Grumpy @ Grumpy @sh.itjust.works

Posts

1

Comments

213

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not sure who these foolishly brave Americans are who think they can beat an elephant and a grizzly bear bare handed.

I've edited it for clarity.

That's what I said.

Misandry seems to fly pretty often on the internet too.

Most specifically towards CIS white men. Even though I'm not that specific subset, I feel bad for them. Racism, bigotry and etc are tolerated when it's directed at them and they can't even defend themselves. Anytime they try to, they get met with whataboutism. Most of them are just flipping burgers. Just very tiny portion of CIS white men are iconic powerful people.

But it does alleviate them from a second suit.

The real estate industry currently out lobbies the oil industry by a factor of 10 right now. That's what's wrong with america.

It's funny you say that the palestinians breed like animals. Yet that's the same phrase I've heard regarding the Jewish. “Be fruitful and multiply” is literally the first command/mitzvah of the Torah. A local Rabbi that I know has 10 children and he's in his early 30s! To which he believes he's faithfully upholding the commands.

I think all humans have same desire when it comes to breeding. I don't think the core instinct that made humans over such long period of time in evolution is going to particularly differ based on last few thousand years of separation. They will make more kids when they feel that the conditions seem favorable to have more kids, combined with the social constructs in which you are surrounded by. For example, during covid, birth rates declined because people were increasingly uncertain about the future. And even within Jewish subset, we can see that orthodox Jewish have nearly double the amount of kids versus non-orthodox. Use and availability of contraception also obviously plays a huge role, and if they were not available in the west, I think the west's population would be ever increasing as well.

Palestinians likely lack access to contraception, and therefore, will have higher rate of birth rate than Israelis who do have access to contraception.

So I do not quite agree with your original premise of why unification of the states is not a great forecast. But I still do agree that the idea of unification is pretty much screwed. There's far too much hate and strife between them at this point. I believe every such scenarios of the past ended in one way: extreme violence. If it ever gets to the stage of ethnic cleansing, certainly Israel will win with the overwhelming superiority in military power. But we're stuck despite that because the world is watching which prevents Israel from doing just that. We're at a unique impasse with no solutions.

An insane stat I came to learn is that majority of population in Gaza is under the age of 18. Lot of innocent seems like an understatement.

I see current classic Bethesda as just a modders sandbox. Which I actually like. So starfield has been inline with my expectations.

Moon buggy mod may come out eventually. You can ride dragons and fly around in Skyrim.

Pretty sure you're replying to sarcasm.

Most jurisdictions have tenant protection laws that prevent such rent raises unless you did something wrong. If not the latter, I'd try and talk to some tenant protection organization in your area. They tend to be free consultation. If not, there's always a lawyer as well. You could even be entitled to getting money back if they did illegal rent raises.

You're right, that has slipped my mind when posting. However, they can still choose to pay if they want a lawyer if no one is accepting contingency.

Article doesn't say no attorney would take the case. It says they talked to a lawyer. And they're in limbo. Meaning they're still deciding how to pursue this matter.

“We’re still in this process of figuring out what to do,” she said. “We keep pressing in different directions to see if something is going to happen.”

So they're looking for the best approach. Not that there is a lack of approach.

An attorney would happily take a losing case. They get paid either way. Their job is to get the best outcome possible, not to win a lawsuit--though that may end up being the best outcome.

First, a misunderstanding on what is non-profit vs charity. Non-profit doesn't mean they're a charity. It means their primary goal isn't profit for its owners. A charity is always non-profit, but a non-profit is not necessarily a charity. A charity is an entity whose primary purpose is to provide resources to its mission and therefore spends into negatives if not for donations.

Accounting is a complex topic. Unless you're willing to delve into an organization's finances in detail and have capacity to understand it in context, it's best to just say: I don't know shit. That includes me. Should something be 65-75%? I have no fucking clue. Because we don't know what these numbers entail. We don't know how they operate and we don't know how we're diving these percentages.

