PrinceWith999Enemies @ PrinceWith999Enemies @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

606

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes and no. Both DARPA and IARPA fund research with significant academic applications, even if their ultimate goal is national security. I stopped working for those funding sources because I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the potential applications of the work, but my work itself didn’t significantly change when NIH and FDA started funding it. They’ve funded a significant amount of work in chaos and complexity theory, for example, as well as linguistics, and obviously medicine and psychology. A lot of the work they fund is applied sciences, it’s true, but a surprising amount is theoretical. I can’t remember all of the resources off the top of my head at the moment, but if you look at the requests for proposals for DARPA and IARPA, as well as from the DoD, DoE, and service branches, you can get a feel for what they’re prioritizing over the next couple of decades.

That hadn’t occurred to me, although both the military and intelligence communities are HUGE sponsors of academic research.

I get that and I agree. I’m just differentiating between shows that were transformative for their viewers and ones that were “just” popular shows. Sometimes you get a crossover, like MASH, which was a very strong voice for post-Vietnam era America in which the idea of war and military service had begun to transform. We’ve lost ground on that one, of course, post-Reagan and especially after 9/11.

Like I said in another response, I see Schitt’s Creek as transformative in how it portrays LGBT persons and relationships by deliberately crafting a world in which prejudices (like racism and homophobia) do not exist. There are a number of shows that have over time led to the greater acceptance and normalization of the LGBT community, such as Queer Eye, but even a lot of those play to high camp tropes, and shows like Drag Race target the queer-and-ally communities more than being just a straight forward (sorry, couldn’t resist) sitcom.

In just my lifetime, we went from a world where Rock Hudson was closeted, Elton John and Boy George were flamboyant but not officially out, and where Nathan Lane worried that his epic role in The Birdcage would make people realize that he’s gay. There’s a great story behind that one. Before that you had the gay-coded villains like Vincent Price and comedians like Rip Taylor. Taylor never came out. Neither did Liberace.

I cite the Jeffersons similarly because the show came out as black Americans were moving from a civil rights struggle to a feeling of acceptance for and from the white American communities. The theme song Moving On Up embodied that social dynamic, while All in the Family lampooned the alternative vision of the white blue collar racist whose excuse was that he was just an “ordinary guy.”

I’d feel differently if Fraiser were to take a similar approach to mental health issues - normalizing and humanizing them, instead of playing them for gags. In my opinion, it was mostly about class dynamics with most of the humor involving the disconnect between the egotistical educated elite versus the real world. Contrast Fraiser’s relationship with his patients with that of the psychologist Sidney Friedman on MASH. By our standards today we could look at MASH and see homophobia and rampant sexism, but for its time it was humanizing, and Arbus’ character played into that narrative in most of his appearances.

Awards are awards, and at the end of the day they represent the opinions of the industry. I’m absolutely not saying they don’t matter. But people who watch a show like The Good Place (which explores absolutely fundamental issues of ethics and philosophy while still being a brilliant sitcom) have the power to change the way people think.

If I’m remembering correctly, “unaffiliated” is either among the fastest or the fastest growing denomination. The phenomenon has been called things like “the rise of the nones.”

The strong politicalization of US Christianity is usually pointed to as one of the drivers. Since the 1970s, when the federal government wanted Christian universities to accept black students or risk losing their funding, American Christians have steadily increased both their political affiliation with the anti-integration Republican Party (Reagan played a big role there). Prior to that, even groups like the Southern Baptist Convention came out with a statement in support of Roe because it expanded women’s rights. The Catholics were always anti-abortion (but also more likely to be pro-social justice and immigrant friendly), but it was the pivot by the evangelical industry leaders who ran those universities that made it into what it is today.

Since the majority of Americans disagree with the radical right stance on social issues, there’s naturally going to be an exit as Christianity becomes more and more associated with far right politics. There’s also a positive feedback loop in which the far right politicians seek to curry favor with evangelicals (without whom they cannot win) by moving ever further to the right, and there’s a far right in the Catholic Church as well (although they were better aligned with JP2 and Ratzinger).

I view the near constant string of losses post-Roe that the gop has been dealing with as a positive development, and that goes along with things like falling church attendance. However, the moves to ignore or overthrow democracy because they can’t win the votes is what’s ultimately going to determine where we go as a country.

The national and state level gop are also trying to ban day after pills and has floated the idea of banning contraception.

The minimum you should target for contributing is the max company match - so in your case that sounds like 3%. In general, you should make sure you’re putting enough aside into an emergency savings fund (usually 3-6 months of normal expenses) and after that prioritize retirement savings.

In your company’s 401k, you’re going to be limited in terms of investment vehicles. The default is usually some kind of targeted date fund. Those spread your invested dollars across multiple industries and international funds. The benefit to the targeted date funds is that they rebalance your portfolio so that your money moves to more stable (but lower return) investments as you get closer to retirement. Some programs are very limited in their options, but I think that they all have targeted date funds.

Another possibility is using an index fund that tracks something like the S&P. These funds also are diversified (although not so much as the limited date ones). The reason a lot of people like them is that there are several alternatives that have a very low fee schedule versus managed funds - if you pay high fees, you’re cutting into your growth. The Vanguard funds are among the most popular for that reason. However, that may not be available through your 401k.

