cannonedhamster

Don't forget the numerous meat products already injected with red dyes to look fresher, "enhanced" with soy products, and all other kinds of shenanigans. This is clearly just the meat industry seeing vegetarianism become more mainstream and cutting into their profits and they don't like it.

It says right on the image you posted, right on the front of the package "Plant based protein". Walmart also doesn't sell these with the meat they are in the frozen entree section with the rest of the vegetarian stuff in a section labelled vegetarian. The ingredients are clearly stated on the package. You would literally have to not be paying attention to confuse the two. These are not right next to the meat in a single store I have been at. This is an issue in search of an audience.

How about no. I just bought a single unit and it covers my entire house and gets security updates for a few years and it costs way less than $360 every 3 years. I literally can buy multiple routers and come in less than that for better than what they offer. Not to mention that this "model" requires a government mandate to work otherwise cheap Chinese knock offs with good enough security will flood the market. As a liberal, I've seen enough of the government and their idea of "the internet".

So what you're saying is that there's a variable real world amount of monetary value that you could win determined solely on the random outcome of a loot box. Sounds exactly like gambling. If someone spent $5 on a chance to win either a marmot, a squirrel, a fancy coat, or a golden banjo and the rarity of winning those depended upon their real world value, it would still be gambling. The only difference with loot boxes is that their real world value is determined by their rarity.

This reminds me of a Mitch Hedberg joke.

By their very nature almost every single JS library is a hip design trend. The fact that there are so many JS libraries as to warrant a Wikipedia page should prove that point. Most libraries have a specific use case they excel at, but the hype surrounding them usually is more than the usefulness of the library. Claiming that React isn't trendy is kind of like claiming BTRFS isn't trendy. It's being developed and used by Facebook. ReactOS can use it. At the end of the day it will still be niche until it either becomes bloated to provide more usefulness a la JQuery or stops being trendy and just does what it does.

This is the absolute truth. I've been a lead or performing the role of a lead for most of my career. Recently I started taking on management responsibilities, then I got a new VP who decided I needed a manager because I didn't have the experience. I've seen people who can't manage their way out of a paper bag, but seemingly despite the fact that I've been filling the role for the past year, I'm not qualified for it. It's very frustrating.

Good managers can measure effectiveness. The problem is it's hard to quantify to higher ups, and even when you do quantify the data, it never beats the sales guy drinking with the boss and knowing the boss's taste in wo/men.

Yeah because the Tea Party didn't exist under Pres. Obama. The Birth Certificate truthers exist, Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Anti-Bush, and the No Blood For Oil crowds have existed forever across the spectrum. The only thing that's happened is that the internet has made everyone willing to turn everything into politics louder, less willing to listen, and easier to find an echo chamber. People talk about politics because it's the only thing that's literally relevant to everyone.

American corporations are tools for people in much the same way that monarchies were tools for people. It pretty much is a tool that's only useful for those with the means to make the most use of it. Small businesses often can't use it to the fullest abilities because to do so requires an army of lawyers and accountants who are able to find every advantage possible. Playing to the rule book is especially advantageous when you get to write the rule book. The other problem is that corporations have more legal rights and power and are considered people in legal terms.

Using another example. Indentured servitude used to be a completely valid legal contract that benefited both sides. The reason it went away was because those writing the contracts started treating it like legal slavery.

The reason people go after corporations is because they are the ones in control of the government and what exactly will going after the people who own the corporations do? They often have private armies, write their own laws, and essentially function as royalty.

I've heard about plenty of people who won large payouts in the lottery, it doesn't mean I'd go to them for financial advice. Places that rely on a single test or data point create perverse incentives to inflate the data point. I was a fairly intelligent student throughout most of my school career, but I flunked more than one class in college because of bad teachers who were incapable of teaching the subject matter(There was a single student who passed with a C in that class every other student failed, I passed easily with a different teacher) or real life issues taking priority (working a full time job distracts from grades). I agree with your statement that the issue is complicated, but perhaps some things shouldn't be simplified.

universal basic income would also forcibly extract money from those who have money to support those who choose not to work for no reason other than sheer sloth. The ultra wealthy are very mobile and can move their money at will, unless the government somehow gains the will to confiscate private assets for the good of the collective, but what would that say about a society willing to do that?

The solution is to instead tax the means of capital, or collective ownership similar to a B Corp. That way if jobs are replaced through mechanization the cost of the job loss is incurred by the company directly profiting from replacing a human being.

I completely agree that in the US there is a massive power imbalance that exists due to regulatory capture and oligarch rule, but UBI isn't the silver bullet everyone seems to think it is.

> The ones who make the money tend to be workaholics.

Citation needed.

> You can afford it, sure, but you'll lose pots 'o money that way.

Which misses the point, anyone else CAN'T

> Any billionaire I've read about made their investment decisions themselves.

