Ghjklov

Why does it matter if SSL is commonly understood to reference the South Side Locos? Clearly people have been affected negatively by them. If you aren't going to stand up for them, how do we believe you really stand for black people and others who have been enslaved?

Before modern times, slave was just a common word to define people who had been put under slavery. Back then, you would've scoffed at the idea of censoring away a perfectly acceptable word because "it's not commonly understood to be offensive". That's what I gather from your refusal to recognize SSL as an offensive term referencing the Arizona street gang.

You're right, that too...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS

This is a travesty. Honestly don't see myself using or promoting Open* anymore until they get this issue sorted out.

On the other hand, there are Americans who firmly believe that highly educated people like yourself from poorer countries shouldn't be giving your knowledge and work to first world western countries that are already wealthy. They think that people like yourself should be back at home, trying to make their own country better, rather than coming to make some other country richer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_drain

I don't have a strong opinion on whether you should or shouldn't be here, but I wanted to give a different perspective. It's really only tangentially related to this whole discussion.

A lot of Americans have been taught that the U.S is the land of opportunity, a place where anyone can come and through hard work can make something out of themselves. What people probably imagine when they think about this is poor immigrants coming and starting from the bottom, starting in food service jobs or doing janitorial work or something and working their way up. That's the American dream they were told about. None of them would imagine that through an H1B visa, we'd be allowing some of the most highly educated immigrants from other countries to come and immediately work in high level positions with salaries of 6 or even 7 figures.

I find it understandable that some amount of Americans feel that this is wrong and that they were told a lie.

One human is complex already. People, groups of humans are even more problematic. Social media is a hard problem because people are hard to get a handle on. And I think that's good. People should be allowed to be skeptical, to have anxieties, and to be able to look out for the interests of their people/community. Just because one Karen saw a suspicious person and wanted to let all her neighbors know to be careful doesn't mean Nextdoor/social media is bad. People looking out for each other is a good thing! You see that all the time in high trust societies where you could even safely leave a bike unattended for a few minutes without fearing that it'll be stolen.

Don't get me wrong though. Nextdoor's program to forward suspicions to the police is the wrong play. No one should be arrested and put at harm's way just because someone was a bit anxious one day.

I just think that we should be nurturing a high trust society, rather than moving to a low trust one where, on the surface everyone is tolerant/accepting but in reality they aren't really thinking about the other people in their community at all. "Not my problem." "Oh no, I can't let myself be bigoted. Who am I to judge the masked man walking around with a chainsaw at midnight? He might just be headed out to trim his garden?"

Ting(https://ting.com/)'s Lawyers: Allow me to introduce myself

People respond to incentives. They must've figured out at some point that using attractive models for advertising sells better to normal, average people. Not all models you have on hand will be attractive enough for the magazine, so they can supplement with Photoshop. Even if you regulate away Photoshop usage in the marketing/advertising industry, they'd just have to start only hiring super attractive models right? Maybe we could force companies to use average looking models? I don't know, but there's a lot of ways you could approach it. The simplest but most difficult solution is to change people. I know the first reaction is to think that "Wow, it's all those pervert men's fault for these absurd norms and expectations of women!" but then I remember these are advertisements targeted to women. What to do?

>people need a reality check and get back to living a simpler life with less shit being bought and sold all the time

Who sold them that stuff? Who convinced people that they need to upgrade their phones every single year? Nothing will change until we destroy the marketing/advertising industries that profit off manipulating the most vulnerable people...

I was being facetious anyway. "x is bloat" is a common saying in free software communities.

Having a garage is bloat

A while ago I switched to a habit of eating only one big meal a day to get the bulk of my nutrition. The timing doesn't matter that much, just whatever is convenient and what feels good for me any given day. It is flexible though. It might be one big meal and a second smaller meal. Or one big meal and small healthy, nutritious snacks throughout the day to make up for whatever the big meal lacked. This works a lot better for me as I do not have to plan for 3-4 meals every single day. Being human, I might not want to eat the same dish more than once, so I have to figure out different things for each meal which really stresses me out. 3-4 meals a day might work for me if I was always eating prepared food though. With one meal a day, I simply cook 3-4 servings of whatever I felt like eating and eat all or most of it in one sitting until I feel satisfied. My intuition also tells me that digesting one meal only at a regular time every day is better than digesting 3-4 different meals spread across the day. The concept of fasting is to give your body a break from digesting and stuff right, giving it time to naturally release any bad stuff through the natural processes. If one day I've eaten too much junk and feel bloated, I give myself the next day a break from eating at all. Like a 24 hour fast. Or you could just do a 16 hour fast and only eat a small healthy dinner. What's valuable to me is this flexibility. I've read that before farming, food was harder to come by, so humans back then didn't really get to eat 3-4 meals every single day. They might catch something or whatever and eat all of it that day like a feast, and then it might be another 1 or 2 days before they can eat that much again.

The number one benefit of one meal a day perhaps for me, is that you can organize/plan your digestion, if you know what I mean. Imagine being able to control and plan for when you need to poop. I can do that with this diet. I basically never have to use public restrooms except for urination. It's a blessing really.

