I'm curious as to whether you believe that's a positive or a negative.
1,720 karma · joined November 29, 2012
On Netflix, The Sandman looked abysmally bad at 720p. The complex backgrounds became a garbled mess and the dark scenes were filled with banding.
The problem is that companies were allowed to capture all of the value of women's emancipation, to the detriment of everyone.
Women joining the workforce should have meant two people working 20 hours per week instead of one person working 40. Instead, two person households are working 80 hours and one person households are struggling to get by.
Contraceptive measures are not an explanation in and of themselves. They provide no information regarding the "why".
I'd argue that the reduction is more specifically reflective of people's willingness to have children in times of economic hardship or declining living conditions; perceived or otherwise.
Prior generations experienced marriage as a transformative event, whereas for my wife and I, it was a nice day, but our lives went back to normal afterwards.
Add in the fact that even a small ceremony is expensive, and it's no surprise that many people are putting it off or foregoing it entirely.
While still a cause of tension, immigration was much lower before the war. The result was just as you said, European Jews were faced with an existential threat a few years after the holocaust.
One of the things I found quite interesting was that Palestine wasn't the only option considered by early Zionists. At some point places like Argentina and Uganda were potential candidates.
> If not in Palestine a real effort should have been made to take them in other places, yet no one was doing it - not in Palestine or anywhere else.
Agreed, the scale of the migration to palestine, even prior to 1945, indicates an abdication of duty by western countries. At the time Palestine was primarily under the control of the UK.
It's fair to say that it wasn't directly created by them but their actions in the years prior did lead to the end result. The UK administered the region and had committed to making it a "national home" for the Jewish people. That doesn't necessarily mean a state, but the result was a rapid shift in demographics.
It didn't help that the UK had also made promises of independence to other groups in the region.
> There was indeed a UN decision to partition the land and to acknowledge Israel, but no one was enforcing it. The Arabs and Jews were left to battle it out in a horrible war. Jews were facing the real possibility of a second extermination only 3 years after the holocaust (I don't think I'm exaggerating the consequences of what defeat would have looked like).
I entirely agree with you on the situation that Jews in the region were faced with at the time. One of the depressing things is that despite the proximity to the holocaust, antisemites in allied countries saw the situation as a way to encourage Jews to leave.
I can see how things might have turned out better if there hadn't been so much migration in such a short period of time.
In what way is it not? The state was created by western powers less than 100 years ago and has aggressively pursued European and US immigration since then.
The current state of things is an entirely manufactured situation and it's becoming more and more farcical. There's only so many times you can interview a guy with a British or New York accent talking about his ancestral right to the desert before things start looking a little bit weird.
The prevalence of British and American accents whenever the IDF is interviewed was certainly surprising.
I'm not sure how you'd solve this without manually approving each page.
For example, if you happen to be classed as a "worker", rather than an employee, you do not have a legal right to leave work or take time off to care for a sick family member or pick a child up from school.
I know I recently began paying tax on employer provided health insurance for example.
Improving things that put new users off is often the same as improving things that annoy existing users. Keeping the spirit of the tool intact doesn't require doing everything the same way.
> If the last emacs user press C-x C-c for the last time in whatever years that is not a failure.
I disagree. It'd be just as much of a failure as emacs moving away from it's focus on extensibility/configurability. It's meant to be a useful tool, if no-one is interested in using it, then it has most likely failed at it's purpose.
On the current situation, after reading through the emacs-devel mailing list, it becomes clear that the author of this change - a long term user and contributor - was attempting to address an issue that had come up in his own workflow. He seemed interested in engaging with people who had concerns surrounding the change. The tone of the article is honestly embarrassing in comparison.
This seems to miss the point of these changes. If you're only concerned with your own workflow then almost any changes that you didn't specifically request are annoying. However, if you're concerned with the continued development/relevance of the program then it becomes clear that change must occur. Taking into account both existing user's concerns and barriers to entry for new users.
Many of emacs defaults are pretty awful at introducing users to the "emacs" way of doing things while also failing at easing unfamiliar users in.
You mean like doing something once and then expecting to be paid for it in perpetuity?
Expecting to be paid for the efforts of others, decades after their death?
Redefining the legal system in order to prevent others from carrying out the, distribution?
I'm much more concerned about those free riders than a teen with no way to pay for digital goods, someone who couldn't afford it, or someone who'd like to keep the things they pay for.
It goes entirely against how humans think, strangling creativity and innovation. An artist is harmed far more when they're forced to spend years in court, debating whether their chord progression is too similar to a song written by someone who's been dead for 50 years.
My opinion is that inequality destroys people's ability to relate to one another. My worries now are completely different to those I had growing up, and the people who have staff to run their lives increasingly show themselves to have no concept of what life is like for the rest of us.
It feels like there's a fairly dangerous game being played in the UK at the minute, with frustrations around inequality are being exploited and redirected as anger towards out-groups.
The issue is that leaving the EU and attacking immigrants doesn't actually solve the underlying issue. The people behind it still benefit in the meantime but eventually it's going to blow up in someone's face. My sincerest hope is that it's theirs.
1. The wealthy don't typically look to increase their wages, mainly because it's much harder to dodge tax on them.
2. Only if the only statistic you look at is how much wages have increased in the last year, ignoring all of the other statistics like rent, rising food/energy insecurity, a decrease in retail volume yet increased revenue, etc.
> 2. The CPI might not be perfect, but it's still better than a vague handwavy argument backed by zero statistics.
Who said anything about being handwavy or lacking statistics? We have freely available data on how many people are using food banks, how much energy prices and rent have risen, on the much greater rise in the cost of supermarket own brand goods as compared to branded goods, etc.
We know for a fact that people are spending more and buying less. I'm not sure it takes a genius to understand that the people who were already struggling are going to suffer a much greater drop in their quality of life than the class whose main gripe is how "sad" it made them to raise their rents or lay off employees.
Inequality makes possible our current situation, where the owning class encourage and exploit immigrant labour, only to disseminate "news" aimed at making the working class hate those immigrants.
Wealth inequality is an issue largely borne out within a particular society.
In the UK we've seen rising poverty and food insecurity at the same time as a rapid increase in the wealth of those at the top. That global poverty has improved means little to someone who is now struggling to put food on their table, or stay on top of their mortgage.
> In my mindset as long as the median is improving and the poorest are improving, the ratio of rich to poor isn't important and isn't clearing a bad thing if the inequality is increasing. You seem to think otherwise, why?
Wealth buys power. Allowing it to concentrate into a small group of people leads to issues.
Social cohesion seems to suffer as inequality rises.
Someone who could only afford to purchase the cheapest essentials experienced a much larger increase in their living costs than the CPI would indicate. Yet it's still used, despite how misleading it is.