|
boop the snoot posted:How come chuds haven’t decided to release their own vaccine that will make people more chudly? They did exactly that; live virus mass inoculation events all August through October last year, in advance of completion even the first mRNA vaccine, delivered with a healthy dose of
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/01/politics/fact-check-psaki-sanctions-saudi-crown-prince/index.html Well, we don't usually do it to nuclear adversaries and strategic allies.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:That's why you shouldn't have big dogs in town. post/username combo
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
Walking into the room and throwing a bottle into a crowd, confident that it'll hit an imperialist or, at the minimum, someone who cowardly refused to die fighting imperialism, is how N4I says hello. Hello N4I!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Bill's now out of Congress, Democrats amazingly didn't Democrat it too badly. Cash for kids is a scam, you could easily get $5000-$6000 on the open market.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
PookBear posted:lol, they're not there to secure the oil for 'MERICA, oil is just one of the major revenue sources for Saddam. The troops are the to ensure the piddling amount of oil doesn't serve as a lifeline for the Republican Guard. Which is not and never was what is meant by "blood for oil". Though there's a lot to question about the overall strategy and endgame, dropping a handful of troops into key areas to shore up Kuwait is a pretty effective tactic. Excellent form. Even if I think there's more nuance to uncover, this represents salient points in an effective manner.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Handsome Ralph posted:A noble is very upset about senior noble pay. I don't want to give them more money, but I do suspect "providing no incentive to show initiative or perform above peers for a decade" is one of those things nobody in their right mind would design intentionally but emerges because of a combination of factors unique to the military. I also can't think of a meaningful way to do it that wouldn't require a huge increase of pay, as I suspect the qualitative difference between 199,000 and 220,000 is nowhere near the difference between 50,000 and 71,000. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Maybe ensuring there are incentives and paths for O-6 through O-8 to show and be rewarded for initiative would be better and let the three and four stars mostly spin plates. Edit: Stultus Maximus posted:It's not low flag pay that causes the best and brightest to leave the military. Also this, at least not directly. I don't think more pay is demonstrated to help here, especially since it would be tied to long term improvements post serving in these positions, but it does bring to light a potential contributing factor: what incentives are provided to flag officers to actually try and solve the issues that do cause the best and the brightest to leave? Can love of country or congressional mandate provide motivation to overcome beauracracy and institutional inertia? I'd wager no. piL fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Mar 16, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:I'd argue that by the fact that they're still in and at the top of the pyramid after 30 years, they are not going to understand those issues much less try to solve them. Good point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Richard Bong posted:Why in the gently caress are they making excuses for this heinous poo poo. Like I know why, but gently caress is it grating to read poo poo like “he takes responsibility” gently caress that and gently caress him and gently caress the cops that are spouting that poo poo. In response to this post, I googled for the quote and found the video here. The context of the quoted response was after a series of questions asking about religious, political, or other motivations. There is nothing in this particular source of this particular quote suggesting leinancy, other than the notion that the suspect is claiming it was motivated by his addiction and his anger at the addiction. Maybe its subtle ploy of white privilege to make the suspect seem less suspect, but its it is conceivable that the speaker, having already stated earlier in the statement that these were the claims of the suspect, failed to do so often enough to ensure that excerpts of the talk would include this. That would also require journalists and Twitter discourse participants to have failed fully describing context of their quotes and exceprts which seems an unlikely coincidence. I'd rather people focus on the actual ways they'll gently caress this up instead of this kind of stuff. Standing by to receive condemnation re: how I'm evil and supporting police and fascism for not trusting my own interpretive biases and checking sources.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
Godholio posted:They don't care. Maybe, but I'm optimistic. I think we all get taken in by the tropes of "new" media--my messages elsewhere here are often enough filled with poorly researched hot takes I've sent to friends, excited about somebody touting ideas I agree with but demonstrated by more wit than evidence. Some of those friends are willing to call me on it, and that helps me stay true. We're on enough different social media sites that we're not just here because of inertia any more--I think people are here because it's a more elegant social media of a civilized age. In its archaic fashion it provides diversity of opinion and nuance that algorithms and short formats lose while engendering more meaningful discussion than one-way vectors like blog posts and videos can accomplish. If people are here for that, then the occasional reminder to be critical can be valuable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:I absolutely agree with you here! Power is the motivation for all of this poo poo, because when they can use the damage they sow to get power, they can use it to cause more damage to siphon more power. It's a snowball effect and it's scary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
