whaaaaat

Yep, this is pretty easy. No one ever has to say yes to an arbitrary sexual partner -- if you don't want a penis in your sexual life, rad, feel free to express that preference.

I'll disagree, I'm here for all stripes, and I guess I'd consider the vomit emoji to be way ruder than necessary for expressing a simple personal preference, but I'd tolerate that opinion being posted somewhere.

Denying trans people exist is transphobic. It's a ban in my book. If someone says, "I'd like to learn more about the differences between sex and gender... because they seem the same to me" I'm happy to spend basically infinite time teaching/explaining/dialoging. But if you come out with "only two genders" and "lesbians cannot have penises" I'm done conversing and you can get sent packing.

I'm not open to the idea that trans people are an illness any more than I'm open to the idea that gay people are an illness. No time or space in my life for that hate.

Oh my friend, you have some reading to do!

The capitalist market system is really only a few hundred years old! If you believe Meiksins Wood, she puts it at about the mid 1700s, others put it a little later.

And even then, it took quite some time to reach the rest of the globe.

We've had non-capitalist market economies, anarchist economies, communist economies (of various flavors), gift economies, and many other ways of organizing people.

Ask the folks who run Food Not Bombs about whether they are 'organized by the market'. :D

I remember when I was 18, trying to earn my way through college, scrounging by on less than minimum wage because I was paid under the table. Living in a flat with 8 other people to make the rent math work.

Foolish me for not just becoming a shareholder. I definitely had the spare time between the $7k/year I was making to take that risk and not die of starvation.

Your world would be great if I had a guarantee of food, water, a bed, basic medicine, etc. I'd love to have had the ability to throw my time at a risky innovative project. But, I didn't. If I had, and that project failed, I would have literally died. Downsides are too big in this capitalist world for anyone to just become a shareholder.

Easier? No. Healthier and probably better? Yeah almost certainly.

Not all of us are wired the same. Some of us have neurological deficiencies or disabilities that make regulating food intake very difficult. So I would never presume easier.

Oh, to be clear, I don't think it's a good idea today or the near future. But it's neat that there's an imaginable world where we can power devices this way.

> Just become a shareholder

I always forget that all people, regardless of their capital, can "just become a shareholder".

Indeed. Thankfully, the market is not the only way of organizing people.

I think MIT developed a glucose fuel cell that can take energy from blood. But the safeguards you'd need there (and the ability to ensure it remains clean/usable) are probably a whole lot more complex than building just the fuel cell.

That said, I'd love to have something that could pull a little excess glucose from the ol' bloodstream.

You recognize there's a wide gulf between "things I disagree with and tolerate" and "things like hate speech that should not be tolerated under any circumstances" right?

Like, I strongly disagree with the Biden-style Democrat. I think they are nonsense garbage centrists with nothing worthwhile to say and weak spines. But I tolerate them coming in and saying things like, "We should means test food stamps!" I also tolerate the absurd notion that somehow, Biden-style Dems are "the far left". I think it's hilariously uneducated, but I tolerate it.

I do not tolerate people coming in with sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic rhetoric. It's unacceptable. I will shut down, block, kick, ban or otherwise remove it without any questions.

I am not aware of any role in tech (or really anywhere in wage labor) where people are being paid what they are worth. Nearly every job that exists gets paid a whole lot less than they make for the company, sometimes millions less per year.

So I'd say, pay us all what we are worth, and pay the high performers proportionally more.

Moderation is orthogonal to free speech. They are separate concerns.

I mean, you reasonably could be autistic. Talk to a provider. One symptom/anxiety isn't sufficient to diagnose, obviously. We're not doctors, but your experience doesn't sound typical.

The New York Times. Washington Post. Seattle Times.

If you take Amazon to court and win a labor lawsuit, your name will be ALL over the papers.

Amazon is not known for obeying labor laws with any sort of regularity.

Tech workers need to realize, and soon, that they can form unions that only argue for the things the workers want. You don't want seniority based unions? Fine!

But Amazon has absolutely draconian IP restrictions on workers, RTO, limited benefits, and honestly mediocre comp (compared to peer companies). To say nothing of oncall burden.

Like, Amazon engineers could have a union that fought for hybrid or remote. Fought for oncall pay, etc.

> You can't a/b test company culture.

Trip.com did exactly that, A/B testing fully in office with hybrid work schedules and found that the data strongly supported hybrid schedules.

They found zero reduction in employee productivity or career outcomes, and a 35% reduction in turnover in the hybrid cohort.

So, yeah, you absolutely can A/B test company culture.

(One might argue that Amazon already A/B tests company culture -- the culture within AWS and Amazon Retail are wildly different.)

It's literally just a title. There's no "Dept" being created here. He's going to report to some other existing dept and no one will listen to him, lol.

This is a title grant to keep Musk happy. Musk gets to meme about it while being held to no actual metrics, Trump gets to keep Musk content to chase snipes around the garden.

