p0pcult

Not op, but

>she would always sit in with another interviewer and never ask any questions of the candidates. She would just observe.

The second sentence of the article strongly implies some nefarious concentration of power and wealth among the globally powerful countries is at the root of the popularity of mercator projections.

Nobody felt entitled to 5 day work weeks before the labor movement, either.

So, when are you going back to 7 days in the office, friendo?

The only people who are concerned about it are the ones trying to take them away. The books in the library didnt tank literacy rates. Do you even hear how dumb that sounds? "Literacy is falling, so we should take books out of the library"

What does any of this have to do with the presence of books in a library?

Right, so those parents should take it up with their kids, rather than prevent mine from access.

An artistic decision that you don't prefer is not necessarily "poor"

No true gamer fallacy

Not sure anyone is contesting the idea that debt is a useful tool, merely the fact that these companies are typically predatory, preying on people who typically--can't pay their debts. In a country where medical care is expensive and not government-insured, it is sensible to question the societal value of debt collectors, which is all that is happening here.

>That's a shame

Is it a shame? Could the guy instead have written an article entitled, "How to Protect Yourself (and Others) From the Worst Abuses of Debt Collectors"?

There is a church doing exactly that with medical debt:

https://www.wxow.com/news/a-church-is-canceling-peoples-medi...

if one includes the "/s" then they get a lot of people arguing that profit is why companies exist.

Because we have the ability to think counterfactually; that is, we can always imagine better worlds.

Mistakes were made.

Yes, I am aware that sociopaths exist.

I find it amusing that you are using a throwaway account for comments on this topic. It's as good as an admission that you know the behavior is wrong.

>what he needs to do to survive

Robbing a loaf of bread so your children can eat is very different from cheating on a test/interview for a job with a kingly salary. One is doing what one needs to do to survive, and morally justifiable. The other is pathetic and craven.

Just like it was obvious in the 18th century, the optimal loom (the Jacquard) was invented, and no possible improvements to textile manufacture could be made.

Is it more or less dystopian than living on a fiery cinder?

Only ~40% of American households have children under 18. Families are not the norm.

You probably can indoctrinate someone with atheism, but it is, as you say, alao a potential outcome of rejecting the other options.

You shouldn't be allowed to opt others in, especially those under the age of legally informed consent, to brainwashing.

If they featured celebrities and cartoons and vegetables came with toys, as well as stopping the ads for garbage food...I'd guess more likely than not, we would go back to more typical levels of child obesity.

>I think deliberately manipulating kids is heinous

Yeah, i hate religion too.

we can say, ceteris paribus, p(successful outcome|white) > p(successful outcome|nonwhite). That's what I am claiming. It also is possible to say that p(successful outcome|nonwhite) > 0. In fact, both of these things can be true simultaneously.

>You can see how society works and how rich people stay rich and poor people stay poor.

Shh, you'll wake the techno-libertarians.

Oh,I wasnt suggesting that the end results were similar, merely that the students themselves were: hardworking, very smart, determined,efficient. The results themselves are different precisely because of the greater access afforded to kids at the ivies. The result suggests thay top students anywhere are still top students.

This didnt age well.

There's no need to get defensive!

>You can succeed while having deck stacked against you.

I agree! It's also less likely when the deck is stacked against you. If only there were a phrase that conveyed the idea that some people have a bunch of factors out of their control, i dunno say a deck of cards, were like shuffled or maybe stacked in a seemingly random way that broke against them. Of course, theres no cliche like rhat, because that kind of thing doesn't happen. Ever. Not once in science or history.

> it's an error to think those privileges can be distilled down to just a single domain

Youre right, we are all hugely multifaceted individuals. It is hard and maybe even weird to try to isolate the notion of privilege down to a single domain, but often, this is what science is trying to do: control all but one variable and try to observe and measure an effect.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