Why don't more people use desktop Linux? I have a theory you might not like
Well sure, we can take it as a given that sex basically exists in its own special category. Biologically speaking, it's an impulse older than almost any other. I think that's self-evident enough without any need to tap into mysticism.
(Content warning: sexual violence in human history, abstract)
With that being said, it could also be argued that r-word is also deeply ingrained within human biology, particularly in the context of warfare. Even if we discount the (extensive) evidence within the anthropological record demonstrating this, there are clues baked into human physiology which seem to indicate that the human species itself is uniquely adapted to perpetrating r-word when compared amongst the other hominid species.
(Content warning concluded)
I apologize for bringing such a nasty subject up at all, but it's useful to weigh such things when talking about the deep biological roots of sex and how it makes us think/feel. I personally believe that it's too limiting to describe sex as an implicitly pure thing which only becomes wrong when certain impure people corrupt it. Please don't take that as a doomer statement! I personally see it as a triumpth that, through culture, we can collectively transform an act as ambiguous as sex into an idealized and pure expression of interpersonal love. I nevertheless do still try to be mindful of the capacity for sex to exist outside of the box we've crafted for it, though.
I can tell I've struck a nerve here. I apologize for the harm that has caused. I am sorry.
And, yes. I do have a concept of personal space. I do think that forced sex is worse than a forced haircut. I understand the point you're getting at, but I would appreciate it if you didn't try to make it in such a forceful way next time. Thank you for responding.
I also just really hate the idea of applying financial logic to something like this. Like, are we just gonna go and label the entire human race as a Ponzi scheme? Grandpa's not able to pull his weight lately so fuck him? That's a rhetorical question, obviously. The reality is that old people are going to cost what they cost and everyone else just has to suck it up because the alternative is way uglier.
Rest assured, it is not necessary to explain the concept to me. I just like exploring the underlying why that leads to the how. My intention was to provide food for thought, not provoke the internet into explaining for me the joys of sharing romantic sex.
Now that you mention it, isn't it odd that it feels weird? I wonder exactly where the line starts to come into focus between something as innocuous as paying for a meal and something as taboo as paying for sex? Obviously that's a question of culture, but it's entertaining to think about nonetheless...
Like, there's definitely something kind of unusual about this specific taboo. Speaking from the perspective of modern western culture, I'd say that the following things which share some characteristics with prostitution are all individually qualified as being relatively socially acceptable:
- Paying for therapy (i.e.: buying the service of social comfort)
- Paying for a massage (i.e.: buying the service of physical comfort)
- Having a one night stand (i.e.: receiving the service of sexual comfort without buying it)
- Buying a sex toy (i.e.: buying sexual comfort without involving a service worker)
I posit that there's something uniquely specific about the direct intersection of service, money, and sexual pleasure which makes prostitution uniquely uncomfortable for (modern western) people to think about. I might be overthinking it, though. Perhaps these three things are already uncomfortable topics to really think about so we naturally want to resist the idea of combining them?
That's a fine point, but I also think there's a case to be made for attributing this difference in policy to the practical reality that traditional American pensions were popular decades in the past while 401k policies are popular today. Viewed through that lens, it seems fairly obvious that a modern 401k policy would be more accomodating of modern work sensibilities than a traditional pension plan originally penned 60 years ago!
With that being said, I think it's a little self-defeating to limit our discussion to such things. Our non-American friend who originally asked the question would almost certainly be more familiar with the more modern and less all-or-nothing pension varieties. Indeed, depending on where they live, it may even be possible to transfer accumulated pension benefits between plans when changing jobs.
Surely actual pension contributions would be better than having your employer partially fund what is essentially a big financial gamble?
FWIW: pensions do carry similar risk factors. Most pensions are only financially sustainable because they're invested into the public market and it's entirely possible for a pension fund to go belly-up due to mismanagement as a result.
You are essentially correct in identifying that 401ks are much riskier, however. Most working adults would probably rather have the security of a pension instead of being given a rope to potentially hang themselves by.
Orā¦ Is that the idea? Another way for US employers to screw their fellow citizens over and give them as little as possible in return for their lives of labour?
In a sense? I doubt most employers actively scheme to do evil to their employees, but the outcome is fairly sinister nonetheless. Pensions used to be much more common in the U.S. until getting largely replaced by the 401k during the 70s. These days, the only jobs that tend to offer pensions are government/unioned... which I think says all that needs to be said about which option is more pro-worker.
The one place where 401ks really shine is (legal) tax evasion and high-spend retirement. If you make six figures, you can max out your 401k contributions and thereby avoid paying $1000s in income taxes each year. People who are able to contribute that much also tend to get way more money back in retirement compared to a pension because -- when properly funded -- a 401k is technically more efficient in the long-term for those who already have the requisite resources to weather a medium-term financial hardship.
The world just makes me sadder and sadder. Thereās just no real good news any more, only bad :-(
Well, if it's any consolation... this particular bad idea has been around long enough that it's no longer newsworthy
Ok sure, but have we considered arming the robots with assault rifles instead?
