unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov @ unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

282

Joined

2 yr. ago

It feels like lots of people holding their breath until "prices go back down", passing out from a lack of oxygen, waking up, asking why the prices are still so damn high, then holding their breath again when they're told, "this is just the price now, deal with it".

I mean don't get me wrong, it would be neat if we could go back to 1990 prices, but that just isn't how this works, nor should it be our goal.

Don't need the luck, I don't chase fool's errands.

In this thread: "Biden did not have a 1-on-1 conversation with my manager that resulted in a massive raise, so I declare these statistics invalid!"

This seems to happen a lot on Lemmy, makes me miss the Economics subreddit.

I know that not everyone has had the opportunity to take classes in economics, but the amount of people who are unable to see past their own nose is incredible.

How would we prefer our leaders to make policy decisions? Should they pick a random 10 people and ask what they think, or would it be better to gather a wide range of data on the topic to build an understanding of the economic impacts for 300M+ people? I'd argue that it would be irresponsible for policymakers to ignore the aggregate statistics, but commenters in this thread seem dead set on asserting that because their personal circumstances don't follow the narrative, the statistics must be a lie.

Yes, that was the "phishing" bit.

I suspect that the goal with this program is to advantage first time home buyers over their competitors, such as REITs and hedge funds that have been indiscriminately buying up housing across the country. Obviously the devil is in the details but there's a way to implement this that makes sense and isn't insane, but we'll have to wait until the bill passes to see if that's the path we take.

Your article is two years old and provides a mountain of speculation about economics that didn't pan out in reality. Seriously, check it out, inflation in the US peaked lower than the UK or EU, and has trended below them consistently through today.

Go ahead and argue about the relative stability of more insular economies like Japan and China, but the Fed did exactly what they set out to do, and they did it more effectively than other comparable central banks.

You know only a tiny little slice went to working class Americans right?

Like, everyone got the $1400, even Bill Gates. But a lot went to people, companies, and states that just didn't need it.

Objectively, verifiably false. Single taxpayers under $75k, couples under $150k. Bill Gates didn't benefit. Maybe you're thinking of the stimulus that Trump signed that blindly handed out thousands of dollars to businesses with little to no accountability?

Ah yes, I believe you've encountered people in the wild who support leopards eating their face. This is a documented phenomenon and I, for one, don't have a clue what can be done about it.

Nah, everyone who says, "don't vote third party" simply paid attention in their civics class and understands how our electoral system works.

Independents have won federal offices before, not the presidency, but we have evidence showing that third parties can win elections. However, if two candidates are clear frontrunners, voting for a third party doesn't positively contribute to the outcome of the election.

In fact, the data shows that a vote for a minority candidate makes it more likely that the winner of the election will hold views that are actually farther from one's preferences than if one voted for a majority candidate. This is a big part of the push for states to move to ranked choice voting, so that voters don't need to make this kind of electoral compromise.

If you're in Maine, Alaska, or Hawaii, you may be in luck! Otherwise, you can put your hands over your eyes and yell about the injustice of it all, but it doesn't change the facts; which is why grownups having political discussions dismiss minority candidates as being irrelevant to the discussion.

You're probably in the minority, but probably not the only one.

WhatsApp is also owned by meta, so out of the 7 options, 3 of them are owned by the same company and yet continue to lack support for interoperability.

My label for that user is, "regularly confidently incorrect".

There are a few power users like them around here and it can be fun to watch them argue with folks. Perhaps they just enjoy the act of arguing? They might just be malicious, but I prefer to imagine that most people are trying their best to engage in good faith more often than not.

I didn't downvote, but I briefly thought about it because their first statement is incorrect. Not factually, but the fact that many tech companies are downsizing isn't something that you could reasonably argue in court as for why these specific positions were eliminated.

"But your honor, all of the other cool companies are doing it!" isn't something that would stand up to much scrutiny.

The bit you quoted was what made me pause, because I agree with you.

I hear you and agree that it's frustrating.

From an electoral politics perspective, it doesn't make any sense to have a full-on, guns blazing primary. We have hundreds of years of history showing that the incumbent has a huge advantage and, frankly, nobody with enough money to make a difference wants to burn their money weakening the incumbent for the sake of policy discussion.

Israel's behavior is abhorrent. However, Americans behaved horrifically after 9/11 and many of their allies stuck by them then, so in a way there is an expectation that they will be there for Israel during this time; foreign policy is inexorably nuanced and compromising.

Perhaps if there were no issues other than Israel's war we would be having a different conversation. Even if we blindly ignore the fact that Trump's foreign policy is blatantly anti-Muslim, the fact is that Trump & his allies were just at CPAC making speeches about their plans to bring an end to democracy and nobody around here has found a way to beat Trump other than Biden. Party leadership (the establishment) has set the course and while the choice is certainly unsavory, is it worse than the alternative?

Couldn't agree more. IMO, the perfect talent is the kind you grow yourself.

No number of interviews or tests will lead you to a magical perfect candidate 100% of the time, but those with less experience are great because they're eager to accept a lower salary and will attack just about any problem you throw at them enthusiastically because every challenge is a new chance to prove their mettle.

Obviously it takes time to build a program where mentorship is valued and more senior folks help to develop newer teammates, but if you want the highest quality talent, it's hard to beat homegrown.

I'm not suggesting that - I agree with you, once a couple decides to adopt, their adopted children are just as loved as any others. I'm simply pointing out that people will go to great lengths not to adopt in the first place.

If people are having children who shouldn't, would you agree that there is a moral imperative to prevent them from having children in the first place?

Aight, pay up, where's the western media reporting on this?

That sounds like an incredibly large cover-up operation, if true. I've seen the US government in action and I'm here to tell you that they simply cannot contain stories this big. Ukraine has a free press and they have unrestricted access to the internet. If it were as bad as you suggest, why have we not heard of it?

It sounds to me like you need to get your facts straight.

I haven't looked into it personally, but from every account I've heard, it sounds like a horror show. Admittedly, there's probably some confirmation bias in there, but I'm also thinking about it from an anthropological perspective.

If adopting a child were equivalent to giving birth to your own child, why would people still go through the torture that is pregnancy? We know that there have been orphanages for centuries, so this seems to be a long running thread in the history of humanity.

From a behavioral economics standpoint, it seems presumptuous to suggest that more couples ought to change their preference from what they're predisposed to choose naturally, especially without an explanation for why they are likely to have this preference to begin with.

Once you start speculating on the reasons why people prefer adoption only as a fallback option, you'll likely find that the answer is complicated and personal to every couple, but in aggregate the average couple isn't thinking about adoption as a plan A.

Even when it comes to same sex couples - they're working on technology to be able to combine dna from two same sex parents and create an embryo that is truly a child of two people of the same sex.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just thinking of examples where adoption seems to run counter to people's revealed preferences.

Your title is worded in a way that suggests that Ukrainian citizens are ready to sue for peace, but the actual study doesn't conclude that at all. Vast majorities of those surveyed believe that Ukraine will win the war and restore their original territory.

The options available were, basically, "the war can only end through military means" and "in addition to the military efforts, diplomatic efforts should be taken to end the war". It isn't particularly surprising that people understand that diplomatic efforts are necessary to conclude the war, but this shouldn't be taken as a sign that they're ready to simy give up. Far from it.