That's a myth. They have the money to externalize things other people don't so having money means you have more time to spend on yourself and others. Most billionaires you read about that grew up poor are in the vast minority of people who ended up in the top 1%

> I recommend reading some biographies of wealthy people and how they got that way. Kennedy, Jobs, Gates, Carnegie, Buffet, Musk, Hearst, Getty, Walton, Bezos, take your pick, etc.

War profiteering, Screwed employees out of their stock, born fairly wealthy which allowed him access to tech others didn't have, Robber Baron, Talented and Lucky, Talented and Lucky, Printed lies, Money from parents, Externalized costs onto US taxpayer, Used investor money to build a company because he came from a banking background.

Most of the people didn't get wealthy because they worked harder, were smarter, etc. They either were in the right place at the right time and their hard work enabled them to take advantage of their luck or they were born into wealth and used that as an advantage. You're also comparing wildly different time periods with different rates of economic mobility.

That's not to say these people were undeserving of their wealth or that they are bad people, but realistically wealth for the vast majority of people is something that they are born into, especially in top 1%.

This point is especially poignant when you realize that the families that are wealthy in parts of the world such as Venice, Italy today are roughly the same families that were wealthy in 600 AD.

Edit: To clarify I think we're all really talking about the top 1% of the developed world. Not just the worth at large as others have noted most of us reading this are probably in the top 1% globally when including undeveloped nations.

Personally I've really enjoy The Old Reader for my RSS feeds. Not really a fan of the social aspects of it and it's not self hosted, which if it's a requirement for you this doesn't fill.

I've used SelfOSS which was fine, but didn't like some of the feeds I tried to import. It's pretty lightweight though and based on your like of Fever this seems like it might be a little too light.

I'm sure I'm going over stuff you've head of with Tiny Tiny RSS, so I won't go into that too much.

A really small shared hosting reseller with decent support I've used for years is Hole In The Wall Hosting. It isn't a big operation but it just works and does what you need it to do, SSH is extra but the plans are relatively inexpensive.

I'm not saying that I've never had a positive experience on Reddit. I'm saying that I violently disagree with how they've handled themselves and their trolling. It's saying Well Fargo Bank has some amazing tellers if you can look past their horrendous policies meant to fleece people who bank there. FWIW HN is literally the only social networking site I still find valuable so I completely respect that your experience and value derived from Reddit may be different than mine.

Person has a public karma of 59, using an IP to a direct VPS that allows bitcoin for payment. It has multiple business names in the DNS and points to a naked .ogg file. Yeah I wouldn't click on that either.

If I remember correctly you had to allow yourself to be searched for like that, essentially it functioned as a really cool way to search for people interested in talking and for the most part it worked. There was this really awesome young lady I met on there once and to this day I consider it a loss that we lost touch. She was big into Python programming and I learned a lot from her.

I agree with the Twitter comment but can't stand Reddit. It's a site that promotes trolls and actively punishes people for being civil. Add to that completely tone deaf policies from the owners and I just cannot support that site. The mods there are also terrible cretins that rule over their fiefdoms with whatever bias they feel wont to.

This woman completely catches what my college experiences were for me. Great read. From all the data I've seen poverty level is the biggest factor that determines your future potential with race right behind, one would think that we would try to make opportunity the main goal in an advanced society. Not everyone will or wants to be financially successful but when the two things that weigh heaviest on where you end up are where you start financially and what color/gender you are that's not a sustainable or fair system.

I was also a recruiter for a while and when hiring I am always amazed at the absolute dismal amount of effort given when people apply for good jobs. Hiring is hard, someone with the right skill set will have a terrible mentality, hiring for the mentality is extremely tricky and can lead you down the road of groupthink if you're not careful. I'm still amazed how entirely incompetent people rise to managerial levels on who they know but its very, very hard to break into even with a modicum of talent.

Absolutely love LXQt. Amazingly good desktop. Enlightenment is another fantastic low power high feature desktop environment that suffers from the same lack of devs. Both of these have spurred me a bit further into learning coding myself to help out, but real life works always seems to get in the way.

This assumes that the middle manager knows what they are doing. Sadly in my case I haven't been lucky enough to get someone who understands the job, nevermind the process and politics which has just resulted in a lot of firefighting, inconsistent policies, and then being blamed when we don't know what the policies actually are. No matter where you are having the right people for the actual problems seems to be the correct plan of action.

Counter-point, I've flat out said I have an offer at a company that's offering me double the salary you are, can you offer me something including an in name only title increase and been told no. Companies only see short term, not long term. There is also no guarantee of company loyalty. If the street doesn't go both ways which should the impetus always be on the employee to remain loyal. It's a business contract that should benefit both parties. I've increase my pay to over 5 times what I was making just 5 years ago by changing jobs. Should I feel bad about that? I'd love a company that paid me well and treated the relationship like a two way street. In fact any time I've left it's when the company lost respect for my work, not the work I've put in for the company. I've only been fired 1 time in my life and it was odious and not due to my performance but due to me not accepting public scoldings for things that I had literally no ability to control after a management change.