You can get anything you want at a warrior restaraunt.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:What do any of y'all recommend for news? Most of the papers I check daily (CNN, NYT,) are pretty lovely. I also occasionally read al-jazeera english or the BBC if there are international events in trying to follow. My usual hot spots This thread Soufan Center newsletter https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2021-march-19/ Bellingcat front page https://www.bellingcat.com/ The NYT newsletter Maritime stuff (probably not as relevant to you) USNI News https://news.usni.org/ gcaptain https://gcaptain.com/kongsberg-to-equip-first-u-s-built-wind-turbine-installation-vessel/ Most my general news comes during hygiene/travel in the morning podcasts that you're not interested in, included for completeness: Marketplace (especially morning reports) NPR Up First And rarely, the NYT Daily Edit: previous post reminded me I should add ProPublica to this list.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 15:47
|
|
|
BBC America should open a European division.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:You can have good news without supporting terrible shitheads with your subscriptions This sounds great. Please continue your post. Edit: I don't read FT or WSJ, but I want good news.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Oh one of the Tokyo local tv stations also has a show called "Healing Time & Headline News" that's been running for decades, just ambient music and slow-TV visuals with a news ticker along the bottom. There's a $100/month YouTube channel idea in an English language streaming version of that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
US Berder Patrol posted:Yeah, entree is the first course, you know, "entry". Wish people would just call them "main" instead of the wrong French word Look at this 16th century Frenchman
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Why would we expect Saudi Arabia not to? Last year, China was the US's third largest recipient in energy exports (1st and 2nd were Mexico and Canada). It's not as if NATO does any differently, even as they implement sanctions over wars of conquest.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
That Works posted:Ever Given piloted by one of yall tbh o7
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 02:17
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:a blackout plus unexpected strong winds in that canal is pretty much worst case The ship would lose its ability to maintain its heading and seek to flatten against the wind as it slowed, thus getting screwed canally.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
orange juche posted:These are actually good questions, of course insecure idiots are going to get bent up about the questions though because troop can never be bad/do bad/might makes right It's a bit leading because a more reasonable set of questions should probably be, "can war be justified?", "for whom?", etc. And actually, for all of those it should be honed more specifically to fighting in war, declaring war, encouraging war--you don't justify a state, you justify an action. On the other hand, I recommend professionals in the trade of war get comfortable enough with the language to give complex answers to children, starting with the sentence: 'it depends' or 'sometimes... here are the situations in my opinion'.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Also consider what may be one of the less well articulated problems with those questions: students and parents may not be ready to ask or answer those questions based on the conditions of the parents (maybe not a great on the phone question with a deployed mom after a particularly harrowing day), or the maturity of the student. At a specific grade at a specific date is probably not a good sorting mechanism for who is and isn't ready for that question. The value of the questions mean they probably should be asked though, and 8th grade, while maybe a little forward leaning, is a point where maybe they should encounter these thoughts before heading into a more genpop environment like high school. I suppose this is the sort of situation that would be great for parent teacher collaboration I think. A lot of editing for my terrible phone posting. piL fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Mar 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
A Bad Poster posted:We just need to build a nuclear powered giant robot to use it like a katana. Dr. Luthor, you said this about the Guardian grounding, the mine collapse, and COVID-19. I'm starting to think its more about nuclear powered giant robots with katanas with you than it is solutions. What's that PhD in anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
