on his own credit card and hauled them out to those in need is actually SECOND to respond, doesn't matter if FEMA didn't help those people yet FEMA First, FEMA best." I know off-hand of a handful of volunteers that got over a hundred terminals out -- that could easily make a tangible difference for 1,000s of people alone. I'm sure there are many many more I don't have direct knowledge of.
You literally just fake quoted things I never said, misconstrued what I did say, laid out several logical traps, and somehow smugly think that everyone does not see through you.
"Every claim?" Yep.
Will I continue to dissect your disingenuous points? Nope, my time is more valuable than yours - and it's clear you have no problem pissing yours away to waste mine.
Yeah no thanks, I will patiently await your totally non-biased post-mortem-analysis of the data. Until then I have nothing more to say other than I feel sorry for you.
Zero sum or not, the attitude you have about budget discussions is why we are about to print ourselves into a depression. If you can't discuss prioritizing spending based on whatever criteria applies to the situation, you simply can't discuss budget concerns.
I do not take the view that the budget our taxes pay for is beyond reproach. I have no problem evaluating it from the perspective of 'money is not infinite, and no specific agencies spending is so inherently special that it can not be discussed under the context of where potential waste or inefficient spending happened, and how it can be adjusted to avoid that in the future."
'X seems like a better use of the money and more representative of what the taxpaying public wants it spent on, to ensure things are prioritized properly while properly representing 'We The People' -- as such it may be worth looking back to determine if this money was allocated in a manner that provides the most benefit to the taxpayers while maintaining consistency with the agencies core responsibilities' -- there is nothing wrong with this type of discussion/analysis, and anyone trying to claim there is has there own agenda they want to impose on you.
Your line of thinking leaves absolutely no room to discuss the budget in a meaningful way, because 'having priorities' is not allowed under that framework.
It's a dialectical trap meant to make people fall in line. I'll pass, thanks.
Do you mind demonstrating how you can unpackage the device and connect straight to the internet without going through the activation hurdles?
If not, this is the most irrelevant piece of information you could possibly use to make your misguided point.
First responders on their own volition brought StarLink terminals on site, which REQUIRE ACTIVATION regardless of the 30 days free. This activation effort was getting in the way of rescue efforts, likely due to credit card processors being wary of gift cards. They literally couldn't connect due to this barrier (which has since been removed).
They removed the activation wall, and now anyone with a dish in the vicinity can connect. Do you see how that is different than buying a dish, taking it home, activating it in a safe area with an active credit card that the processor approves? And can you fathom a situation where maybe removing that activation wall will do tangible good?
How can you possibly not see the difference here?
Why don't you go pick up a StarLink kit, take it home and try to connect to the internet without activating it first - then come back when you have an understanding of what you are trying to explain to those who actually have used the things. Or sell your elite hax0r 0day on the dark-web for big money if you succeed.
You can even cost "StarLink" or whatever evil company dared offer their gear a restocking fee when you return it out of malice or frustration.
It should be a win-win if you want to stand on that point.
Yeah no correction needed here buddy - I get it you have anti-Elon syndrome and anything any of his companies do are bad, and you have decided to use your intellectual prowess to delude yourself into this conclusion regardless of facts.
These devices are not even being setup by the locals, and no one is forcing them to buy into the ecosystem. The FIRST RESPONDERS REQUESTED THIS CHANGE, because they are bringing them on the ground with them. They successfully removed a hurdle which was preventing them from a rapid rescue effort. The fact you are willing to cast that as some sort of evil advertising campaign to hook them on hardware they can't afford is perhaps one of the dumbest things I have read here -- and apparently quite a few people here are influenceable enough to fall for this nonsense.
How you can manage to be so upset that they removed the device activation hurdle is beyond me -- but I'll go ahead and judge this situation based on the facts on the ground not my pre-conceived decision about a companies motives.
How poor appalachia is entirely irrelevant, the people aren't helicoptering out to bring StarLinks back to trick the community into getting locked into hardware. First responders had trouble activating and responding and made a direct request, which was granted for humanitarian reasons whether you like the company or not.
The fact that you are letting your biases cloud your judgement and drive absurd villain arcs is clear for everyone to see, and I for sure don't need you 'correcting' me (you also spelled my name wrong btw).
You are calling out other people for polluting the dialog by accurately calling you out, and in the same breath claiming this is really about Elon's savior complex. Maybe if you stop letting Elon live in your head rent free, you can make room for some nuance and critical thinking. Every claim you made here is based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
No, it's really not. The cloning aspect is the least concerning bit. You just handwaved away everything he did as 'what we do all the time with other types of animals.'
In what world do we 'all the time' illegally and secretly import animal parts, forge documentation to hide their origin and species, and then combine them with other species to make large animals to hunt in captivity while deliberately and knowingly putting the local animal population at risk??
It seems like in your last sentence you agree with me, but the first paragraph is spent pretending like this is just like selective breeding. It's a completely false equivalency unless you are zoomed so far in you are no longer capable or willing to see the bigger picture.
If I came out and said:
"Hey guys I'm going to smuggle in panda parts from Chine, pass them off as Dalmatians and forge their veterinary history to do this under the radar since it's illegal in all of the countries required to complete this scheme, and then I am going to combine them with the local grizzly and brown bears to make new hybrids -- I'm going to have 0 regard for what these impacts have on the local native bear population, and I'm specifically going to aim for unnaturally large hybrid creatures to be hunted in open air prisons." - would your response be 'sounds above board, that's mostly what we do all the time anyway'?
