thrawn @ thrawn @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

283

Joined

2 yr. ago

It’s because broad adoption of the existing term -> fewer misunderstandings if you just use a variation. Anyone with even passing knowledge of stocks has heard of splitting. The inverse is so comparatively rare that the term wouldn’t be widespread enough to be as immediately understandable as the (admittedly dumb sounding) reverse split.

In part because stock merge could feasibly be multiple things. Stock share merge is more specific, but that’s three words that don’t flow very well rhythmically. A reverse split can only be one thing and is the most layman friendly.

I hear housing is extremely expensive as well. Plus the roaches are… plentiful

Yeah fair I hadn’t thought that far into it and would make a pretty poor criminal. I was also mentally framing it as a need-to-eat situation where I presume most don’t have the resources to coordinate the loot sale. But organized crime does need to eat too.

I get that and largely agree, but I still feel it’s unfair to associate the mass robbery alone with poor person things. All of this is my personal opinion and I’ll repeat that a lot to emphasize that I’m not saying anything as fact.

The message of “this looting isn’t surprising given the increased divide between the rich and the poor,” to me, is already bridging the gap for opportunistic bad actors. While we shouldn’t be silent, it’s worth noting that some words may do more harm than good. In my eyes, the potential gain is minuscule (most people know that desperation begets desperate acts) and the inverse is high (very few people in the country this happened in will agree with a violent robbery, especially one of this scale). Outside of the unique ecosystem of Lemmy, that comment would be good ammo for bad actors and a bad supporting statement for good arguments.

And yeah, some of it is simply that I personally don’t like associating poor with a crime like this.

Anyway, beyond that I don’t disagree with the primary point, merely how it was presented. I also doubt there’s anything that would make me feel more comfortable with that association, but fortunately the opinion of one random person doesn’t matter and that saves you time responding. Be well!

I’ll admit I’m not too familiar with crime, but I can’t see them getting anywhere near face value for any of these things. And I wouldn’t want to go down for larceny in the amount thousands + violent robbery + potential culpability regarding the harmed security guard.

I rescind the comment if it really is that easy to sell high value stolen items. Just assumed pawn shops would be suspicious, eBay would have too large a paper trail, and selling them individually is difficult and time consuming.

They’re not going to get anywhere near retail value for those, and robbery like this vs petty larceny is punished more harshly.

So is bear spraying a security guard. He’s probably not rich, and if you get caught, you’re not feeding your family anything for a long time.

Anyway I know you said you don’t necessarily believe that was the reason, but I just didn’t like the implication that poor people would gather 20-50 like minded friends to ransack a store and potentially hurt people to steal designer bags. I know some people, when pushed far enough, will resort to robbery but the number and willingness to harm for a commodity that’s difficult to sell feels like typical organized crime. Not your intention and maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I feel like associating poor people for large scale crime like this only makes things worse for them societally.

Who steals designer bags with 20-50 of their friends when backed into a corner? Isn’t food generally wiser to steal if you are extremely poor?

There’s a site for whether movies have after-credit sequences. It is spoiler free too. aftercredits.com

If it can’t discern bleach from ingredients, the actual recipes are probably quite bad too. Another example recipe in the article suggests it’s just throwing any ingredient you give it into a random recipe, substituting in literally anything indiscriminately. So it doesn’t work for the purpose of generating useful recipes.

Fun automated madlibs game tho

Takes about the same amount of time as someone backing out when leaving, so it’s balanced out eventually. It’s a little unexpected but I don’t put my car anywhere I’m not 100% sure is safe, and backwards parking isn’t particularly rare, so I’m never really taken aback that much

Spam calls and interactive emails are, but phishing emails have nothing to lose from better design since they’re just collecting data. Some of them are actually pretty well done, to their credit.

Right but if the soap and shampoo are similarly priced you’re spending the same amount of money. I also use Bronner’s and shampoo but I don’t remember how much they cost sadly, though I feel like it’s pretty close?

I think you’re still spending money on that though

Gates has the money to do both, and more. It’s just sometimes better to let others do it instead— having your own space company means worrying about competition, contracts, and potential profitability. Meanwhile if he wanted, he could hitch a ride on any of their rockets with no effort.

Musk and Bezos also have the money to do both, but they merely elect not to. Perhaps in the future they will, like Gates, begin funneling more of their effort and wealth into altruism to improve their reputations.

One other thing I think is worth mentioning: meat is good, but it’s not even that good. As a child I was a very picky eater and largely carnivorous, having to purposefully supplement the occasional vegetable. Now I’m essentially pescatarian because honestly, most meat isn’t really good. It can be low quality, bland, and boring. Innovative chefs seem to be realizing that, and I personally agree that Eleven Madison’s food is better now that it’s fully plant based.

Meat can be such a crutch, and when it’s not, it requires quality cuts and good preparation. And yet many people would rather eat a tough, poorly seasoned mediocre steak than a vegan dish, even if it’s genuinely a bad experience, but I’m pretty sure it’s a misplaced pride thing.

Finally, working with meat can be a lot harder than vegetables, especially chicken. Dominique Crenn has a wonderful cookbook featuring incredible plant based dishes, and of course Atelier Crenn is one of the most convincing arguments of plant superiority.

I find that, for those who simply don’t care about the world around them, an appeal to taste and ease is far more effective than trying to introduce humanity. It also prevents the knee jerk reaction to plant based diets— “sure, I like my meats too, but it’s just too boring/doesn’t taste good enough” shifts the discussion from tribalistic hatred of vegans to something that directly impacts them, largely the only way to actually get some people to listen.

It was a trap by the special counsel set by… getting him to hire terrible attorneys? I would think that more a consequence of the magnitude of his crimes + his history of nonpayment, leaving only desperate lawyers willing to be the next in line trying to defend one of the most obvious criminals in recent history and humiliating themselves in the process

The person she told that to, Homer Hickam, had no say in the firing, expressed disappointment after, and helped her get another job after (though I do not recall if it was successful). In an era where companies are increasingly sensitive about what employees post online, she had it much much better than just about anyone else in the world fired for the same thing at least.

And really… perhaps I’m old fashioned, but posting stuff like that in the same tweet as your NASA offer was pretty poorly thought out. NASA doesn’t feel like the type of organization that wants its employees associated with messaging like that.

Inversely, the only Singaporean I know (born and raised until adulthood, lived in the states briefly and went back) has always been proud of the good but very critical of the archaic things, and does not agree with the pedestal the US occasionally places Singapore on. He’s just one person but has been fair enough that I’m weirdly surprised to hear there are people like that.

“Go for X” was somewhat common, including in media. I think OP was mishearing that. There’s virtually no way to differentiate between “gopher” and a rushed, casual “go for” in speech.

It’s framing. If the title ended at “not much more,” it would look like criticism. They could do “not that we’re saying that’s bad” but that’s not terribly professional and isn’t very brief