Musk is being played for a fool and he doesn't see it. He's being treated the same way you treat a 5 year old who needs to be kept busy, lol.

I would almost rather know how many 'blocks'I got off. Like, tell me how many 1 week chunks I get, how many 2 week chunks I get, etc.

Something is strange in the math for "Let's stretch your time off from X days to Y days"

I am in the US, and it says I have 11 days off. If I say I get 0 days off, it says: "Let's stretch your time off from 0 days to 18 days". It looks like it's counting the weekends prior to a holiday no matter what as a "bonus" day, which is a strange methodology to me. (I would expect that it would only count days that it performed some action to optimize, otherwise it's just table stakes)

It's art.

Art is a valuable part of the human experience. Art connects us, inspires us, humors us.

You may not appreciate all forms of art, and that's ok!

Do we find prime numbers slower than one every four years? I would have thought we find newer bigger ones more quickly than that.

The goal of this project is not only to say the big number, but to say the big number before we discover the next bigger number.

Is it a mostly inconsequential context? I think it's exactly the sort of context that is valuable and human and grounds us to events of our past.

That one photo (and the collection of photos from the 70s linked in the article) say a lot about culture, about identity, about life and how things have evolved (or not evolved, or devolved) since then.

It's a story too about celebrity, and how this picture exists in this moment, today, because a celebrity found and shared it. It's completely distorted this woman's day to day. While it seems like a positive for her, it highlights just how much power celebrity has in our mental economies. Should one person have the ability to completely blow up someone else's routine like this? I dunno! But social media definitely facilitates it!

There's a ton of very interesting topics to cover here, in addition to the ones you raise, and I don't think they really are that inconsequential!

This is the legislature failing, not the bureaus though. Like, USFS isn't the problem here. The problem is legislators hamstringing it.

Social Media is a risk to all of us, not just kids. I think it's very reductive to frame this as a "think of the children" moment.

We have very little understanding of the impact of an always on skinner box/rage box, and I think it's fair to want to understand more about how that could impact developing minds and to be more cautious about how we deploy systems that could be significant harms.

Frankly, I'd support more restrictions for adults as well as kids (though I'd frame it more around regulating what interactions social media can offer.)

I'm all for understanding how to effectively dine on plant protein, and even understanding how they are different from meat proteins.

But this study ain't it. National Cattleman's Beef Association pays for heavily skewed study with small n count. Wild to see such a skewed study here.

Maybe we can do things that aren't profitable because we believe they are the right thing to do?

But carbon can produce biochar and and just be pumped directly back into the ground. Getting it out of the atmosphere is the use.

It's partly Biden, for sure. It's partly Trump. Partly Obama, Clinton, Bush...

This partisanism is useless. I'm not a democrat, I'm not a republican, but it's absolutely clear that Reagan represented a policy change that every admin thereafter has been happy to uphold.

This pattern has been played out time and time again. The next steps will be:

"Camp bathrooms are always so dirty, and there's never anyone to staff to help!"

"How can the bureaucracy fail so badly, I don't know why we even pay for the USFS if this is the best they can muster"

"We should privatize this. Maybe we could even sell naming rights. Colgate campgrounds, anyone?"

"(Private companies continue to run shitty camp, citing 'hey, at least we're better than the USFS')"

"Remember how the USFS failed so badly? You can't trust the government to do anything!"

It's been the playbook of every government agency that has not been funded properly for about a generation now (thanks, Reagan). Slowly defund a service so the quality degrades, then complain about the quality and say you couldn't possibly fund the service if the quality is that low.

It drives me up the wall how bleeding obvious this is, time and time again, and yet, here we are, doing it again to the USFS, one of the most important agencies we have in (for instance) ensuring people have access to nature, preventing wildfires, managing our timber stocks, and sequestering carbon.

We've removed some of the structural racism, but we've also gotten much better at hiding and "justifying" it.

Additionally, think about all the votes that were passed when these tests were present. Every one of those votes meant a huge and consistent portion of the population could not participate. Which probably created a situation where that population was at a disadvantage across many systems.

Even if they stopped doing this test in 19XX, it would take a significant amount of time to unwind not only the unfair policies enacted under it but also the damage done by those policies to families. We might still be undoing the damae from them.

A similar case is redlining -- city policies that forced immigrant and minority populations to live in certain areas, limiting those family's abilities to participate in the growth of housing value. A couple generations cannot accrue value from their homes, because they've been forced to live in a low value area. Even once redlining became illegal, those families were 60 years behind in an exponential growth curve. Fixing the policy is a great start, as was removing these tests, but we need to do more to actually make things right.

The sheer unadulterated racism from the past is still very much being felt in the present, as waves and ripples from past decisions and policies led to inequal financial and social outcomes that take generations to repair (if they ever can be repaired.)