1,683 karma · joined December 19, 2015
That's an overly generous explanation. Fitbit-like devices are notoriously inaccurate[1], and the simplest explanation seems to be that their inaccuracy is unintentional.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families...
> I have to constantly eat to stay alive? Manageable. I have to consume water and breathe air? Manageable.
No matter where you go, the entirety of society is structured around the fact that all people need to eat, drink and breathe.
> I have to inject 50 cents of insulin? Manageable. I have to absorb 50 cents of nicotine? Manageable.
This is where the disconnect is. The cost of insulin dependence is not merely the cost of insulin itself. An insulin dependent person must always be aware of their blood sugar levels and diet. They must always be prepared for a situation in which they're away from their insulin supply. They must be prepared for an emergency or incapacitation due to complications with their condition and its treatment. There's a significant cognitive load that isn't accounted for by the fabric of society like the need for food is.
Likewise, there's a psychological, social and occupational cost to nicotine addiction that isn't reflected in nicotine's price alone.
This is why people are saying that chemical dependence is inherently bad: it's an inconvenience at best, a costly burden to most and a killer at worst.
The problem isn't with the ACA, it's with employers who are willing to save a buck by disadvantaging their employees.
Cost of living is rising, and so are health care costs. Inflation ensures that a dollar is worth less every year.
While inflation inevitably marches on, wages have neither kept up with productivity for over 40 years[2], nor cost of living, nor inflation.
People are working multiple jobs, but their employers purposely schedule them such that they don't accrue enough hours to be considered full-time employees who are legally entitled to buy health insurance through their employer.
As an aside, while engineer pay is relatively high, it has not kept up with rising cost of living expenses over the last decade, either.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-i...
[2] https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/1280x868/https%3A%2F%2Fbl...
If you're relatively young and in a metro area, you probably don't see it. Step out into the suburbs or more rural areas, and growth means that there's a new Dollar Tree and it's hiring.
They genuinely liked to teach and loved it when they could get their students to care about a subject as much as they did themselves. You could tell they did it out of passion, and moreover, for the students.
This was entertaining. Thanks for posting it.
Please do not strawman my position. The discussion was about people purposely portraying themselves as doctors and then dispensing medical advice.
I have no problem with someone giving medical advice. I do have a problem with someone pretending to be a doctor while giving medical advice.
For example, medical expenses can, and do, bankrupt people. No amount of saving $20 each month will pay off many medical bills. It's the reason that medical expenses are the top cause of bankruptcy, followed by job loss.
The problem is that budgeting is portrayed as a panacea to poverty or an altar on which the poor are chastised for their suffering.
However, I do see the harm in someone pretending to be a doctor and giving medical advice that can hurt or kill someone.
This is the crux of the reality that many face, yet is often ignored by pundits.
Raving about budgeting is missing the point: you can't budget what isn't there in the first place.
When there is something left over to budget, saving $20-$50 a month isn't going help with the problems of "a dollar is worth less every year and wages haven't kept up with inflation or cost of living in decades" and "if someone in my family gets sick or injured, we will likely take on debt that will bankrupt us".
I've yet to see abusive management tactics work in the long term. It might work in the short term, but people with the means will take it as a signal to jump ship because no adult is going to accept abuse if they don't have to.
I've heard your exact sentiment echoed by people who aspire towards management, and it always comes across as a weird power trip fantasy.
Maybe it's because I've work with people in this space, but I'm convinced 60% of Instagram activity is generated by bots. Give it time.
Each of them has done a stint with Amazon and left citing conditions, expectations and compensation.
[1] Tracking China’s Muslim Gulag: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-...
[2] China’s Detention Camps for Muslims Turn to Forced Labor: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/16/world/asia/xinjiang-china...
[3] Woman describes torture, beatings in Chinese detention camp: https://www.apnews.com/61cdf7f5dfc34575aa643523b3c6b3fe
> Miniaturization and flexibility come at a cost.
Companies have little to no incentive to update software for older products unless there are lucrative support contracts. This has been the case for decades.
Right. If a group of people came together with a scheme that caused car accidents at the rate Uber does, they'd be held liable and they'd receive conspiracy charges.
Perhaps the same should happen to people who come up with such schemes behind the corporate veil.
Similarly, Flutter felt much more like a cohesive solution compared to RN.
Which topics, in particular?