To everyone disgusted that the training didn't do a good job of calling out people specifically, I invite you to consider the three presumptive purposes of the training. First, allowing senior leadership to say they did something. Two, establish a legal basis for future administrative or legal action. For that, you need a largely receptive audience and can't call people out. Congrats, you've been trained, and you your responsible for the content of that training. Showing up at riot can more effectively be prosecuted regardless of topcover encouraging said riot. Three, nudge people on a dangerous trajectory away from that trajectory. Vague language is necessary for this to keep people from shutting it out--while a QANON member probably wont read or internalize the rest of the slide anyway, they certainly won't if it starts with bold capital letters "QANON IS A CULT OF FACISM DISGUISED AS A MOVEMENT OF MORAL IMPERATIVE." It also might have to be delivered by a member of the target audience; you can't have them realise they are the target until after the training. If you're not a vulnerable person readily moved to acts of sedition--you weren't the target audience. But they don't know that you aren't, so you had to go anyway. If a person is a tattooed card-carrying neonazi, they also not part of the parent audience. PowerPoint won't fix that. That's my read in order of importance. I suspect more leadership than it seems is in agreement, but anything more severe would require them to take a stand. That stand will put their head out of cover and they will be replaced successively until someone who learns to keep their mouth shut is in the spot--thats the first field grade test in a military without active conflict with a near peer and why so many people get fired at the start of a war. I don't think it was useless, but I have trouble imagining anything more substantial coming out. This problem needs sets and reps not a single solution.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:That makes some sense - it was repeatedly emphasized that it was a first step and something similar to it will later be developed/emphasized or whatever. And to be clear, more intentions are dropped than completed so I fully expect there won't be a satisfying conclusion to the whole thing before people are distracted by the next problem that needs solving. But hopefully there is! piL fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Mar 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Tucker Carlson calls for armed invasion of Egypt. Lets give the man a rifle!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
What is wrong with the following idea: taxing businesses based upon employee distance from work help with incentives for jobs with utilized commute programs? Havw it only apply to new hires, only after one-year of employment, businesses with over X employees, and certain categories of business. A program like this would probably need to be run at the city level (with state support) in concert with construction programs and neighborhood development programs to make sure there's actually places for people to move. Medium business owner and McDonalds franchisee both have little power to make sure that affordable human infrastructure like schools, businesses, etc or housing is available for people so any plan needs to include it. Pro: Long term, businesses are incentivized to hire locally or receive credit for managing programs that mitigate environmental and maintenance costs. Mitigation: There's a window for employees to relocate and enough of a window for employers to determine whether a hire is a long-term hire, and, if so, take action to help support said move. The employer is caught between rehiring/retraining expenses or additional taxes or assisting with relocation. Con: The incentives for employees are obfuscated, with incentive for businesses to fire new employees after their first year if they don't relocate or not hire them if they don't live close--I don't like that very much, but if the objective is to create incentives for people to be closer to their work, I don't know how you can completely avoid this problem. This is all tax as a lever which I'm becoming increasingly less of a fan of. piL fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Mar 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
UP THE BUM NO BABY posted:Then why not bump it all the way up? Raising it to a level where it is lower than before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is just dumb I suspect it's lost on the search for consensus. Increasing corporate tax is an indirect tax on everyone's 401K and non federal pension, as well as the obvious: investments. So if a legislator favors an increase in corporate tax, they can be branded as being willing to affect retirement. I assume an aide or a staffer or a researcher or legislator-- some part of the beauracracy rightly recognizes that the system is too byzantine. It's unfair and favors not based on policy goals or net good, but by luck or accounting. We can reduce variance and have a more stable take, and everyone can spend less money on accountants. Businesses with easier tax situations can make more reasonable predictions and take less risk with their assumptions. So they rightly start the process and say, this law right here, it's not going to affect retirees. If we need more money, that's a separate law, but this one can't affect retirees. On paper, we'll count the beans with deductions and propose a beans without deductions that totals the same amount or even less. Itll be the same amount of money without hurting overall profits. We're not hurting retirees, so you're safe to vote for it without being accused of putting grandma on the street because this particular revision isn't about changing income, it's a restructuring of income. But, and probably before it even leaves that staffer's office, the what-abouts start creeping in, and people make compromises just trying to make the dang thing passable. This narrative is complete presumption, but what I mean to show is why it could get messed up even if someone's heart was in the right place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You don't see how this will massively impact the poor? Nope, it's why I asked.