Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
51
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • If you can write and have technical know-how, technical writing pays more than journalism.

  • If you don't mind sharing, which subreddits are you still following on reddit? Do you think they might move over eventually?

  • Unfortunate but inevitable given the API changes. I only used teddit for a short time to check on a few subreddits during the protest/blackout period. This really marks the end of me visiting reddit in any form or fashion now.

  • Risk of Rain 2. Just from the sheer chaos of having so many enemies on screen without having to resort to low graphics.

  • Rule

    Jump
  • I | II
    II| I

  • This 1000%. You can't just be shaken down without probable cause in any random public place. If you want to do a check, make it a membership and put it in the contract. Otherwise, fuck you, I'm walking out the door with the stuff I paid for already.

  • Firstly, a law shouldn't need to be written so black-and-white. A pretty famous example is how the EU uses targeted sanctions/tariffs to impact the opposition. Like when the Trump admin was threatening a trade war with Europe, the EU responded by threatening new tariffs on specific US products. Said tariffs would hurt trade goods from Republican states more often than not.

    So the EU didn't just come out and say, "we're going to punish the Republican admin by targeting Republican states". But that's what they did effectively. Here's a NYC article that covers the situation. To quote the relevant line:

    A provisional list of items being targeted ranges from steel to T-shirts, also including bed linen, chewing tobacco, cranberries and orange juice, among other products.

    ^ That's all stuff that typically comes more from Republican states.

    What I'm getting at is the way a bill is written can hurt the opposition, without needing to spell it out "If you don't vote yes you lose" style. Spelling it out would just cost unnecessary political capital.

    As far as the broader concept of writing laws that hurt the opposition, I would just use it as a tactical consideration. Maybe using the threat of a less favorable bill could get the opposition to compromise faster. But it's absolutely a tactic that can backfire, and there are policies that I should hope we never use such tactics with. Like, in the context of the US, imagine only giving public healthcare to states that supported it. That would be terrible. Last I checked, Texas is the state with the 2nd most Democrats in the country. So tons of people who would want that healthcare, and would have voted for it, wouldn't be receiving it.

    And for what? Out of some kind of desire for revenge or some feeling of fairness? That's not going to go down well in the long run. Any governing party should be trying to better the entire country. If this kind of tactic was used too much, then you risk galvanizing the opposition and pissing off Independents. Which is a surefire way to lose next election season.

  • I pursued a degree without really understanding what the one relevant job would have entailed until my junior year of college. Turns out, I would have hated that job.

    To be fair to my past self, I was just a kid and I really wasn't offered proper guidance. But yeah, wish I made different choices, so I didn't have to go through such a huge quarter life crisis.

  • O shit, here comes dat boi

  • While most of these are a good rule of thumb, I disagree with 'Always Happy to Help.' 'No Problem.'

    'I'm Always Happy to Help' is a fine response, if you're actually willing to make your time available for the recipient at the drop of a hat. Sometimes that's called for, but I would only reserve it for a few very specific circumstances. I also don't see an issue with saying 'no problem' most of the time. There are situations where something a little more formal is called for, but 90% of the time 'no problem' should work imho.