Take american red cross for example. An excellent charity with great reputation, full audits, independent board members, etc. https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/530196605 You can view their financial score on the charity navigator (easier to understand then suddenly looking at annual reports). Scroll down to Financial Metrics and then look at Program Expense: Ratio. 90.64% (2022). This is the kind of number you're expecting to see. 3.2% goes to administration and 6.2% goes to fundraising. Seems good. Right?

But what does 90% of the program expense really include? It likely includes whole lot of complexities you aren't thinking of immediately. Like logistics cost of delivering goods in need. Some of those are expenses which will go to for-profit 3PL companies. Necessary cost, of course. It also would include salaries of any professionals or boots on the ground that's going to do the labor. It's going to include costs of anything they need to buy to operate. Etc. At the end of the day, we have no real understanding of how much money is actually going to someone in need versus how much money is needed to do get to that point. That will include lot of things we have no idea that even exists. Regardless of complexities, they spent 90% of their money into funding the program as a whole. So we need to understand that we're comparing a single thing here versus a concept of a whole.

But the biggest takeaway here is that above is a spending ratio from the COST. Not revenue.

The number that we're seeing in 1-8% are charitable case divided by revenue, not something they spent. So these are a calculation of reduction of revenue due to charity. If a hospital spends $1M on a new MRI machine and a doctor to operate it (I have no idea what they cost, just giving numbers here). Collect $1M from paying patients. Not collect $1000 from charitable cases. Then the ratio of revenue would be 0.1% and profit would be 0. But what does that mean from a cost perspective...? 100%. 100% of your cost and revenue goes into program. Would that mean the hospital is doing a fantastic charitable job? Hell no.

The program expense ratio metric is completely meaningless if it's not a full on charity. Quite frankly, most for-profit business would be in 90% range as well.

I'm not sure I'd call that fortunate.

Silver spoon? I don't think even calling him a gold spoon would be enough. Maybe diamond spoon.

First of all, this comment chain is about being able to keep tabs on someone without storing information locally on the user's computer. If we create a new form of session ID equivalent that doesn't store information locally, I have achieved the goal to the problem that was raised. The issue wasn't whether or not we needed concept of something equivalent to a session ID.

[...] will need to include that session ID passed back to the server.

Yes, that's exactly what we used to do in the '00s. Look at softwares like osCommerce v1 and 2. We literally put money behind this method of tracking.

And this talk about IP addresses is complete nonsense because of Proxies and NAT and a ton of other reasons. You can attempt to use it in combination with a session ID, but you certainly cannot use that alone.

Yes, you can use that alone. Without session ID. The other commenter already addressed why this isn't true. Also context matters. Pretty close is a good enough of a session ID replacement for purpose of tracking whether or not they consented to the cookie policy. If I did a concat of IP, and various fingerprints (and put a hash on it to make it shorter), I can easily reach one in trillion probabilities. I wouldn't build a secure military website on it because it's easily forgeable, but it's more than enough for cookie policy popup.

Session ID is stored by the client. So...? I literally just explained how to hold uniqueness on server side without using session ID.

Besides using session cookies, they can track user agent and IP address. The two in combination will be unique enough. There are further metrics to make a unique identifier, but I think this is sufficient explanation.

Edit: Seems like people who don't know how to program besides super default methods are downvoting me.

You don't need cookies to hold session ID. If you programmed in the earlier days, you'd actually even know cookie session wasn't even the most common method before. For example, session ID can be passed around in the URL as another query parameter. You can even literally turn off cookie option in sessions in languages like PHP (ex: https://www.php.net/manual/en/session.configuration.php#ini.session.use-cookies). These kind of practice is still relatively quite common as it allows greater flexibility and not have your session ID bound to a domain.

Furthermore, you don't have to be restricted by the confines of whatever existing tools you already have. Like in the example I gave at the beginning, you can create your own unique identifiers. You don't have to use preexisting concept of session at all. If you can create any unique key-value pair, you can track and keep data without the use of sessions. Programmers are hired to create things that never existed before, be more creative.

I checked. I saw dead babies (hard to say 2 of them are actually babies as they're too charred). But nothing beheaded.