Walmart just leveled with Americans: China won’t be paying for Trump’s tariffs, in all likelihood you will
hydrospanner @ hydrospanner @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 886Joined 2 yr. ago
can we do blurry closeups?
She does! But that's her mouth haha.
I was taking a pic and she decided she needed to rub against my phone.
can we do blurry closeups?
I feel like this is very situation dependent.
That may be the case in your company or industry, but not everywhere.
In my experience there's been a big difference between a general resume I'm uploading to a place like a LinkedIn or Indeed (and letting the recruiters come to me), using that uploaded resume to apply to job postings on that site, and sending resume/application to specific companies on their site.
For the first one, hell no, no cover letter. How would that even work? No cover letter is better than a generic one.
For applying for specific postings on these sites? For me it depends on just how good the opportunity is. If I feel like there's some sort of special connection that makes me tailor made for the role, the money is great, it's doing really interesting work, or a company I really want to work for? Absolutely I'll include a cover letter. I'm just looking to get out of a shit job, or the role doesn't really move the needle, but I think it might be a good fit? Nah, just hit that quick apply button and move on.
But if I'm reaching out to a company directly?
Cover letter every time (unless they specifically say not to). If they don't want it, they won't read it, but I've never felt like it hurt my chances, and in a few interviews, they've specifically mentioned something about it.
Permanently Deleted
Yeah he's an unholy mix of Palpatine and the goblin king from the hobbit movie.
This is also a favored tactic when it's time to hold the budget hostage with threats of a government shutdown a few times every other year too.
An atlatl for grenades!
A splatlatl, if you will.
Yeah, it sounds like it might be a great case to run up the flagpole to SCOTUS for an official ruling, since it crosses state lines.
Like ..okay the child is behaving in a way inconsistent with State B Law, but they're not in State B. That happens all the damn time, every day, with vice laws, weed laws, gun laws, etc.
Also, presumably, if the child moved out of the country, State B would be completely unable to enforce its laws in country B. So there's a limit to this enforcement, but where is it?
Permanently Deleted
I mean, it's all very subjective, so "too much" for you seems to be what is a good amount for everyone else...but realistically, I don't think this is a legitimate complaint since you still need to be able to make all these adjustments anyway... it's just a matter of the way the adjustments are being made.
All a touch screen changes is that it can play host to multiple functions depending on context...but it loses much of the visual recognition and almost all the tactile feedback of a physical control.
And while vehicles keep getting more and more complex for sure, I feel like when I'm riding in a more touchscreen heavy vehicle, that screen is displaying the same static set of controls 99% of the time...and at that point, the flexibility it offers is largely irrelevant, and the tradeoffs mean giving up a lot to get very little in exchange.
Permanently Deleted
They get really spicy!
Permanently Deleted
Disagree.
Personally, I feel the problem is absolutely touchscreens.
I've only got five senses, and taste and smell aren't helpful in a driving situation.
Of the 3 left, sight is the most important for the most important task: driving.
For other tasks, sound is best used to alert or remind about something, and is frequently diminished as a driving aid by music.
That leaves touch and sight for all remaining tasks.
Touchscreens are, despite the name, effectively 100% reliant on sight, since there's no real tactile feedback to enable the user to make eyes-free adjustments. To use a touchscreen, you have to take your eyes off the road to see what the screen says and make your selections.
While some are better than others, I also feel like touchscreens are still embarrassingly and frustratingly prone to errors, missed touches, and generally not doing the things the user intended, requiring even more eyes off the road to undo whatever actually happened, get the interface back to the place you want it, and try again, hoping that this time it'll work.
My mid-teens vehicle has a mix of a medium sized touch screen for the entertainment unit but physical controls for climate, driving, and a few of the entertainment adjustments, and while I was all about the advanced new touchscreen when I bought it, I find it's my least favorite part of the controls this far along in ownership.
"I want things to be worse for everyone who isn't exactly like me."
You're the worst kind of person.
I feel like most people I have heard talking about them while supporting Trump seem to know that tariffs are taxes, but have no concept of how they play out in a real economic situation. Most fall into one or both of two camps:
A) Tariffs are taxes, but they're taxes for companies not individuals, and they're only applied to importing, so they won't affect me.
B) Tariffs are taxes for foreign companies, to level the playing field and keep American business competitive. Since the companies that have to pay it are foreign, it won't affect me.
Spoiler alert, guys: no matter where the tax is levied in the system, the consumer is the only person who ever pays for it, since they're the only ones that can't pass that cost on to anyone else.
Also, while this can make domestic competitors more competitive, it's important to remember two things: first, if it works, it's only working by making things more expensive for consumers, and second, this assumes that the domestic competitors want more business, have the ability and posture to increase their production to meet the new greater demand, and will operate in good faith. Much more likely is that they simply also increase their prices in reaction to the tariffs, so they're not producing or selling any more volume and aren't creating any jobs... they're just padding their profit margins at the corporate/shareholder level while doing nothing for their employees, all while having the average consumer foot the bill.
