3,964 karma · joined March 10, 2017
Rather than embrace minimalism, the better question is if it is more efficient to run the program that way and often times, universal programs are indeed more efficient.
Couple that with brain dead nationalism about how the US is the best despite the fact that we're very much behind in many areas and it's not surprising that so many Americans blindly allow their own government to do so many outrageous things.
There's no way he didn't foresee this.
It would be shocking if he is lacking in self-awareness to that extent.
> opposed to turning private companies into arms of federal law enforcement agencies.
does not explain this policy
> “If you suspect fraud, complete the transaction.”
If there is suspicion of fraud and yet still direct your employees complete the transaction, sure, maybe you're not literally in favor of fraud. But it does mean that you don't care if there's fraud. There's little daylight between not caring about fraud and being in favor of it at Walmart's scale.
People shouldn't forget that they used to scrape your contacts from your email account through some sneaky user flow that got you to give them your email password.
I'd bet up to $1000 that it's true.
In an ideal world, they would want both and would get both. However they have to pick. Hence it is not that they don't want it, it is that they want it and cannot get it because they don't want to pay the cost of getting it.
Yes. That means that your claim
> it's because the government (and by extension, the people it represents) want to incentivize that particular activity
particularly the
> (and by extension, the people it represents)
is false.
----
> Per your earlier statement, that is not what most voters want. They want their team to win.
False. The vast majority of people want their team to win.
Simultaneously, most people want abortion to be legal.
These statements are both true. The logical fallacy is here is an inability to recognize that it's and, not or.
This is where your argument breaks down. Gerrymandering has completely eliminated this as a reasonable belief in most places.
Most voters don't even care about issues, they care about parties, their team. As such, they don't care or want to incentive anything except their own team winning.
> the government can simply remove the tax break.
If most people want abortion to be legal, the government can simply legalize it.
Oh wait!
I don't know why people think is the problem.
They regularly ban bot and spam accounts. This is not an issue.
The issue is malicious/ignorant human actors and malicious state level actors.
Tesla AI engineers can't even get past L3. There's no chance they would be able to create an AI solution that can fight state level resources or massive amounts of humans gossiping and spread misinformation.
Don’t let that discourage you. Instead, you should just do what everyone else does and practice those problems.
——————-
It sounds like you didn’t do Computer Science. This is typically the baseline requirement for most software engineering positions.
However, many people do get in without CS degrees.
What did your degree cover? Is it similar to what’s covered in the typical coding boot camp? I have assume it’s much more than that, since you went to community college for it.
My point is, if lots of people can get in with these types of programs, you should be able to too.
You claim nepotism, but a lot of people get in via referrals so don’t feel bad about that.
You have critics saying things like
> "I recognized the humour in the film, but connected with none of it," O'Connell wrote in his review.
> "By rooting Turning Red very specifically in the Asian community of Toronto, the film legitimately feels like it was made for Domee Shi's friends and immediate family members. Which is fine — but also, a tad limiting in its scope."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/turning-red-review-pul...
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/12/1086040083/turning-red-contro...
It hasn't rained regularly for years. We're in a bad drought, or as some other people put it, a new normal of very little rainfall.
It's in response to this
> cows eat grass, what reason do they have for deep intelligence and thoughts
Where does that get us? It gets us thinking about how does that line make any sense.
> Why, exactly, are "pigs considered intelligent"?
There's plenty of research on pig cognition and it's not like you'd take my word for any of it so why not google it for yourself?
Here, I'll even start you off with one: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sx4s79c
> What I'm contesting is something like "approximately all animals must have the same capacity of thought as humans because humans are animals", or the original statement more like "we shouldn't be surprised if tests show animals do have because we should have been assuming that all along even without evidence".
Your objection was to someone else saying
> It continues to surprise me that humans are surprised at other animals having deep intelligence and emotions and thoughts.
This is not the same as
> approximately all animals must have the same capacity of thought as humans because humans are animals
That is you moving the goalposts.
