|
You're assuming that Alhazred does anything different from that.
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
tsob posted:They won't just be trying to rip it apart in the US, they'll spread influence out to rip it apart everywhere else. The US hates the idea of anyone meddling in their politics, but they're quite happy to completely gently caress with everyone else's politics to make them identical to the US (or rather, their notion of what the US should be, because
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:I'm talking about vacant hotel rooms, houses that have been built and maintained but are currently unoccupied, and secondary housing for the wealthy that is occupied for less than 2 months per year. We don't even have to break in to the piles of broken homes and abandoned houses... But are those wide swaths of unused houses where the homeless, or pretty much any people are? Would a group of homeless people from New York city get forcibly relocated to Hellplains, Kansas because those houses would be way cheaper? Could you force people to relocate in such a way? Many would argue that you could and should. New York would be kinda glad to get rid of the homeless, rather than giving them hundreds of thousands in property value. But those are people too, they have friends and family and often enough work around there. Homelessness is not a simple problem which has a silver bullet and I don't like it when people act like it is. If you have a simple solution to a complicated problem, most of the time there are some giant holes in there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:I remember you from Police Academy, Steve Gutenberg So he was in pro cop propaganda?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
Honestly, the guys from 91 don't look that great. https://www.imdb.com/search/name/?birth_year=1991-01-01,1991-12-31 I guess I look a bit better than a select few of those. Those women all look amazing, though. Dylan O'Brien looks attrocious on that picture. From that list, number 41 looks by far the youngest. 
cant cook creole bream fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Im pretty sure, in theory it could be way more excessive than this. In that maximized scenario the dems would pick the all the biggest states with the smallest relative worth of the vote until they land just below the middle. Those states go 100% to them with everyone voting. So that's like 100 million votes. In each remaining state, only one person bothers to vote and they all pick red. So the democrats win the popular bit by 99,999997%. But they win nothing else.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2020 06:21
|
|
|
John Oliver endorses Joe Biden!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
I will hand it to him, Barr is actually good at playing bagpipes. That's the sum of his qualities.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2020 10:15
|
|
|
pwn posted:For a “fun” game, imagine the alternate timeline where President Clinton conceded the election last week to whatever Trump-but-competent horror emerged from the mists this cycle after being drubbed for the nearly 2 dozen American COVID-19 deaths on her watch, and the draconian lockdowns she instituted back in January that mildly inconvenienced American travelers but few others, about which FOX News et al screamed about like Benghazi times 100 for the past year. While I hate playing devils advocate for Trump, it's note like Clinton would have been able to enforce an absolute lockdown for half a year, where no person might enter the country for any reason. Due the global prevalence, the virus would have still bit the US quite severely. But Trumps decisions made it at least one order of magnitude worse.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2020 12:38
|
|
|
rujasu posted:This. He's saying how it was cheaper than you might think, and I'm like, dang, did those spots only cost like 10k a piece? And then he reveals that no, they were 2k I think they had a certain budget planned for that and blew the vast remainder on those George Clooney calls.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
They turned it around on him! John got played hard.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 13:04
|
|
|
Humbug Scoolbus posted:https://www.letsfcancer.com/ They have a great logo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Parrotine posted:Getting kind of sick of these dumb void jokes, really hope this is the last time they keep beating this dead horse, practically television poison It would be kinda weird to skip on the stupid running joke the last time it's applicable.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
He claims that his other writers are away for those. Maybe he personally is just better than them.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2022 07:01
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:Pisses me off when John refuses to acknowledge the actual problem. Like: You could just as well argue that a rising cost of living should not automatically lead to workers demanding more wages. Sure, it's not quite as morally justified, but if your only goal is to break inflation spirals, making the workers eat up the higher expenses is a valid option.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2022 08:22
|
|
|
That's true.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2022 09:35
|
|
|
