Working in a team, means you have to be able to work with other people. It's just a functional requirement of any such job. I get the impression that you are in denial about this reality.
Should you "come clean" with future employers? Yes. Be honest about what you can or can't do and set boundaries. That also means being honest with yourself about what the job requirements really are. You will continue to be miserable if you don't do these things.
Dared create an account on an instance administered by controversial people, to say the least.
Personally, I couldn't care less about the user names. Ad hominems are worthless, even if certain servers have certain tendencies. At the end of the day, only the substance of the argument, and whether it passes critical thought, matters. Information isn't truth. Information is worthless.
Americans know nothing of hardship. They take their way of life for granted. And will continue to bury their head in the sand until the sand itself is poisoned.
The fact of the matter is Americans have been lulled into complacency. Both before and after the election. This should all be completely unsurprising.
The 1/3 of voters that can't be bothered to cast a vote have abdicated their voice. Now they have to suffer the consequences of that choice.
All that Americans have left, on both sides I might add, is the desire to see the other side suffer. Republicans have been doing this for a while. The Trump presidency will disenfranchise the Democrats to the same level, evening the playing field.
This is where America is at now. Just angry people with nothing left but to hurt some scapegoats.
The only question is is this a race to the bottom (bottom being a civil war killing millions), or will the public wake the fuck up?
Rural/urban divide is not unique to the US in any way whatsoever. Also, expect polarization to self perpetuate as blue voters move to blue states and red states to move to red states.
Stupid people standing on soapboxes saying stupid shit.
Back in my day, people had to dedicate years of their life before they were given the opportunity to stand in front of hundreds of people and tell them things.
This answer assumes a state of affairs where everyone living from paycheck to paycheck should be normalized. I think this way of thinking buries a much deeper issue which is that owners of capital continue to squeeze non-owners of capital.
Let's assume we address that problem and ask the question again.
I would say, that choosing a riskier but higher average source of compensation is a perfectly reasonable, personal choice for someone to make.
Let me play devil's advocate: who gets to say what is a human rights violation? And I am not talking about what happens on the ground, so put your pitchforks away. I'm talking about how it is defined in international law--what happens when a country like Russia and puppets defines gay rights as a human rights violation.
Point is, there is absolutely no way to get states to agree on any of this and if it was binding, then it is a power that can and will be abused for geopolitical points.
I think principles of law are only enforceable at a state level. Almost by definition of sovereignty. Above the state level, there can only be treaties and geopolitics.
You are not wrong, but joining NATO is the only way to ensure Russia won't just declare war again. And we have to be realistic here: Ukraine has surpassed all expectations here already. We can't expect this miracle to go on indefinitely.
I generally upvote when I see a comment that makes a good point I think is underrated. You could argue that this is a kind of agreement. But, in my view, agreement alone is not the only criteria. Stating obvious truths isn't really worth anyone's time, even if they are agreeable. I will also upvote posts that changed my mind or are close to doing so, or impress me (insightful, or funny).
I down vote spam and posts that misrepresent a position or argument (straw man).
Even dictators need public support. This is a fundamental truth about leadership, that even Trump can't escape. Those that don't tend to have a short life expectancy.
You are right, but I would go one step further: enshittification is specifically a subsidized (artificial, unsustainable) capture of a free market by a middle man, followed by a squeezing of both buyers and sellers in that market using bought leverage.
It's just another variety of antitrust that happens to be legal because society has not yet outlawed that behaviour.
First we learned that idiocracy was a documentary. Now we are learning that Minority Report was a documentary too.
Damn, what a time to be alive.