"401k" is an American term of art. It's like a pension fund except you're directly investing into the stock market and not pooling risk with anyone else. Money contributed to a 401k isn't taxed until you retire, but in exchange you can only contribute direct earnings from the job sponsoring your account.
As part of a benefits package, some employers also offer contribution "matching". It's very similar to the concept of employers matching charitable donations -- for every personal dollar you put in, they chip in as well. How much they contribute will also vary. Some places will do dollar-for-dollar matching up to a maximum salary percentage (e.g.: If I earn $50k and get 5% matching, the employer will match the first $2500 I contribute). Other companies will instead contribute pennies on the dollar at a fixed percentage rate (e.g.: If I save the annual maximum of $22,500 and get 5% matching, the employer will contribute $1,125). And yes -- it's never a pleasant surprise when you're expecting the good matching and instead get the shitty matching.
In any case, because 401k matching is technically only a job benefit, there aren't many rules against employers reneging on it. It's one of the first corners that tend to get cut in workplaces where the boss doesn't have to look their underlings in the eye on a regular basis.
You're of course within your rights to remain unconvinced, but I fail to understand the mindset that would lead a reasonable bystander to look at what Ms. Reeves has said thus far and think "there's a significant chance that this is untrue". Why? For what purpose? She stands to gain nothing by lying unless you start imagining that a much broader conspiracy is somehow at play.
If you're willing to entertain the idea of a hitherto unsubstantiated conspiracy from one side, then why not also suspect that LMG will conspire to hire a crooked auditor or otherwise hide unflattering findings? Why take anyone's word for anything?
The fact she is a woman is different than the majority, however there are other women at LMG
I don't know how to respond to this without speaking condescendingly. I'm sorry, but you'll just have to trust me when I say that women can still be subjected to workplace harassment in situations where they aren't literally the only girl in the building. I'll leave it at that unless an actual woman wants to step in and expand on this subject further.
not all the men at LMG are sexist so most likely at least one person from one of those camps would object/want to do/say something
That's just how power works. If you're in the minority, your needs and concerns get less attention. If you're in a very small minority, they become practically invisible. Organizations aren't immune to this. Sexist outcomes can and will readily emerge from systems where none of the individuals directly intend to do a sexism.
As evidence, I'll point to the statistic itself. A gender gap as steep as this one doesn't happen by random chance. The only way you get this far skewed is with a feedback loop.
My question is if she had such a bad experience, why hasnāt anyone else said anything, or at least put an anonymous negative review on Glassdoor or something? [...] (and the turnover is pretty low for LMG if Iām not mistaken, so that also doesnāt make sense)
Indeed, why is that? Why would she have such an abnormaly bad experience at this particular company? I can't seem to think of any particular traits that she might have which would have caused her to be treated differently. If sexist comments and sexual harassment are such a problem, then why do people like Gary, James, Ed, Nick, Colton, or Luke apparently seem blind to it? I have no idea what disparity in the distribution of power could possibly account for this phenomenon!
Inevitably, there will be times in one's life when another's attempt at humor fails to amuse. When striken by such terrible tragedy, take heart, for you have the knowledge that it's just your opinion, bro.
š I want you to tell me with a straight face that you honestly believe someone could say something like "six nines..." whilst simultaneously quirking their eyebrow and striking a dual fingerguns pose without an implied double meaning...
For Pete's sake, the editor even inserted a zoom cut and delayed the next shot transition for comedic effect!
It's not difficult to guess: they got EA'd. IBM'd. FaceBook'd. Their startup got bought up, hollowed out, and dissolved. All in the name of killing off competition and padding staff rolls.
Man, Elon's got one hell of a boner for WeChat, huh? I honestly feel embarassed for him. WeChat is WeChat because it's Chinese -- there is no secret formula for Elon to steal. The circumstances which created WeChat simply do not exist in the west and IMO it should stay that way.
I'm disappointed. Jesus of all people should know how dangerous it is to ride without proper gear. Where's the helmet? Where's the armor? And, Christ... are those Sandals?? ATGATT!
I can see the memes already: Punished Trump
This way of doing it begins to make more sense when you consider which group of people disproportionately receive wrongful convictions and what the average GA voter tends to think about that particular group of people. It's an anti-black policy dressed up as being just progressive enough so that people don't rally to the polls around it.
Even if all of the operating systems were playing on a fair & ideal field, I do not think Linux would come out as the clear winner.
The Linux ecosystem is stakeholder owned. That is to say that design decisions are made by experienced users for experienced users. Whenever an ergonomic tradeoff exists between ease of use and expressiveness, ease of use loses. New users sense this and feel implicitly unwelcome. It's the original sin of open source software as a whole, really.
I don't necessarily take this state of affairs as a bad thing, but it does lead me to think that the dominant OS software will always be a commercial product of some variety. It doesn't necessarily need to be a proprietary greed-fest like Windows, but at the very least the top-level stakeholders of that specific project need to be directly motivated by user adoption. AOSP (aka: Android) would be a decent example of something like this working in the wild for an open source project (Google attempting to claw back control notwithstanding).