accountyaccount

There's still a lot of fear with the federal government still seeing it as illegal. Jeff Sessions could destroy your investment overnight.

Going to chime in with a nitpicky female voice here: abortion isn't really a reoccurring long-term form of birth control that should be lumped in with the pill or IUDs.

It's kind of like calling a fighter jet's eject sequence a landing option.

Not picking on you specifically, I just know a lot of men who toss around abortion pretty lightly. Even if you're pro-choice it can often weigh on you.

Sure, but if you get a ticket for doing 100 in a 50 you might be out a few hundred bucks. If you hit someone while doing 100 in a 50 you'll be in jail. Outcomes still matter.

[2009]

Wait wait wait, he committed fraud... but everyone he defrauded actually ended up getting a 3X return on their investment because he just took money from another one of his ventures?

I mean, illegal sure, but seems like he still held up his end of the bargain.

story of my life

A lot has changed since they started, I imagine it's a nice "if you had to start all over again how would you do it differently" moment. A lot of companies don't really get that chance, hence: cool.

Now, maybe it's completely wrong for them and they shouldn't be — that's a totally fair assessment. I honestly don't know.

Most major redesigns end up being a mistake. It's cool that they're re-writing, but they should change things for users in an iterative way or they're going to get extreme backlash. People do not respond well to drastic change to the point where even quantifiable positive change is often met with complaints.

It could very well be superior, but the moment someone says "like Facebook" about any sort of newsfeed the response will essentially be "BURN THE WITCH"

A manager could then point to the salary of someone in the same position and say

"Jane gets paid $X in the same position, it would be unfair to give you a raise and not her"

I don't work somewhere with transparent salaries and I already get that excuse — I've more than once heard "you're kind of already at the top of our range for X position" and "if we pay you anymore you'll be making more than me!"

Why is the assumption that when a political party hates something, it's because the opposing party did something wrong?

I know a lot of over-zealous liberals who have definitely misrepresented facts, but honestly I don't think I've seen anyone ever do anything that made me think "oh ok, science must be fake"

It's just willful ignorance.

It's kind of sad that you think accuracy is the reason conservatives hate liberal ideas (sad because I know you're trying your best to help here).

You're talking about a political base that is currently thriving almost entirely on spite and a total absence of fact. They don't give a shit how accurate your x-axis is labeled, they're at the point where in some circles they discredit science as a concept.

College Football on the other hand...

I realize, you know, just being a jerk on the internet.

There are even chemicals in our brains!

I feel like it boils down to options a bit.

If I don't take the opportunity to work in Australian mines, will I have a reasonable opportunity to find work and provide a comfortable living for my family?

If that answer would change whether or not I'd work in a mine, I'd consider that the work may be exploitative of a regional work shortage. At that point someone might feel as though sacrificing their health is their only option, and an informed decision is much harder to make.

Like many ethical questions, it warrants discussion even though there may not be a "right" answer either way.

That's like saying an informed society is better than a society that doesn't have OSHA regulations... You can't dangle millions of dollars in front of (often poor, often minority) college students and say "well you were informed of the risks" and then wash your hands of all responsibility.

I could inform you that you'll die 1/6 times you play russian roulette, but that doesn't mean that it should be ethically sound (or legal) to pay you to take that chance.

don't they always do that?

There's a lot of stupidity on both ends of the political spectrum, but the nature of conservatism seems more prone to conspiracy generation because it's essentially a bunch of political viewpoints that culminate to: government is bad.

Just look at a list of popular conspiracy theories, if you start to label each one... there are generally common threads of anti-government rhetoric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

Everything from chemtrails to roswell and the moon landing hinge on "the government is trying to fool you" rhetoric.

There are plenty of dangerously bad liberal-leaning conspiracy theories (liberals and conservatives share fault for anti-vax), but it seems fairly obvious that conservative-based theories outpace them in volume.

That's very very backwards. Local business are charging $6 for milk because they have to make enough profit to pay rent. The soaring rent is absolutely due to high-salary tech work; the bay area existed for decades without these significant rent issues.

that is the intention

20lbs is nothing for a strong gust of wind on a roof.

I work 9-5 with a 30 minute commute and see my kid for about 2 hours a day during the week.

If you leave at 9 I imagine you get some morning time, so maybe that's your time (and you'd get probably roughly 2 hours there?). Totally cool if that works.

I grew up with a single mom who worked 60+ hours a week and I really only spent time with her on weekends. In retrospect I wish I had parents around when I was growing up. She didn't really have a choice, and she feels the same way I do about it — we wish it was possible.

I don't want to criticize someone's life and what works for them too harshly, since this is just my personal experience, but I've been on the side of the child and the parent in a situation like this and I didn't like it on either end.

When your children are adults you're going to miss the time, not what you gave them.

they don't want a random playlist, they want all the music on the playlist played in a random order w/ no repeats

>I wonder for certain drugs how much of a difference 98% potency is vs 100%. Surely that 2% must matter.

Why is this a "surely"? On a scale of 100%, 2% is 2% because it's not hugely significant.

I sometimes wonder if I dressed better if I would be further along in my career, but honestly I think it's just made it really easy for me to identify people who understand and value my work.

There's this one guy high up in my company who I'm almost entirely convinced got his job because he wears nice suits and has an English accent. We have junior employees who know more about his area of speciality than he does.

It's becoming an incredibly widespread issue in the states as well.

YOU get a bill. Society pays for public drinking fountains, homeless shelters, section 8 housing, etc... where water is provided for the less fortunate at a scaled societal contribution (or free).

Flint MI is an absolute crisis and the government has stepped in, the state of Michigan sued the city, and there have been over a dozen criminal indictments. Multiple governments have stepped in to repair the obligation of clean drinking water, and to punish those who failed the citizens.

Society has an obligation to provide it, just as it does drinking water.

Does anyone know if the Chinese government has done any public education campaign on the issue? It often seems as mainlanders just don't know — they'll literally spit on the floor of a bus.