reroute1

As someone who dropped out of the process 1/4 of the way through you're not really in a good position to comment on the effectiveness of completing it.

Wtf are you talking about lol

> you are being a condescending ass.

Thanks, MegaButts

> "Can I use it with my MacBook?

Who cares that won't be needed for long

Certainly not cheap...

Just because you aren't at the limit doesn't mean that it will go up though

Ok but I'm saying even with these rules wealthy people will have an advantage in many ways. Funding for a campaign is just one element of an elite wealthy candidates advantages, this guy has his own press and no one can do anything about that. But like I also said I agree that in an ideal system it's a pure mertirocracy for the jobs qualifications, that in practice is very hard to get though.

It's not, but hasn't money always played a big role in politics? It's hard to define where a wealthy persons legitimate advantage lies and when it becomes purchasing the presidency. I'm all for a meritocracy, but getting money out of politics doesn't seem like anything easily solved.

Exactly, people need to take some personal responsibility and stop calling a web app evil because people some donkey spends all their free time on it. Grow up and stop feeling outrage about something that doesn't even affect you, and the people that it does affect have every opportunity to do something about it.

If you get a new job is key. Serious jobs will contact past employers and look at gaps in your resume. If you are being laid off and have bad references it will absolutely negatively affect you. Sure you could get some job, but so could an EX CEO...

Golden parachutes are extra insulation for CEOs and their performance can definitely cause them to exit a company with a parachute that otherwise would keep them. It is like severance except wildly higher and more often than not there is no severance for average workwrs, especially nowadays.

Either way, originally you made a statement about a CEO having negative impacts from their performance, but the exact same thing is true of everyone. A public story of a CEO performing badly is just as ethereal as a recommendation from a past job. Neither is a death sentence or a golden ticket, it's just a job and if you do it poorly you will have negative consequences. Publicity could serve an exiting CEO regardless of performance, that is not hard to conceive. It's just a different level of job people aren't blind to that. But to say they take greater personal risk by being a CEO, I don't buy that, they take the same risk as everyone else. If you do well you get rewarded, if you do poorly you're future is negatively affected. There's really nothing to support it's so different for a CEO.

Color me unconvinced

"Good chance" based on what?

Your work performance is absolutely reviewed by managers and peers. Of course not to the extent of a CEO, but you're not getting paid what a CEO is and don't have the same impact so that's not surprising either. The point is all jobs have risks for performing badly, as they should.

Not to mention sometimes CEO's performing badly results in a golden parachute... quite a far cry from your grunt worker getting laid off with no pension or benefits.

> There is personal risk. If the CEO does a poor job they might not be hired again or have other career impacts. There are numerous Fortune 500 CEOs that have a negative reputation that impacts their future earnings.

This is true for all jobs...

You are a fragile fucking snowflake, and after losing an argument you make a desparate assertion that I'm confused. You're not making coherent arguments get real, you're going on about "nature" for god knows what reason, I'm exhausted just thinking about how disconnected your thoughts are and to actually try and respond would be silly. You sound like you live in a bubble and don't know how to have an adult conversation. And your "ideas" on the subject were just shown to be hollow and wrong, so you have impolitely recused yourself from the conversation. What a child.

What's the answer to 99 out of 100 questions?

Money.

> simply refuse all incoming calls while driving

Definitely the best course of action. Even just talking on the phone is very distracting. No way someone can have a full conversation going and still be giving the same attention to driving.

That's nonsensical. Every response is not correct. When there is a tragedy if you go around with a big grin on your face and laugh about it, people will instantly view you as a maniac, as they should.

Of course perspective and personal choice plays into your reactions, but for a tragic event depression is the normal and correct response. To say otherwise is just ill-informed and foolish. You can look at this as existential or stoically as you want, it doesn't change the facts of human psychology.

And death is just one example of something that COULD be tragic. If some culture celebrates death that's fine, maybe it's the rain they view as tragic, and in that case they would be depressed when it rains, and that would be the normal response to their "tragedy". People don't celebrate things that depress them by definition, although what that thing is may be different events across cultures. Death is a good example because almost all cultures do not celebrate it, they are saddened and mourn. How about when that tribe that celebrates death is attacked by their neighbours, do they still celebrate the death of their loved ones in the same way? I doubt it, because that's a tragic event not just a natural part of life. Which was my original example. before you twisted it into something very different. I said a loved one brutally and tragically killed. There's no culture that would celebrate that, and to be saddened and depressed is absolutely the correct response. Can people really choose to not be affected by something like that? It sounds patronizing to think that is something you can just will away and also unhealthy. Grieving, depression, sadness can all be healthy and normal. Sometimes it is the correct response to what is happening in the world, which is what I said in my first post.