That's exactly what happened with the steel tariffs in the first Trump term and that's exactly what will happen now...the only difference is that this time it seems like there will be significantly fewer economic buffers between the tariff and the consumer, so more people will more directly feel the sting here...and presumably the mental gymnastics from the MAGAts will be even sadder in their attempts to somehow make it not a criticism of their orange leader's incompetence.
Special counsel Jack Smith seeks pause in Trump criminal case to assess 'unprecedented circumstance'
Implying anything needs to be proven in court when the judge is a Trump appointee.
Could the Democrats do more? Sure. But they're still recovering from the fever that took the party over with Clinton in '92.
If that's true, Jesus H. Christ, Democratic party, just get out of the way and let someone else fight fascism. If you're "still recovering" 32 goddamn years later, you're not recovering. That's just a permanent part of the party identity. And the people are clearly not wild about what you've become if you lose to Donald Fucking Trump two out of three times.
So just quit.
Shut the party down and let something else take its place, because whatever happened in 92 is chronic and terminal, and you're bringing the rest of the country down with you.
I think the American middle got taken by surprise at their own apathy in '16. Then in '20 they were motivated by fear. This week, they showed that they've simply lost faith in the Democratic party, plain and simple. That they're tired of what they've been getting from the party and they'll accept a horrible person over perpetuating the arrogance and inaction of the Democrats.
And while I can't say I was too fed up to support Harris, now that Tuesday is behind us, as much as I despise Trump, I have to admit that the Democrats got exactly what they deserved at the ballot box: the same lukewarm apathy they've shown the American people the past 12 years.
Maybe they'll finally get the message and put together a cohesive, intelligent, inspiring platform and message for the midterms, but if history is anything to go by, I'm guessing that this time in 2 years, they're thrilled as fuck to take back the House (with too slim a majority to do much beyond hold up legislation), with progressives gaining slightly more seats than now, and the party as a whole will still have the same lack of focus, direction, and message...
...and I would bet money that this time in 2026 they still don't have anything close to an idea of a possible presidential nominee that gets people excited.
Agreed 100%.
If they did this, they would easily carry states with high populations of blue collar and union laborers. Stop paying lip service and actually do it.
States that have had major manufacturing centers in the late 20th century like the Rust Belt.
Like...Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
The Democratic party is just paying the price for ignoring blue collar middle class voters since the late 80s. They took those votes for granted, and they lost them over time. Just like after blue collar folks they then took the votes of minorities for granted...and now they're losing those.
All they need to do is ask what they've done for these people lately...like in the past few decades. And when they came really answer that in any terms other than what they prevented the other guys from doing, they shouldn't have to wonder why enthusiasm for their party's candidates is at an all time low.
Literally ZERO people I know personally have actually liked and actively, enthusiastically supported any democratic presidential nominee since Obama. That's twelve fucking years and zero candidates that got people excited and inspired. Most of my friends voted for these candidates, but nobody liked them.
Honestly, if it weren't for the opposition being so unbearably awful, I'd almost be happy to see the Democratic party handed loss after loss until and unless they learn their lesson and stop taking their base for granted.
Agreed.
Ultimately, polls are simply unable to account for the demographic of "doesn't participate in advance polling", and Anthony they attempt to do to account for that glaring weakness is guesswork.
A lot has shifted over time, but the default state of American politics has always been two dominant parties.
That said, I could absolutely see a scenario where an American centrist party forms, still solidly to the right of most Western democracy, but centrist by current local standards, which not only pulls in the non-MAGA Republicans but also moderate Democrats, blue collar Dems from purple states, and once it gains traction and wins a few races, massive support from corporations and lobbies.
They'd win landslide victories over both older parties, especially as progressives and leftists gained greater control of the Democratic party through the flight of the moderates to the new centrist party, which would in turn drive even more establishment Dems to the new party.
They could run on nothing more than "common sense compromise, unity, and moving beyond the partisan squabbling that has plagued the country for decades", and be successful for at least 3 cycles before they even had to really take up any issues in earnest.
The deep South would stay red, the West cost, new York, and Illinois would stay blue, but I could see all of the mid Atlantic, Midwest, plains states, new England, and Southwest going for a viable centrist party.
For a long few years, national level politics would be absolute fucking chaos.
Since he owns the Post, it is very strictly speaking "his business".
On one hand, I'd love to see the Post endorse Harris, but on the other hand, I do feel that the owner of a company absolutely should have this level of control over their own company.
It might be different if he were compelling the paper to compromise on it's integrity or something, but simply preventing his own paper from endorsing a political candidate is absolutely something that he should be able to do.
Please note that this isn't a commentary on his immense wealth, or the role of the ultra wealthy in America...simply an observation on what a business owner should be able to do with their own company.
That is exactly what US steel did in response to the steel tariffs back in Trump round one.