> I disagree that they are intelligent in the same way that humans are
> if they haven't been shown to have human-level capacity for (invention, language, music, mirror neurons, communicating abstract information, symbolic manipulation, arithmetic, planning, teamwork), then we shouldn't assume they have it unless necessary.
Again, no one claimed that so you stating that you disagree is fine but who are you disagreeing with? I still don't understand why you feel the need to declare this.
This is a logical fallacy which requires "deep thoughts" to evolve the same way we did. As mentioned, pigs are considered to be intelligent and yet you didn't choose to address pigs but instead chose cows.
> And no, it doesn't help to say "given pigs are intelligent, then pigs are intelligent".
It doesn't help to say that. That's true. It's a good thing no one said that though.
> Go on then, say that most humans are stupid therefore "humans are not intelligent". That will be a very productive line of reasoning.
It's about as productive a line of reasoning as you cherrypicking cows.
This line of argument doesn't make much sense given that pigs are very intelligent and you'd probably say "pigs roll in the mud, what reason do they have for deep intelligence and thoughts"
> other animals do dumb things - like videos of ducks walking over drains and the ducklings fall down the drain, or creature stuck in plastic sheet until it dies. Or creature does nothing while humans approach, kill, and eat it. It's hard to see examples like that and think "deep intelligence".
I could say the same about most humans
> But examples of planning ahead, cooperation, tool using, they're so rare they make headlines like this article when observed.
This is true, but the way you go about making a case for it ain't it.
Came here to write exactly that
Why are we still using it?
There's nothing better out there.
Lots of people do do this. Aren't you aware of skin creams to whiten the skin, hair straightening products, eye lid surgeries, etc. The list goes on and on.
> then millions would be doing it and we wouldn't have all these problems
But those alone aren't enough. You need massive amounts of plastic surgery.
Financial cost is one but also the cost to one's identity.
But more importantly, millions of people wouldn't just throw away their identity. For this same reason, telling someone they can just change their last name is makes no sense.
> Race is immutable in most parts of the world.
Identity is just as immutable. You can tell someone to change their last name but that is about as effective as wearing different clothes. You cannot change a person's upbringing, how they were socialized, their memories, how they view the world. All of that is more or less set in stone from childhood.
You're better off getting plastic surgery. At least that will be effective.
It's a bad argument.
Liberal leaning articles get flagged and removed all the time.
When if/when they're unflagged by mods, they remain buried.
context:
other1:
> That’s disgusting. These 4 execs made order 200M in 2020, Google took in 130B in quarterly revenue in q4. and they have the steel procreators to tell their employees about how they can’t give quality of life adjustments during on of the worst inflationary periods in 100 years. Fuck google with a pointy stick.
other2:
> Is it really disgusting? Google stock rose 65% in 2021. Unless you are working at the cafeteria, the recent inflation had little impact on the compensation of Google employees.
other3:
> So by that logic execs certainly didn't need an increase in salary?
you:
> Did they get a salary increase? Or did their equity just go up like everyone else?
> Executives tend to have salaries that are a fraction of total comp.
other4:
> I mean, it's literally the second sentence of the article we're discussing...
> >The Mountain View, CA-based company will be raising the salaries of four execs from $650,000 to $1 million...
you:
> Sure, but "They also received stock awards valued at between $23 million and $35 million, split between performance-based equity and stock that vests over time, the filing states.".
> That $350,000 doesn't even move the needle? Why is the focus there?
So this thread starts off with criticizing Google over not giving COL adjustments in a terrible period of inflation given their massive profits.
Someone says the stock gains negate the impact of inflation.
Someone else says if stock increases were sufficient, then why did execs need a salary bump.
You asked if they got a salary increase.
Someone else points out that they did.
You then point out they got lots of stock.
And then say that their salary increase barely moves the needle so why focus there?
The point seems to have been lost here.
To go back to the original point, the point was that Google denied their employees COL adjustments. If giving their execs salary bumps didn't even move the needle for them, then why give it to them especially when they denied their other employees COL adjustments despite having massive profits?