That is what happened here, effectively. This is not 'what we do all the time' unless your aim is to ensure making a pedantic point takes precedence over any other factors unique to this particular case.
If you are making some misguided point like 'hey this is just your every day selective breeding bro, why so mad?' you have lost the plot entirely. Your average day to day selective breeding operation breaks 0 of these laws, requires no conspiracy, and will not be a threat to the local populations. It requires no secrecy, no subterfuge, no forgeries, and presents no outwardly large danger to the native populations.
The moment you have crossed the line into breaking these laws, it is by definition no longer in 'all the time' land -- you have entered Disney Villain Origin Story Land.
EDIT: I don't know why I even bothered responding to this nonsense, this quote right here tells me you in fact only read the comments and have no idea what you are saying:
"The article didn't say they killed the animal. If they had, then sure that would break endangered species laws."
He did break the law. Regarding endangered species. In both countries. It is clearly laid out, whether he killed the animal or not. I regret wasting a moment trying to convey the point when you can't be bothered to read beyond the comments.
Sure, we do this alllll the time. Anybody else trying to make pedantic points, go read what really happened first:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/montana-man-pleads-guilty-fed...
If you don't see him as a villain, you are the villain.
He surreptitiously and illegally imported parts of an endangered animal breaking both domestic and international laws (again, knowingly).
All of this was done secretly, down to forging Veterinary Certificates and other documents meant to pass them off as 'legal, domestic' breeds.
He then went on to purposefully create hybrids that he knew were illegal and invasive in his state, he knew was violating the highest wildlife law in the land (who have more authority than pretty much any police department or agency) --- all of this, with the sole purpose of growing large unique hybrids to sell to game preserves which are closed (no chance of escape) for big game trophey hunters.
I couldn't write a better villain backstory if I tried. This guy deserves to have the book thrown at him, along with everyone he conspired with.
Did you even read the article? Or are you just reading the comments? All of this is so abundantly clear I find it impossible anyone could read it and say 'that doesn't FEEL illegal, just morally dubious'.
He for sure KNEW it was illegal given his industry, forgeries, and other attempts to conceal his actions.
Can you tell me why I am supposed to answer your questions, but you have successfully dodged all of mine while levying personal attacks however? Seems .... a tad imbalanced, dont you think?
Go ahead vel0city, tell us what number you think the threshold is for questioning governments spending of the money they took directly out of our paychecks? You have to have one in mind at this point. How could you not? How else could you backup your claim?
EDIT: Actually I should ask - are you an American citizen? Do you have a dog in this fight? Is this money even coming out of your check? If not, it would explain why you think these budgets are beyond reproach, given that it would mean it's not your friends, family, or neighbors being effectively sacrificed, nor is it your money being spent in that case.
Got it. So we mustn't criticize policies and spending vel0city agrees with. I'll add that to the rulebook to make sure no one else wonders aloud if perhaps that money could be of use right now (or used better in general).
It's not an illogical leap to say this is done on purpose to isolate and marginalize people that may otherwise be outspoken and organize collective action.
At this point, I honestly see these articles as pre-indicators of a recession, based on historical observations in my old age, which is basically like the original person who touched on that very thread.
I guess if it was too hyperbolic to see my point, sorry I guess? The point stands though.
Also it's not as if this is the -only- money spent on these endeavors. This is one agency in one year, doing something which was unprecedented until they could manage it via Covid 'emergency' measures.
You can stick your fingers in your ears if you want, but people are going to be pissed and have every right to be -- just like you have the right to handwave it away if you so choose.
I just said ICE off the cuff, but it could just as easily have been Border Patrol or some other agency. At the end of the day, I doubt if you asked many people "Do you want your countries emergency management fund setup so they blow their budget flying in people from other countries and putting them in hotels that you can no longer utilize, more cash benefits than disaster victims that grew up paying taxes here - or would you prefer that money be spent on national emergencies?"
I think you would have a hard time finding people who say "oh please, spend that on hotels and shelters and migrant flights! Their wants come before my family and friends needs."
And before you give me some spiel about how that's a 'false dichotomy', I'll remind you that FEMA is currently saying they can't afford another storm and are being raked through the coals in how badly they are handling the current one. So it is not a hypothetical situation - they literally said that American citizens are going to have to donate their personal already-been-taxed money to make it through this.
That's 640 million that could have not been taken on TOP of the taxes from Americans, because of course people are going to pony up to save their communities.
On top of taking at least 1/4-1/3 of every paycheck, they are TELLING us that we have to fund our own rescue.
Honest question - what number IS worth quibbling about in your mind? What dollar value legitimizes scrutinizing government spending? I didn't know there was a threshold we had to meet for the concerns to be valid. By that logic if an agencies budget grows large enough, there is simply no valid criticism that can be leveled, and the budget must always go up just like the stocks!
I haven't even heard of a single account of someone successfully getting the $750 'immediate need' funded, but I have seen dozens of videos of people crying or angry that they got denied immediately without any reason. Admittedly that's selection bias, but I actively looked for people who did.
I also have yet to see a single person who things this is being handled well... and I see a lot of active duty service/reserve members very angry they can't help their friends and family while they are standby to go die for another middle east war we have no business in.
Things I learned from this thread: 1) Elon Musk bad, despite using what resources he has to help -- any help is an automatic bait and switch to monopolize the internet (lol) 2) Government spending criticism irrelevant, you have to meet a hazy threshold for the concern to be worth 'quibbling about' 3) HN Users are largely in a very bubbled social circle (online and off), and are going to be shocked when reality penetrates that bubble.