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Because now you're effectively penalizing any potential employers outside of the local area, thereby restricting personal mobility and the opportunity to get out of bad neighborhoods or situations. Off the top of my head I'm thinking smart kids trying to get out of high crime areas, DV victims trying to rebuild their lives, or just people who don't like where they are but don't have the kind of cash to just up and move. I had hoped the timeframes would account sufficiently for that. Do you think there are other ways to address this or is the harm always going to outweigh the benefits of transitioning away from one-person-one-car? Any thoughts on how to measure or assess this harm to employees vs the harm caused by businesses being motivated to hire more distant employees lower wages? Those harms I refer to being additional costs of transportation placed on employees (cost in time of money of transport) and the commons (environmental, infrastructure)?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You're still putting all of the cost and risk on the individual. There's no comparison here. It's 100% pushed onto the person, and they STILL have to fight to get hired in the first place. It's already nearly impossible to find an employer willing to provide moving assistance. This plan just gives them an additional, very easy, filter to reduce the number of applicants to sift through. And it seems to me that any solution that incentivises employees living closer to their place of employment essentially will. If that's an unacceptable cost and this situation is intractible, then all of the other thoughts about why and how don't really matter. No action should be taken and the status quo re: any incentives, other than the costs of fuel and transport leveraged on the employee will be acceptable and the status quo should be maintained. This also doesn't seem to be a popular opinion. Or I guess one could raise the taxes, fix the roads, issue cars, fund maintenance, and ignore the time usage and environmental costs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Nystral posted:The way I read your proposal is that the employer is heavily incentivized to employe whomever for 11 months or so then lay them off and bring the scourge of permanent-temps to more areas of business. I like these insights. The only incentive in my proposal is to not fire people unwilling or unable to move, or to build a rotating contracting system. This certainly exists for skilled workers, but what if it goes away? What about unskilled labor. quote:I see where you’re going with the idea and I think it has some legs but I would like to tie it into some kind of employee-protection mechanism like removing the right to work / distance from job not being a fireable offense. I wonder if you could establish alongside some sort of workers protection for this particular act. I dont tend to like solutions like that because they're fuzzy. Especially around small businesses without HR departments. It's hard to tell: did that person get fired because they were too far away, or was it because they failed performance standards? Did the employer try to chase then away or make them quit? Is there a solution that avoids falling into that fuzzy/difficult to enforce zone? Mayne costs for firing people such that if you are firing people at month 11, you're paying for two employees at the same time, so it isn't worth it? That might affect employers willingness to hire, though, and there's a danger there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
lightpole posted:Whats your goal with this? It's mostly to encourage effort posts on the subject instead of pages of rants  But with the proposal, I wanted to solve the issues listed in the last couple of pages--which appears to be both a policy objective of fairly funding infrastructure while simultaneously establishing constraints that will incentivise removing barriers to high density housing. In essence, right now removing barriers to high density housing pisses off locals and small business owners, and so it's difficult to get your recommendations done because locals and small business owners oppose it. So I hoped to generate constraints that would help encourage both private and public solutions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Also that there are "elite salvage teams", dredging boats that can suck out 22k cubic meters of junk Calling your mom out of retirement I see
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
How should the guidance have read?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
Prop Wash posted:This is a trick question and there's no possible configuration of words where people wouldn't have read the first few words then run away yelling with their fingers in their ears, as this thread has recently proven Prop Wash is on to me, but hopefully Best Friends indulges.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
I know it's Fox News and the organization is incentivized to spread this garbage, but her response is exactly how I dealt with certain coworkers when I just wanted to make it through dinner and sleep before watch.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:It reads very clear to me. 'In turn' is used for when you do something first. What I asked for is what should the statement say. Not can you read it--not how it should be read, but how it should read. This is an idiomatic use of language that probably falters when written without audible emphasis on the tendr, and therefore vague. Sorry for that. What I meant was, what should they have written instead?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Are you also paid millions to literally ask questions? I suspect that she's paid millions to not ask questions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Best Friends posted:They should not have issued guidance that is literally impossible to follow imo. Posting impossible instructions only makes sense as a green light, especially in a context where governors, the president and the arrayed upper middle class PTA parents are demanding reopening. Certain special education settings with very low teacher to student to space ratios. School districts willing to enforce and remove violators of policy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2021 02:04
|
|