I am not a chill for big business, but the idea that inflation would just stop when the companies wouldn't rise prices is laughably short sighted. Imagine everyone would get a 100% raise. Congrats, that money now is half as valuable, because the concept of money is a zero sum game, which only has a value in comparison to other people. There are two reasons for pushing prices up. One is that the workers demand more money, the other is that there's more money in circulation, making it worth less. Each of these arrows has a reverse one from the money perspective and the one pointing from "workers demand higher wages" to "cost of living rises" would still have an effect, even if the companies would reduce their earnings. A lot of econ 101 is absolute bullshit (looking at you Laffer curve!) But inflation cycles are a real thing and the Soviet Union did not manage to squash those either. Unless the world goes to Star Trek level post-materialistic societies thus won't change. cant cook creole bream fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Jul 26, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Why does money being in the hands of average people instead of the uber rich make it be worth less it's not like that money has to appear from nothing it would simply be less going to the top? Because poor people tend to spent the little money they have, rather than hoarding it, or giving it to other rich people who hoard it. If a poor person can afford an extra loaf of bread the baker earns an additional dollar and can spent that somewhere else. Essentially by the acceleration of the monetary cycle more money gets created. But it more money is around, that in turn has less of a value. Again, I am absolutely not saying that rich people hoarding money is moralistically a good thing. It's just a stronger factor against inflation than using that money.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:Okay, I'm into unfamiliar waters that go beyond criticizing a graphic here. But...how is this true? If I magically deposited $10,000 into everyone's bank account and also magically stopped companies from raising prices, then how would the money become less valuable? It seems like that only happens when businesses raise prices to take advantage of everyone being slightly more willing to spend money. If companies raise wages and then just accept slightly lower profit margins rather than raise prices, how does that not stop the cost of living from going up? A one time payment might not reach that effect because some people would probably not expect that to happen again and might be wary to radically change their spending behaviour. But price changes aren't just a decision by the supply side to earn more money. If the demand is way higher than the supply allows and it's not feasible to upscale, an increase in price to lower the demand is a reasonable decision for both sides. Think of a nearly empty bakery, and a customer offers to pay extra to skip the line to get the last piece of bread. Obviously that's really unfair and not a proper business model, so it's better to set the prices at a level where you expect to just barely sell all of your stock. Also, in an economy, you want some level of inflation. 1-2% is good. Deflation is way worse. In theory during a deflation the costs of living fall. But this is rapidly eaten up by reduction of pay or straight layoffs. Also the fact that during deflation it is better to hoard your money, rather than trying to invest it as that approach will lose less of it, it would actually be best for the super rich to burry all of it in a secure vault in the desert. And if all that money supply is solidly out of the cycle, the relative value of money increases even more.so the rich get richer just by sitting on their money like it's a priceless van Gogh painting. Some inflation is actually good, as it forces rich assholes to actually do something with their money, so that it keeps it's relative value rather than building giant money bins and sitting on it, while watching it gain in value. Reversely, due to inflation the relative value of debt gets less. If there was 100% inflation each year, your student loan debt would effectively be half as bad each year. Unless you have some rip-off loans by the bank which directly tie the interest to the inflation rate, I guess. That's enough of my half remembered economy theory from 10 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
I heard that as "where's Miss Cabbage?" As in John's fiancé. It's a weird callback, but was plausible enough.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I had one those kind of Fermi questions in basically every application process. Of course you can google "How many pigs in China." but that's not the point at all and it's honestly silly for John to suggest that. What you're supposed to do is to say something like "There are x_1 people in China. A pig gives x_2 usable servings. The average Chinese person would eat x_3 servings a weak so roughly 50*x_3 servings a year. We can assume that all pigs are eventually eaten, so there is a stable amount of pigs around. A pig will take x_4 years to mature to slaughtering age. Given all these factors a reasonable number would be x_1*x_2*50*x_3*x_4." The actual numbers for those variables are completely irrelevant, but if you try to make vague estimations for them, you will end up on the right ballpark. Nobody cares for the final number. But the interviewer might note how this answer disregards the effects of import and export of pigs and pork, which might skew the estimation drastically. McKenzie is an evil company with deplorable opinions and working conditions and I know a few people who ended up working for those assholes. But the fact that their applications sometimes use Fermi questions is a weird point to ridicule. cant cook creole bream fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Oct 24, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
Freaquency posted:The fact that McKinsey presents Fermi questions as some sort of secret sauce for what makes their consultants so “good” when it’s just bog-standard back-of-the-envelope guesstimating is more than worthy of mockery. Google and the other FAANG corps were using the same sort of questions for years and dropped them because they were useless for divining whether or not a potential hire would be any good at the job. That interview was from 1999, so the job interview was even earlier. It was really cutting edge back then. But it feels quite outdated, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 22:36
|
|