Basically your 401k should be a set it and forget it kind of thing. Pick a percentage, pick a fund, and don’t think about it until next year. You should review it annually, and you do have the option of increasing your percentage contribution if, for example, you get a 10% raise and want to start contributing 4% instead of 3%.

The person you’re meeting with possibly will not be allowed to give you investment advice. They can review your options and answer your questions, but if it’s just an HR person and not a financial advisor, don’t expect financial advice. You’re going to want to go in there having read these threads.

The big thing is not to overthink it at this point. I’m going to hazard a guess that you’re relatively far away from retirement, so getting in now is absolutely the right thing to do, but it also leaves plenty of time for you to educate yourself more. The part about meeting the 3% match at a minimum is just because that’s basically free money. If you are making $30k, your 3% would mean putting $1k per year into the 401k. Your company would match that, which means you’re making money right from the start.

There are multiple websites that allow you to calculate your retirement savings based on your age and how much you invest per year. It’s good to become familiar with the way the math works. Your 401k may provide such a service, but there’s plenty of free ones as well.

Good luck!

This strikes me as a weird survey.

roughly 40% of respondents said the federal government is primarily responsible for the strength of science and tech in the U.S., followed by private companies (23%), academic institutions (22%) and nonprofit organizations (4%).

Why would you divide the federal government and academic institutions? The feds fund the majority of research at academic institutions, for both hard sciences and social sciences.

We’re still dealing with the post-Reagan legacy of “government bad, industry good,” and on top of that we have a determined and deliberate anti-intellectualism and anti-science movement in the Republican Party. That’s going to have an ongoing impact and it will take us decades to undo. That’s going to play a major role in both the perception and the reality of national scientific progress.

As much as all of us see science as a global endeavor, national institutions like the NIH are oriented towards advancing science developed in the US. Educational standards, scholarships (or free university education), and funding for basic and applied research all need to be increased.

Schitt’s Creek was a pretty big deal in the LGBT community. It was among the first shows that portrayed LGBT people and relationships in a purely positive light.

The Levy’s main concept for the show was to show a town that was without prejudice - an aspirational perspective to make more palpable what it could be like if there wasn’t strong undercurrents of ideologies like racism and homophobia.

A frequent criticism of the portrayal of black Americans in American media is that there’s frequently a negative narrative that shares the storyline. While it’s important to surface those uncomfortable aspects of our culture, it doesn’t have to be everywhere. It’s the same with the LGBT community.

As a queer person who has been politically involved since the days of ACT UP, I’m very aware of how our community is portrayed in media. Homophobia was very much a part of mainstream American entertainment throughout most of my life. It was played up for laughs with either straight characters being scandalized that they were perceived as gay, or gay characters who played to uniformly campy stereotypes, or making homophobic politics and violence an integral part of the storyline. That’s not to say that shows like Queer as Folk weren’t also landmarks, but that was more of a for us by us kind of thing. Schitt’s Creek is a sitcom that’s intended to be enjoyed by everyone.

I mean, I grew up in a time when people like Elton John and Boy George felt like they couldn’t be fully out, and Rock Hudson was completely closeted. I think that shows like Schitt’s Creek help with the perception and normalization of the LGBT community and relationships.

There was another article a couple of days ago talking about how spending wasn’t down as much as they had been expecting. I wonder if this is part of the same kind of phenomenon.

As far as I can tell - at least in my area - home prices haven’t fallen but there’s fewer houses on the market. They’ve flattened out, but haven’t really come down. I don’t know if it’s a supply contraction keeping the prices up (because few people are willing to trade their 3% mortgages for 8%) or if there’s just enough demand and people are buying less house with the intention of refinancing.

There’s a very dark joke in the international community.

How do you move an article about 50k people being killed in a natural disaster from the front page to page 15?

Start the article with “Yesterday in Africa…”

Elon Musk is what happens if someone uses one of their three wishes to make an Ayn Rand type of character a real person.

Let’s see if her next gig is on Dancing With The Stars after Twitter finishes its crash and burn.

I don’t know that I’d list Frazier as one of the all time amazing shows. That’s something I’d reserve for shows like Schitt’s Creek, Good Place, and The Wire. A show like MASH. All in the Family, which surfaced so much of what was happening in society at the time. The Jeffersons.

I’d rank Frasier closer to something like Friends or Dharma and Greg. Definitely below Seinfeld or 30 Rock. It was funny. It had good writers and the characters exhibited a chemistry that made the show work as a show, but beyond that it was pretty ephemeral. That’s just my opinion.

Actually I believe their mascot is appropriate because creeping fascism is the elephant in the room that very few people want to talk about.

Invent a warp drive.

I find it fascinating how we internalize the rules of language in a way that sometimes leads us stranded to explain them.

I do have to say that I’m going to start using pants’ drawer, though. The way it stacks plural on top of plural and then shoves the possessive at the end is brilliant.

Would you also say “dry goods’ pantry?”

Honestly, I will say that I would consider “migrant shelter,” “migrants’ shelter,” and “migrants shelter” as all equally correct, with minor differences in shade of meaning.

Elon Musk as Andrew Ryan.

Literally forcing them to pay for the rope they hang themselves with. And that’s what they voted for because they were told to do so by a guy with a flag pin on his lapel.

Oof.

The Multipla had a certain jolie laide. This just looks like what a not-gifted sixth grader draws in his notebook between the Cool S and the swords.