You won't get downvote for suggesting to end the two-party system. What will get you downvote is suggesting that both parties are equally responsible for this shitshow.
Both parties need to go, both parties are not equal, and only 1 is a legit short-term threat to democracy. Phrasing and context matters, and if it comes out sounding like the "both sides" argument you're gonna be downvoted.
I guess I am just and old grinch, but I feel like this is written to feel more epic and crazy than it really is, and to accuse the subway engineers of incompetence, rather than what seem to be a conscious architectural decision.
The subway system basically encodes how much money you have on your RFID card, and merely overwrites that value when you recharge it or use it. To me, this sounds like a cost-saving measure and a cheap way to have a fault-tolerant system. It is vulnerable to hackers tho, sort of by design. The alternative is to build a very complex and expensive centralized system with higher maintenance cost and points of failure. Both options work, but it is a tradeoff.
To me, the reason they didn't want word of this to get out is because the system is really good at doing what it is doing otherwise, and the small amount of fraud is probably costing them less than having to build a centralized system.
Kudos for students to even figure that out, but the feat in itself is almost equivalent to learning how to print counterfeit tickets to trick a clerk. It feels more crooked than technically impressive. Those responsibles for the system already knew of this "flaw". They just don't need the instructions how to make counterfeit cards out there.
Same, and it is a complex subject, but the most caring, chattiest person I know will absolutely recognize when someone need to talk and turn into the best listener I have ever met. In that sense, chatinness is not an issue, and neither is a lack of listening to people. OP mentioned trouble listening.
That is because denying welfare to people who need it happens to line up perfectly with the beliefs of those groups you named. Neoliberalism didn't work out for the people, only people still voting for this shit are bigots and gullible morons.
I've made a mental image of those posting this sort of stuff over time, and it is not very flattering. This one in particular irks me, it makes me cringe really hard and I hate it.
You.can absolutely mitigate emotions. It is not always healthy, but there are various ways to do it. The actual triggers and emotions are not a choice, but you have a toolbox would you wish to deal with them.
I switched from voyager because scrolling gets laggier over time, up the point of beong barely usable. I liked the app otherwise, and I commend the overall UX, but the app is irredeemable until this gets fixed imo.
I get ya, I really do. Don't forget how Germany reformed itself, and hopefully it never gets to that point, but country are never truely lost. A majority of people outright oppose this shit, a minority is gullible "both sides" fragile mind, and finally, only another minority truely support the evil that is going on. Keep fighting for reform and better elections and the small minority of morons will be shunned out of polite society like many other western countries in the world. Get rid of the two-party system.
The two-party system gotta end so the big parties can split and leave their history behind. You could have another party born out of bernier-aoc-warren with better PR called People of America or.some shit, with actual socialist policies, but it probably would not make them as mad, because their grievances are with the "Democrats", you know, like a rival football team.
Crazy how coke and aderall make these 2 morons believe they should get to decide what direction the planet spin.
Why people worship idiots born in wealth will always be beyond me. If any of you ever suffered imposter symdrome, think of this picture in the thumbnail.
Charge a one-time premium to have access to the game forever at a reasonable, region-adjusted price that the average worker can afford, and then fuck off.
In the US, bribery is legal for the ruling class, illegal for everyone else.
Insider trading is legal for the ruling class, illegal for everyone else.
Embezzlement is legal for the ruling class, illegal for everyone else.
It is very hard to not get very wealthy if you are part of the ruling class. Money will just legally flow into your pocket, as long as you're not loyal to the people.
I love the saying : “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” because it is true.
I have a theory that societies can go into a circular loop and pivot into 3 different states, any which can serve as the starting point.
At one point you have a society that collectively take care of the issues, and being selfish is frowned upon. In this environment everyone sort of make small sacrifices for the greater good, and everyone is better for it. The problem though, is that the more honest everyone is, and the more you can gain by being devious and two-faced. Eventually some assholes will game the honest system, and more assholes will follow.
This lead to being dishonest and selfish being the norm, as if you're not you will simply have nothing since people will be taking advantage of you. The meta is changed and society is now two-faced.
This lead to the last possible state, where the mask has completely fallen off and people are being genuine dick to each others. There is no honour and everything you can get away with openly, you do. Being two-faced is shunned and seen as weak, you also don't have to worry about the appearance so you can go full selfish mode. This lead to a miserable existence for everyone, and suddenly people might wonder what's the point.
To close the loop, people starts to realize what they have lost. Some people will make themselves vulnerable and show integrity, to try and make things better. Nobody trusts.nobody anymore, and making yourself vulnerable is the only way to gain influence, since nothing else can be trusted. After the big era of con men, selflessness is trending and respectable again, and those without are shunned.
To put in simply, in 1 state being honourable get you further in life, in another one being two-faced gets you farther, and in the last one being openly selfish and hostile will get your farther.
I think we might be somewhere in the peak(hopefully) of the openly hostile state, where you're better off min/maxing society without pretending to be a good person. I think it might turn as the younger generation gets older and people get tired of the division and realize they can have a lot of success by doing what is right.
Anyway, this is just a theory. To me it make sense in game theory sort of way.
I was not making a statement on the specific child in the article, I also mentioned that the environment is often the most important factor. I am just raising the fact that in some cases it can be a mental disorder, and it is not about deciding who is born bad, but assessing correctly every situation so you can do the greatest good, and protect yourself. I think we agree mostly, maybe my original comment could sound reductionist to some ears, but I tried my best to convey that I was pointing out a rare scenario, specifically to counter the arguments that you can't have this sort of mental disorder at the time of birth. It is important to point out, otherwise innocent parents will get harmed (not those in the article, obviously)
Absolutely, I never met anyone else like that in my life. I assumed most people with bad behaviours had bad childhood, but I can't deny knowing at least one person with a troubling disorder.
You don't believe in genetic mental illness? That one can be born with a sickness in the brain?
You don't have to believe everyone on the internet, I can only offer you my slice of experience. Nothing wrong happened to my sibling. It was a child who actively tried to hurt people and kill stuff barely after learning to walk. It scared everyone for a while but medication and therapy helped turn they into a stable and functional adult. My sibling is also pretty open about it, at least with me.
You won't get downvote for suggesting to end the two-party system. What will get you downvote is suggesting that both parties are equally responsible for this shitshow.
Both parties need to go, both parties are not equal, and only 1 is a legit short-term threat to democracy. Phrasing and context matters, and if it comes out sounding like the "both sides" argument you're gonna be downvoted.