Just because free speech is not without consequence, does not mean it is illegal to do so. Every single person in the US who has spoken out has gone through some jail time. Most of them have been vindicated only in history or extremely long after the initial events.

Which only makes the argument that perhaps your access to firearms should be associated with actual proven need versus want. I don't get why this debate even exists though. Unless the second amendment is overturned firearms will always be legal and that's an unlikely thing to happen. If killing kids didn't make people care enough to outlaw them, then killing more isn't likely to increase the desire to outlaw firearms. Repealing the second amendment is a very, very unlikely scenario. Someone could walk into a nursery full of newborn babes tomorrow surrounded by a full tactical SWAT team, murder the entire SWAT team and babies and the response would only be that the SWAT team needs more weapons to protect against the killers and that perhaps the babies should have been armed as well. America has a hammer problem where they see the only solution to violence is more violence.

Would this not outlaw the entire field of marketing and advertising? It's essentially entirely to cause an emotional reaction that bypasses your logical need centers to encourage you to purchase something.

I can clearly think of very good reasons for most of the things you cited and a large majority of them have to do with neighbors who don't respect your privacy rights. For example it's entirely legal in a town near me to burn your garbage within feet of my house, creating a fire hazard and ash fall on to my freshly washed car. No legal repercussion because there's no "damage" to my property aside from the fact that my car is no longer clean, and my house may burn to the ground, but hey it's their property and regulations wouldn't help this right? When their habits cause my house to catch fire and they don't have the money to cover it, you know what would have been nice? Regulations to prevent this risk to my property.

Hair dryers become a fire hazard above certain temps, same with the tea kettle. Septic toilets can overflow if not properly sized and done on the cheap in neighborhoods. Fences fall over, trash in your yard impacts house values of your neighbors that you can't recoup, width of doorways affects handicapped access as well as impedes egress during fires. I used to service homes affected by disasters so I've seen a lot of these first hand because we're in an area with a lot of houses built before the regulations. Regulations clearly provide value, especially when protecting property and safety rights that either are unlikely to be recouped or aren't able to be effectively proven otherwise.

I absolutely HATE neighborhood associations though. What you're growing in your front yard, who you have over for guests, what outrageous color you paint your house, none of that impacts other people nor contributes to overall safety of others.

The government has tried to do away with filing taxes more than once. The tax lobby in the US, specifically Intuit the makers of Turbotax, has paid a lot of good money to prevent that. Add to that the anti-taxation people want taxes to be painful so that you associate that pain with taxes and now you understand why you can't file electronically directly with the IRS who already knows how much you owe, or just get your return back if owed one.

Doesn't work when the high beams are on and tailgating you for going "only" 10 MPH over the speed limit. Also many newer cars are coming out with "auto dimming" mirrors without the switch but that don't quite seem to cut out as much light. The problem isn't just with lights either, it's with a lot of different features including mirrors that can't adequately capture blind spots and bumpers that cause more harm due to mismatched heights. The differences in vehicles sizes overall probably lead to quite a few avoidable traffic fatalities and accidents.

I live in a very liberal state that has a red belt. Let me tell you, if anything, the racism in white America is vastly undersold. I am white. I've had numerous occasions where people will use racial epithets with me, a complete stranger, in a business setting. Not all people who are rural are racists, but the percentage that are openly hostile to POC or even people with different backgrounds is far higher in small communities. You don't need to go far to find people who literally are okay with murdering people over politics and skin color. I don't think this is some recent change either, it's more likely that the article got it right, the world changed and they chose not to. They aren't bad people, but that doesn't mean they get a pass on the parts of them that are bad.

I don't think urban people feel as alienated by the government. I think that they feel less likely to trust people from urban areas with outsize power telling them that they were born wrong and using those beliefs to inflict pain and harassment on already people already dealing with a lot.

Regarding gun laws unless the country up and decides to make a constitutional amendment nothing is going to happen with guns. No one is coming after them. To paraphrase a statement "Once Americans decided killing schoolchildren was acceptable the gun debate was over". The mass killings are going to continue happening. No good people with guns will show up. And we'll all have thoughts and prayers on our Facebook feeds. The gun debate has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with the rights of a hobby being more important than the rights of citizens to live. No amount of rifles or handguns will be able to overthrow a government that can literally kill you from a locked room a world away. If guns alone could stop the US military there would be no ongoing war in the middle east. Firearms are fun, I totally get it, but let's be real that we're choosing fun over human life.