k4c9x

Oh, I stand corrected.

This comment is parroting Chomsky critics that stretched pretty damn hard to find some way to defame him.

He compared the US media coverage of 2 similar genocides, nowhere does he claim either was "just US propaganda", nor does he downplay the seriousness of either, just that the coverage of it was handled different than the other.

False.

Not that I think it'll pass but would that make healthcare eligibility at 32 hours too? Seems like this would just make places cut hours to avoid it.

I'd really love to see healthcare completely separated from work in my life time. A few years ago I ended up having to get my own and it's real nice to be able to choose what insurance I want instead of having one forced on me and then changed every year. It actually influences my thoughts about expanding my business to the point were it would be required because so far everyone is happier with a salary bump to cover the cost and being able to choose.

It never really was. Reasonable conversations were being had, just not on polarized platforms. People's knee-jerk reactions to downvoting and "cancelling" every thing that mentioned it, in good faith or bad, last year was a direct response to the powers-that-were choosing the "China did it (maybe on purpose)" narrative to misdirect peoples anger and frustration.

If those same people would have said things like "obviously, it's _possible_ it was leaked from a lab, we're going to work on finding that out and let you know what we find as we do. In the mean time, here's what we're going to do about the immediate problems we're facing..." and ended it there, there wouldn't have been any backlash. That's what going on now, and that's why this post (good or bad, I can't say, I can't access it) wasn't flagged into oblivion the second it hit the front page.

Someones accent isn't actively harmful to others.

He wasn't prosecuted by the Southern District of New York because the case was flimsy AF. So the Chevron paid-for judge "took the rare step of appointing a private law firm, Seward & Kissel, to prosecute Mr. Donziger in the name of the U.S. government". This shit is corrupt as it gets.

Find places that have already been bitten by off-shoring. I've lost jobs to off-shoring and offered my job back a few years later 3 times already in my career.

They've already made a ton of money [1]. I'm sure there will be a few more false starts to grab some more, and then it will just end up in the grift recycling bin for reuse in 2024.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/spac-tied-trumps-new-soci...

It's pronounced "jizzle".

How private do people actually think it is? It's a completely opaque system, 0% privacy should be assumed by default.

Discourse is pointless if no action is ever taken. The arguments on both sides are centuries old at this point. This law is actively doing harm. The time for talk is over.

Would you have guessed a 60 year old woman with the job title of “socialite” would be involved in sex trafficking?

No matter who it is, I'd like to know what reason someone might have to abandon 15 million karma.

And it's a never ending cycle. I get older but the CTOs stay the same age. They kick out the old IT, hire some foreign Sales Force squad to rebuild everything. It ends up costing 5 years worth of salary of the old team in just 1 year. Nothing ever gets past the finish line and the existing software just stays in place. CTO moves on with millions in his pocket, owners are left with nothing and end up trying to get the old team back to maintain the existing software. A few years later, another hotshot shows up.

My questions is why was it posted on HN? Especially today. Unless OP gives a compelling reason, I have to assume it was to further encourage that rumor.

They're extremely active on the voting "issue", in a very "right-wing" way.

I don't think anyone really expects to convince racists, sexists, homophobic, rapey, violent, narcissist to change their ways. Ignoring them is obviously bad so there's nothing left to do but to try and make sure their, technically legal, but clearly nefarious, behavior doesn't go unnoticed at every opportunity.

Impossible was a poor word choice. I meant like no one could honestly make the promises, because no one can predict how people and situations will change over a life time.

Maybe if the oaths contained an "unless you become an asshole" clause, they'd be more valuable.

The oaths made in a typical marriage are impossible, dangerous ideals that, once made, can guilt people into sticking to bad situations.

Bad people don't tend to go around being bad unless they think they can get away with it. Once someone has pinky swore to dedicate their life to them, no matter what they might do, the true colors come out. I've seen it too many times, the idea does more harm than good.

Life-long good marriages exists, I hope to achieve one myself, but the silly oath doesn't help them in any way, and it makes the bad ones worse.

Doesn't matter which situation is closer, they're both nothing like a marriage. There are more than 2 ways to think about it. If marriages are like a car, then there's also the option to ditch it and not get a new one. If it's like a critical body part, someone is way too dependent. Also, those relationship advice books focus on minor issues, not one where someone isn't willing to change, and certainly not willing to read a book like that, and instead demands the other just "love them for who they are".

That's the fairy tale definition. For many, it's just a legal term.

Any decent RSS reader will find that link for you if you point it at the url that gets you the html. Twitter and Facebook no longer support it because they're predatory, I take it as just one more indication the entire platform should be avoided.

Truth: The body of real things, events, and facts.

This is me immediately and strongly denounce the things done in the name of "truth" that I think shouldn't be. I said "It's not always completely knowable".

You're turning the conversation towards fringe cases of "truth" when I'm talking about simple shit like claiming the sky is falling when I can just look out the window and clearly see that it is, in fact, not.

So, in short, I'm stupid, you're smart, and "both sides".

Terrible is a very broad word. Who's terrible? Why are they terrible? How are their terrible actions addressed by their own? Are they held personally accountable, or handed a position of power?

Truth doesn't have a side, it's objective. It's not always completely knowable, but there are some great tools for knowing when you're nowhere near it, or someone is attempting to prevent you from heading towards it. I apply those tools often and one side has proven semi-reliable, the other not only completely unreliable, but an active hindrance.

Until you look how each side tends to react when the most extreme elements of their party do something crazy and outlandish. One tends to immediately hold individuals accountable for their crazy actions, the other tends to give them a promotion, unless they think it will hurt their agenda more than help it.

Edit: To be clear, by "crazy and outlandish" I mean violent, oppressive, hostile. Not has a "crazy" idea about where tax dollars should be spent.

Unfortunately, I think, "conservative" has become nearly synonymous with bad faith arguments, blatant lies, racism, libel, violence, and other bad things no one really complains about being "censored" unless it's framed as a conservative ideal, or said by a self-proclaimed conservative.

I personally know plenty of people that are conservative that can have intriguing discussion about small government, personal freedoms, right to bear arms, etc, without even hinting at any of the bad things. But, at least lately, I don't see many (any?) conservative politicians, "leaders", or pundits that don't lean on those bad things rather heavily.

The problem with building a personal identity on words is that words have different meaning in peoples minds based on event and actions that happen in the name of those words, doesn't matter what it says in Merriam-Webster.

So, I think, if you identify as any label, reality requires that you immediately and strongly denounce the things done in it's name that you think shouldn't be. Not only do I not see much denouncing of those things going on in self-proclaimed conservative circles, I see them being actively excused and even doubled down on.

Seems a bit late to turn the word back around, if that's actually what "conservatives" want, probably time to find a new word and protect it's meaning a strongly as possible.

Brownie points? In this particular context? Seems a much poorer choice of words.

Isn't HBCU funding the exact thing Trump claimed was one of the great things he did for the Black community?

Structured plain text sounds kind of self-contradictory. Obviously I don't know what you worked on but could the issues you ran into maybe have been easier to work with if the data were stored in multiple files and folders instead of trying to add structure to plain text?