941 karma · joined February 7, 2008
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/bencollins; my proof: https://keybase.io/bencollins/sigs/hGAUM3Q3RKADa9EOm1RLFk7arseXNo5EiDH6U1f9qzE ]
This sounds like a recipe for disaster to me without a lot more explanation. Time is the main cost to a provider, so it's very natural that time would also be the driver for billing. "Charging for value" sounds like you're trying to say "fixed price" without actually saying it. I have many, many issues with trying to do fixed price projects of any appreciable size (say, more than 20-40 hours).
What do you mean, precisely, by "charge by the value"?
We should do this by reforming (limiting and distributing) the government, not by destroying wealth.
I don't think we do (and by "we", I include government).
I think it's an interesting idea, I just doubt the practicality of it.
The point is just that there are many people with arrangements such that they might have to file on $250k+, but never realize that as personal income.
Then I throw away the receipts and fill in the expense report later in whatever system I'm told to use.
I can't imagine an easier way to digitize a receipt, short of a receipt that's emailed to you from the get-go.
Yep, you're right. It's hard to get to your target market from the app store. Yep, they forget about your app. Yep, Yep, Yep.
Oh look, there's a link at the bottom to the new Birdly! Let's see what their new approach is!
It's a.....slack bot? Wut?
Just being honest here: I think that's one of the stupidest pivots I've ever seen.
I'll cop to the fact that I'm just not going to spend the time, though I'm interested in the conclusion(s).
2. There is blaring, obvious religious justification for considering conception to be the beginning of life, and it has a high degree of consistency in logic and basic medical observation. Arguing that life begins at some other (arbitrary) point is a loser's game, my friend, and it comes right out of a post-modern nihilistic nonsense. Being anti-abortion has everything to do with protecting the rights of the child because that child is a person, and nothing whatsoever to do with controlling women, except to the extent it's required to protect the life of the child.
3. Because....what? If that's not manufactured outrage, then I don't know what is. Seriously. I think it's highly likely that most people refer to the Democratic party as the Democrat party because "democrat" is the noun that the adjective "democratic" comes from, and is the grammatically proper way to refer to someone who is a member of the Democratic party (as a "democrat").
All of this really kind of proves my point, I think: I nor any conservative that I know are upset that you don't describe things using our preferred terminology, but you seem to be upset (accusing me of dishonesty seems pretty upset to me) that I decline to use yours. Seems like a one-way street to me.
I guess "safe space" (quoted as a term under discussion) isn't really the right term here - but the student is the one who raised the issue of "victimization", which to my mind is really more what we're talking about than actual safe spaces as you defined them. So on this point, that might actually be good feedback to that professor, because I think struggling with the terminology in this particular topic is common.
One thing to realize ...is the context of love ...in many evangelical circles
As a conservative evangelical myself, your explanation of the Christian concept of love is somewhat confusing and contradictory to me. But putting that aside, I still don't see how this student felt "victimized", unless now any negative feeling or emotion makes one a victim. Feeling guilty for failing to live up to a standard is a negative feeling, but I don't think it makes one a victim (and if it does, then I think the word victim becomes utterly void of meaning).
...because the estate tax has the effect of being a tax on dying.
Why do they call the lobbying for prevention of medical treatment for women, Pro-life?
Because we think elective abortions (almost all abortions are elective) are not medical treatment, but rather a barbaric practice in which one person is killed for the convenience of the other, and in most cases is harmful in the long-term to the survivor as well. I feel strongly about this, but I'm not upset by people who want to call me "anti-abortion", because I am.
Why can't they call the opposition party by their actual name?
Uh....what? Do you mean "the Democratic Party" as opposed to the "Democrat Party"? I think that one is better chalked up to colloquial speech, regardless of what the Wikipedia article says.
But like I said - being a lifelong Republican and conservative activist, I know exactly zero people who would be upset if you didn't say "death tax", "pro-life", or "Democrat Party" (or PPACA instead of ObamaCare).
FWIW, this concept of safe space isn't quite what I had in mind. I think, perhaps, what I failed to articulate is that the safe space concept that grinds my gears is the kind that is an expectation carried around by people who really do just want to shut other up. Professor said something they didn't like? "Waaah...this classroom isn't a safe space". Group-I'm-not-a-part-of says something they don't like? "Waaah...they're making my school a not-safe place".
I have no problem with the idea of a physically-located place with heightened expectations of civility.
Having said that, I fully admit there may be a few phrases that conservatives might be a bit sensitive to, but it would surely be a very short list.
If you say anything negative about the religion or its teachings, you are kicked out.
Really? Citation please; I simply don't believe this. Most Christian universities that I have any knowledge of invite (or at least aren't averse to it) tough discussion, and allow for a pretty wide range of critical thought about interpretations of the Bible, how Christianity should relate to politics, culture, science, and many other subjects.
Until a few years ago, you could major in something that amounted to being a 'preacher's wife' (I can't remember the name of the major, but that was its goal).
And this is evidence of what, exactly?
"Safe-spaces", on the other hand, are cudgels of fear, handed to anyone claiming "victimization" to be capriciously used against people with whom they simply disagree and want to shut up. The reason they're even a thing is because school administrators themselves are beholden to the same fear. That's not at all like free association.