dauertewigkeit

Here's an idea: give federal employees tax breaks relative to the financial efficiency of their department.

Fascism and antisemitism are two completely distinct ideologies, but there seems to be an undercurrent of propaganda trying to conflate the two as if they were one and the same. I have seen quite a few banal comments like yours in the past 24hrs.

The ADL doesn't care? I guess Latinos need not worry then!

I'm not denying that. I think it might open some people's eyes to the reality that we live in.

Why is Musk be loud about his politics worse than other billionaires being quiet but equally active in the political scene? It's good to know where these people stand.

I cannot believe that people are calling for the ban of TikTok or X or any other social platform. It's just a gut feeling but it feels to me as though the more the economic situation in Europe deteriorates the more the continent descends into totalitarianism.

I prefer o1. I mostly use it as a knowledge system. Don't really care for the automatic code generation nonsense. Unless I'm really tired and the task is very simple, in which case I might decide to write a paragraph of text instead of 30 lines of Python. My experience is that when ChatGPT fails, Claude fails too. On some advanced coding tasks, I find ChatGPT's depth of reasoning ability to be better.

If they were the International Longshoremen Company, nobody would find anything objectionable about that. They just negotiated a good contract. Good for them.

Good hiring managers can find the hidden gems. These are typically people who don't have the resume to join FAANG immediately, due to lacking the pedigree, but who have lots of potential. Also these same people typically don't last long because they do eventually move on.

Also it helps that Europe is so behind in tech that if you want to do some cutting edge tech you are almost forced to join a public institution because private ones are not doing anything exciting.

I didn't mention sexual assault. If anything we were the most mild mannered of all the faculties. The more extroverted faculties had more issues along those lines. But there was a lot of drama and resentment that originated from that gender imbalance and the social dynamics that it evoked. And tbh, I find it hard to believe that it would be different anywhere else if you have the same gender imbalance issues.

I can just imagine the drama. I know from experience in STEM circles at uni, the gender imbalance caused a lot of drama. The relatively few girls would basically be kingmakers, crowning the couple of guys who were handsome enough. That caused a lot of drama because as you can imagine, each girl had a whole entourage of guys all of which were secretly in love with her. We were of the exact same age as the people serving on this sub.

I can just imagine that drama but 200 feet under the sea.

I know that that's not what you wanted to say and didn't intend to imply that you intended to say that. I was just making a distinctions between the various owners of a share and how each would benefit differently from stock buy backs.

We agree on that one. It goes along my top comment where I call for more democratic oversight of corporations. I think they are internally too corrupt and the top execs run wild doing whatever they want.

The GP is rather implying, > A business only exists for the benefit of Wall St and traders

Not long term holder like myself, which is what I would define as "owners".

I am a shareholder (of Airbus, I'd never hold Boeing). As a shareholder, I don't want to be dubed by a pump and dump orchastrated by a CEO to appear like a genius, get a nice payout and jump ship before the stock tanks, and I am left holding a now vastly depreciated share. Unless you are friends with the top execs you won't ever know when to buy and sell and in any case I am not into trading.

Corporations are all internally very corrupt and all the top execs are working to stuff their pockets first, second, and third, to lie the the shareholders fourth, and the employees are so disposable, they are not even worth lying to. CEO pay is so ridiculous because you are asking the wolves to take care of the sheep.

Just like we have evolved governmental organizations to be more robust against corruption, we need to do the same with corporations.

Don't the industry labs have bigger machines by now? I lost track.

> 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? There’s just too much opportunity loss

No there isn't. People want to dick around without responsibility. That's fine. But most people don't really accomplish anything that would come close in worth to raising a child in those six years, in no way shape or form. Let's not frame it in economic terms. People just want to dick around and that's fine.

OK, here's a controversial statement: Maybe Japanese culture is in need of some change. And I don't even mean, what you think I am referring to. I mean, maybe the Japanese don't have the right entrepreneurial attitude to develop modern 21st century businesses and maybe foreigners can bring some fresh perspectives. I believe that is one of the factors that makes the US so successful.

Not just flagship corporations either. Our modern economies rely heavily on luxury consumerism which is heavily driven by advertising and marketing.

One wonders. If they did a search of the Seattle metropolitan area, how many candidates would they find that would have the chops to do, just as good, if not a better job than this one CEO?

I understand why you cannot just pick a random person to be a CEO. But in theory, there are probably many people who have the leadership skills and industry insight to be really good CEOs of Starbucks, and probably for a much cheaper compensation package. It's just the bureaucracy of having to somehow justify the selection of a CEO to the board, forces the company to select from a tiny pool of CEOs many of them with a checkered record. One of the many ridiculous things that we do as a society.

It's the old age question in programming: Do you use a highly constrained paradigm that allows easy automatic optimization or do you use a very flexible and more user intuitive paradigm that makes automatic optimization harder?

If the future is going to be better more intelligent compilers, then that settles the question in my opinion.

I really don't see western elites caring about freedom, lol.

I can believe that if you craft the profile to the point where it's basically a bunch of lies, you can do well. I don't see the point of going through that much effort, however. Because, (and this is maybe because I'm long term minded), your lies will all unravel when you actually meet the person and start a relationship with them.

Even then. I still think you would do sub optimally compared to real life. Why would I ever line myself up against a bunch of other men and let women choose the best? That only works well for you if you're naturally popular...

There is really nothing wrong with thinking about your partner's "body count". It's just taboo, because like literally every other mating metric we use, it is trying to assess the value of another human being. But is "body count" more offensive than "height" or "weight", or "college degree"? All are saying the same thing, "if you aren't at least X, you're not worth enough for me to give you a chance". And now you can retort, "but body count shouldn't matter at all, because...". Well you can literally try to protest against every other mating metric as well. I don't see the difference. Why is it valid for a person to say, "I don't find him attractive because his eyes are 2mm too far apart". But invalid to say, "I don't find him attractive, because he's been too promiscuous in the past". Both are valid and people crying about it should get over themselves. As far as mating metrics go it is far from the most unjust.

He's got more than enough fame that a lot of girls would find him attractive. He even knows how to market himself, but maybe not to girls. IDK. But Tinder wouldn't be the optimal strategy, unless maybe he was doing it on the Stanford campus...

You cannot "fix it". You either do well or don't on such a platform. It's like being a terrible dancer, and going to a dance party expecting to pick up girls. You won't make a good impression because you don't "vibe" in that environment.

If you try to level the playing field, women have no reason to comply. They will find another dating app, to use.

> Seeking is one of the only sites to do this right. They claim a ratio of 4 women per 1 man, and they get this by charging men $109/month.

Great. Now you pay a $1200/year to be taken for a ride by gold diggers.

----------------

Online dating is a laughably bad proposition, unless you have just the right characteristics to do well on there: being tall and handsome, and having pictures that show off your privileged life, and all that of course in comparison to your peers.

As hard as it is to initiate conversation offline, especially with the norms of today, it's still much easier for me to, compared to getting a match and then somehow managing to convert that into a date.

EDIT: I'd like to add this analogy. Online dating is like job searching by spamming your resume on LinkedIn. I don't even have a LinkedIn...

Even in pretty terrible healthcare systems, I would expect that close to 99% of people dying from cancer will actually be diagnosed with cancer, even if done too late.

US corporations have become so large, they have started to function internally not unlike the fully fledged managed economies of the USSR. A bunch of MBAs acting as petty dictators hiring and firing at will, driven by nothing more than a few financial indicators and their intuition, i.e. they are making it up as they go, just like Stalin and Mao were doing back then.