> But don't call it correct and don't force other people to feel bad when they choose another response.

Why not? Why is depression not a correct response? I don't think you know much about depression or psychology

just because you believe in climate change doesn't mean you won't have other issues, like the parent was suggesting... as evidenced by your dying comment. That's not at all what they were saying.

I wasn't talking about waiting to see the proc first, but if you have a passive bash and "prime" it by hitting a creep and it doesn't proc, then the subsequent attack would apparently have a higher chance of hitting due to this mechanic, and not the actual % given. You could prime a crit or a bash before fighting a hero, first hit bash can make a big difference. But as stated by someone else this in practice is not easy to incorporate into a game and you are probably just as often wasting time.

>Literally all adults I know react to their emotions

>> If they can react consciously I'd expect them not to get into sadness or depression like at all.

This feels backwards. Sometimes depression is the correct response to what is happening in the world. Just because you are conscious of what is transpiring within really isn't going to stop true depression.

What do you say to someone who recently lost a loved one in a brutal senseless manner? Oh, you should just like react consciously and not be sad...

I'm a young person and would like to travel solo, but there are still major obstacles. In my case debt. It's not like I'm just stuck in the rat race, I made some bad financial decisions when I was young and now if I froze the progress I've made and went on a long holiday it would be absolutely disastrous to me long term.

I had tons of music on google playlists and almost stopped due to ads. Firefox extensions and ad blockers have made it my go to playlist spot again.

Wait a minute? So "bash priming" or more generally "proc priming" is actually a real thing?

What do you mean free data must be free?

The data is free, but the aggregated formatted data has been worked on and processed, are you saying the resulting aggregated data should also be free? That isn't going to happen, why would anyone do that work for free?

Or are you afraid linkedIn and others will make everything private? That's completely up to linkedIn or individual linkedIn users what they want to make private vs public. Maybe more data would be made private if they don't want it scraped. I don't think that's inherently a good or bad thing.

It is laughable in English

I'm confused about the OPs opinions. I'm not confused about your response. I think it's more than unproductive to blindly dismiss questions, it's telling. How was that confusing? Who asked you?

... And to your comment below...

... I already responded to why, because it's Bs to post a claim with no questions allowed. I'm not calling her a liar I'm disagreeing with the conclusion she comes to.

Sorry I don't blindly believe conspiracy theories. You shouldn't either. I don't care if they posted NO QUESTIONS, IM FEELING UNWELCOME. Like that's great, I'm still going to ask questions, you don't get immunity especially with nonsense theories. That's something to qualify arguments with clear holes in them. I'm trying to get a real answer not make a sheltered bubble.

This is a hollow opinion to hold. If you can't defend or discuss your beliefs, especially inflammatory and controversial ones, then don't spout them off with a disclaimer of no questions allowed. I happen to disagree with the explanation op gives, but they won't even accept feedback. We're at an impasse because you want your own rules.

Otherwise it's just an opinion contest and no progress will ever be made. Thanks for pointing out the obvious repeatedly though. I don't want to e welcoming to everyone, I want to be welcoming to those who deserve it.

No, that's lumping in a huge amount of genuine disagreement and curiosity into a throw away bucket because a certain perspective doesn't like them. Maybe people should look at having actual conversations and not trying to educate everyone.

I'm confused. Why does being a women give a different set of challenges when troubleshooting a problem? The fact that it's a majority male doesn't explain why people would treat women completely differently.

Where are you getting these assumptions? Why would the same advice not be given to a male? If a male and a female ask the same question, they are given the same answer in my experience. Maybe it's that they are not having the same problems or asking the same questions?

Of course people would respond differently to different questions. It sounds like maybe not knowing the right questions to ask or where to look for those answers, or an inability to communicate about concepts in clear terms. And that's not a knock against women, there are plenty who can do this well. That seems much more straightforward and plausibe than saying that HN gives you trivial answers and gives you the run around because you have female experiences.

That's just different answers being given to different questions.