It's better to couch your prejudices in euphemistic language? Why is such minute dishonesty more credible? Do you fancy yourself capable of perfect impartiality?
265 karma · joined August 7, 2013
All I got from this article:
"Sometimes, it's best not to commit to a position when you don't have all the facts (or if 'the facts' are essentially unknowable). But it depends!"
OP has a lot of ten-dollar words, tho.
So, what'd I miss?
> To help limit adverse selection, the government might also gradually withdraw subsidised loans, which the best students will usually prefer to equity. The main role for government would then be to help to collect payments through the tax system, as the administrative burden of monitoring incomes would be too great for investors to bear.
"Ultimately, this would only prove profitable if the government didn't compete with us & instead did all the legwork on our behalf."
edit: of order words out
Like, if a human meerely intends "to grab on anything they can to get out of the [human]-pile", & they're quite rude/destructive while doing so, they're still rude/destructive regardless of how sympathetic we may judge their intentions to be.
Sounds like a good deal for the crap vendors. Also, maybe the instant-gratification app scene...
One might be disinclined to cater to hateful ignorance, for starters.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/Android-view-construction....
...Says an unnamed academic who, in all likelihood, hasn't worked retail in the 21st century.
Tho, you'd think they'd go to a grocery store once in awhile & be subjected to the customer service atrocity that is the self-checkout. (Or touch an ipad barista at a coffee shop, or patiently repeat "speak to a representative" to an automated telephone system...)
Choice- singular. The real problem with Word, as highlighted in OP's post, is its longstanding market dominance & attitude of outright hostility towards interoperability.