There's no positive stereotypes. Given the stereotype that Asians are smart, what happens to impoverished Asians who did not have a good education and upbringing and aren't as smart as others? They get demoralized and are cast aside in many cases.

I don't see how you could ever come to the conclusion that Asian people don't have it harder than white people given the wiki links I've provided. Given how American/white culture often disrespects and mocks Asian culture and classifies them as uncreative followers unfit to lead.

Asian success is not proof that Asians are privileged or have it easier than other people. Asian success came in spite of everything done to them in this country. They put their head down and gave their sweat and blood to get where they are now.

Why is that okay for them to do that? Genuinely curious.

Lotteries aren't really the same thing as holding shares in a company.

But the possibility exists. That you can make money by simply trading stocks, without actually putting much in too much work and time (outside of research and education).

I have a hunch, just a feeling, that the powers that be prefer that we normal people not know about how they make money by simply trading around stocks with excess money they have laying around.

I agree

On the flip side, if this trader instead made 700k on options, he'd be celebrated as a hero who beat the market at such a young age and Robinhood would be an empowering role in elevating the young and disenfranchised. That is just the reality of the market. I hope this is not setting up so that the powers that be, and the market makers can demonize trading and then regulate away all the new blood who wants to get in on their game.

>If a white person preferentially hires or promotes other whites, you'd claim those whites benefited from privilege. But you won't say the same for Asians,

Untrue, I have not claimed this anywhere or have implied such a thing.

I think you are misreading something. I am arguing against the suggestion that Asians have unearned privilege which allowed them to become successful in America.

I don't understand why you are arguing these points at me. I didn't say anything about whites. Unarmed Asians being killed less by police and Asians being capable of racism doesn't mean Asian Americans are privileged lol. What are you trying to say bro? Just come out and say it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Anyway, Asians did not succeed from a position of privilege. They succeeded in spite of everything the American voter (largely white) voted for to keep them down.

It's the kind of token gesture that actually just makes people more skeptical or angry at PoC who most of the time had nothing to do with the gesture.

>Would it also be okay to suggest Asians are over-represented because of unearned Asian privilege?

That would be an incredibly stupid and unequivocally false thing to suggest because the odds are actually stacked against Asians, and they must work harder than most other people to achieve the same thing. Asians have earned everything they've attained in this country. They deserve whatever success they've gotten, and for that, they receive undeserved discrimination and disrespect.

Nothing to see here except devs covering their asses from accusations. As a PoC, I recognize that actions like this do nothing to change the system and they are really just diversions from actually putting in effort to make a real impact.

When people talked about Trump's actions being part of a grand 4D chess scheme, it's hard to believe, but EM may be a different story...we'll have to see

Who is flagging this? It's an amusing post and pretty much harmless.

Just wait until you find out what other things monkeys determine in our country.

>Furthermore, restaurants in developed countries have to follow rigorous health and safety practices when preparing and distributing food.

All the incentives say that restaurant workers must prioritize speed and "customer satisfaction" over cleanliness. As much as restaurant managers and owners would like things to be up to standard, it's typically not worth it to them if taking even one minute longer than usual causes a customer to complain to them. Customers give you shit when you're 2 minutes late, but they'll never notice or care that you took 2 minutes because you were washing your hands or cleaning the workstation.

This is what decades of "the customer is always right" has done to people. People need to change, so that the incentives change. I'm very happy to wait an extra 5 minutes if it means workers have time to breathe and wash their damn hands like they're supposed to. But if Karen doesn't get her McDongles 2 minutes faster, she's gonna need to speak to the manager and get some poor worker fired.

I think "not as frequently" is a understatement. Cats are orders of magnitudes less dangerous to humans than dogs are, it's not even something I have to think about when I walk outside. Meanwhile, often times, the only thing that stops a dog from attacking me is the gate of their owner's house. Even that won't stop them from running at me and barking at me though. And yes, I've walked by a house with no gate before and two dogs just came after me and attacked my legs, one even biting me. I'm no dog hater or anything, in fact I like dogs, but dogs are only appreciable if they're on your side. I shudder at the thought that anyone would be able to get a pitbull and do whatever they please with it without licensing or repercussions for letting it loose on the neighborhood children.

EDIT: Forgot to say, it don't matter even one bit what size the dog is or how small it is. If they aren't on your side, they're capable and very willing to bark at and attack you.

It's amusing how some people are like "trust the science" and tout the knowledge and authority of experts but then scientists like this get flagged because their findings don't align with their beliefs. There seems to be a mixed signal here. Should we trust experts or not?

People don't believe they'll literally drop dead next month. But they believe they'll get kicked out of their apartment if they can't pay rent. If that happens, they might end up losing their job after not being able to show up for a few days in order to find a new place if that's even possible. Being poor is miserable. You know how you might lament that due to your full time job you have so little time to spend on your interests and hobbies? Likewise, poor people have very little time or the mental bandwidth to think about doing things that only pay off in the long term. They're focused on surviving to next month. So they spend money on groceries instead of on coding lessons or something which won't get them a better job any time soon. They're probably right anyway. What's the point of learning to code when companies wouldn't hire them in a million years instead of a college graduate or someone with previous experience in the field. So you can imagine how many people are condemned to forever working food service jobs or other such work.