a lil bee 🐝 @ alilbee @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

407

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm honestly surprised at that stat, but mostly because D:OS2, cool as it was, had nowhere near the hype that BG3 had. Felt like the whole gaming world took a month to just sit down and play BG3 instead for a while when it came out. This just makes me happy D:OS2 is getting flowers honestly.

Oh this can absolutely happen at the less luxurious positions. For instance, FAANG (the big 5 tech companies, if you don't work tech like 3/4 of the Fediverse) can afford to pay salaries well above any other employers. We're talking 200k-400k here, not obscene billionaire-class stuff. Once they grab you, they can treat you worse once you get adjusted to the salary that no one else can match. I've seen it happen to a lot of people who end up miserable until they leave and have to go through the readjustment period.

Yeah that's a good point and I'm not sure of the particulars. However, assuming the hard right still wants to remove him, democrats have the leverage to affect the vote.

But then they could just call another vote for speaker? Not sure this would be the play, but if it was, I don't see he can renege without just incurring the same fate?

This is my take. If this held true, why are advertisers not pulling out or drastically limiting their deals with these companies? They obviously find the value proposition worth it, bots included. So, by that metric, I don't think they're overvalued. They're valued on what they bring in from advertisers and that seems to be working well. I wish it didn't (hence me being here), but reddit is exceptionally effective at delivering ads. I don't think reddit is going to fail as hard as we all wish they would.

Let's leave aside the labels (sexist, racist, etc) for a moment, because these conversations tend toward applying/avoiding those and it just loses a lot of nuance.

Let's metaphor this, because I think that helps. Is it possible for someone with millions of dollars to have a truly bad day? Of course it is. Is it possible for them to be hurt by someone with way less money than them? Obviously, yes. Positions of privilege never fully insulate anyone from hurt or harm, and those in worse positions can perpetuate harm. That's fully understood and accepted.

I don't think anyone with integrity would say that women are in a position of power relative to men. Women have been systemically and systematically oppressed for virtually all of human history. A woman even being able to talk back to a man without severe physical consequences is an insanely recent development at scale in our world. There are still dozens of countries that are not letting women wear what they choose, marry who they choose, go to school. Men (as a group) have never been subjected to anything remotely close to anything like this, and in fact have perpetuated it for all time.

Now, there are some whackos out there who hate all men because of that. They're super, super rare, and they're wrong. Most women are indeed wary about random men, especially if they have experienced assault or harassment, but that is a far cry from hating all men.

To boil it down, there's a huge historical and modern difference in the way the genders/sexes are treated, and that cannot be ignored just so we can try to achieve the utopian world of no distinction. We have work to do as a society, as genders, and as individuals to repair this gap together. Good men belong right next to us, doing that work. And every good man I've ever met has willingly done so. Instead of asking "why are you avoiding me?", they give us space and support. Instead of asking "why not men?", they do the work to support fellow men instead of asking women to do it for them. Instead of saying "not all men", they actively engage in not being those men and are content in that.

I'm so sorry to hear that. Anyone with a shred of integrity approaching the issue will see that the statistics do not point to some pervasive false accusation culture, but rather a systemic issue of SA perpetuated primarily toward women for almost all of human history. It doesn't mean that any other types of issues should be discarded, but reddit would have you think that every other rape accusation is false, and that all the true ones are against men.

It's just an obvious bias on their part that is continually perpetuated by men dominating the platform on the mainstream subs. Lemmy has been better in that regard, because I think folks here are a little better about checking their biases for better discussion.

Thanks for posting! Should be enough to follow the thread and look into it at least.

Not arguing either way, but I'd love to see the stats! Are you a proponent of nuclear energy as a piece of the solution, or would you rather see renewables used entirely instead?

Lemmy has a much, much, much better crowd than reddit, but it definitely still got the "not all men", "I only ever comment on stories about extremely rare false rape accusations" crowd.

I'm far from an economist, who would likely argue that wages should go down in certain times, but I think the political argument would be that nobody wants to be in power when wages go down, and we would expect that if wages were kept as is, you should expect compensating inflation to eventually catch up to that. Again, complete layperson here, so take that with a grain of salt.

I just want to say that this was a fantastic thread, and thank you for posting. There are some great suggestions in here.

It's been a while since I've looked at the language of the bill itself, but I believe it can only go up. The language on the site trends that way too.

Wow, those are some serious Licensed Insurance Agent skills

It's first past the post, not the party, that is causing this issue. This is very much a "don't hate the player, hate the game" situation. If democrats want to win elections and have their agenda accomplished, No Labels and similar groups present a real obstacle to achieving the goals of the democratic constituency due to FPTP, so you can't exactly expect to consider them allies.

I might catch flak for this here, but I have watched a lot of the televised proceedings in this case and I think Judge McAfee has been more than fair so far in this case. This sucks but it is a legitimate procedural issue and a judge has to rule on these things. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the prosecution at this point. Between this and the relationship allegations, they have let multiple outside factors interfere in what might have been the best case against Trump for his election interference.

I am soooooooooooo into a horror themed expansion! I am a huge horror lit fan and so much of the description was music to my ears.

It's one of those things where it's obviously intended to derail the case, but I'm still pretty upset with everyone involved for leaving themselves open to this. When you shoot for the king, you better not miss. If you're not interested in being a super clean goody-goody, don't take this job. It's part of the obligations for the important job you chose to do.

But yeah, agreed. I don't think the defense's argument is that it would be prejudicial to their case, but rather just arguing that there is other incentive for the prosecutor to be removed. Having the lead prosecutor removed just completely screws a case in the short term.

It's important to note that this was not an exoneration, but rather more procedural. The judge's argument is that the charges brought are not specific enough as to what elements of their oaths were broken. Now, the prosecutors will either have to drop those charges or refile them in front of a grand jury with more specific charges. The racketeering charges remain and are unaffected by this ruling.

We also still haven't heard anything on the removal of the prosecutor for an alleged inappropriate relationship. This case is a clusterfuck.

This is definitely clickbait. Russia, a nuclear power, decided to continue not losing its nuclear power status. Wow!