“News outlet” might be the most generous interpretation I’ve ever seen.
“News outlet” might be the most generous interpretation I’ve ever seen.
Do you have an example of this ?
Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?
Your missing the part in the middle where you spend 6 months telling them in no uncertain terms that the thing they are asking is stupid and will not work properly/safely.
Various back and forth emails, a completely “justified” performance review program because of your “falling standards” and several meetings with various managers at different levels of “importance”.
Also the “You’re absolutely correct, ENJOY” is written at the bottom of your resignation letter or told to them directly in your “redundancy” exit interview.
Same, they are currently still working through the 2019 backlog.
There is the option of going through “Right To Choose” system, which is ostensibly quicker but i think you have to pay for things yourself.
GP or doctor can give you proper advice about that though.
There are officially recognised tests that potentially lead to officially recognised diagnoses. For ADHD specifically that can lead to access to medication you wouldn’t have without the official diagnosis.
For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.
Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.
Condolences on your loss.
Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.
Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.
What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.
That’s a win win right?
The book is great as well, there is also a prequel book “The Boy On The Bridge”
Brazil (1985)
That’s reasonable
I don’t know about the fairness of this particular company but by that rationale nothing can ever be fair, just by existing we increase the suffering. Its how the world is.
Think headphones jacks don’t cause suffering at some point in the chain?
Not that I’m disagreeing, just not sure how things would get named under this specific scheme.
Does it assume that it’s generally understood that everything is a little harmful in some way, so as long as you don’t claim otherwise, it’s cool or would everything need to be measured on some sort of average harmfulness scale and then include the rating in the title.
Like “Horrendously harmful Apple” or “Mildly harmful Colgate”
A bit hyperbolic perhaps.
Genuinely not trying to start a fight, actually interested in what you think would be a good way of doing this, as I’ve occasionally pondered it myself and never come up with a good answer.
Incidentally, this is one of the core plotlines to later seasons of “The good place”
Are you genuinely struggling to understand why people who think he’s actively saying hateful shit about trans people wouldn’t necessarily want to increase his presence in the general Zeitgeist?
Or did you just want to slip in the “stereotypical white guy” dog whistle?
If you are actually struggling, i can probably help.
imagine a person saying horrible shit about you, specifically.
Now imagine they have a platform where they say this hateful shit to lots of people, enough that you sometimes run across these people and they also say hateful shit to you, perhaps worse.
Now imagine an unrelated meme is made with this persons face on it and you see it 5,10,15 times a week.
Now imagine that the comments on most of these memes feature a whole bunch of people defending this person and agreeing with the hateful shit they said about you.
I’d imagine that’s why some people care.
Genuine question though, what would be the right thing to give the energy/importance to in this scenario?
Unless you’re a big corp, then fuck with impunity but make sure to pay the “cost of doing business” tax.
If the tax is too high, just buy some lobbyists or political system equivalent.
Got to 3, noped out.
Real good times.
So, not a good faith take then, oh well.
“Logical” is not a binary position. It’s a spectrum.
Agreed, not sure how it’s relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.
OK, so let’s assume that’s a good faith literal interpretation.
Let’s try it this way.
Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren’t generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.
I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.
/r/onetruegod would like to know if you have some time to discuss …well…the aforementioned one true god