User_4272894

I can fathom no world where you'd want to trade away a multi billion dollar brand for a new brand you literally can't SEO. What, you think your brand is gonna be more impressive that the generic variable, and a part of the alphabet?

"Follow me on Twitter" becomes "follow me on X"? "You should tweet that" becomes "you should X that"? The little blue bird on every shop window, website, and business card becomes a stylized letter that, hopefully, doesn't look so threatening on the next iteration?

It's a textbook case of brand destruction. I almost regret never making a Twitter in the first place, just so I could quit today, or at any of the hundred days in the past year where it got inexplicably worse without reason.

Started a job in July I was 60% qualified for. By December I had made enough changes to the job description (by adding things I was able to do that prior people couldn't), my manager decided to reclassify my job. New title, new description, new salary pay band. Manager hands me an envelope with my new title, description, and rate of pay. I say "thanks, but we just created a job that I'm 95% qualified for. I expect to be in the 95% qualified section of the new pay band, but this rate is for the 60% qualified. We go back and forth for three months. With 1 hour notice he calls me into a phone meeting with his boss where I can state my case for a proper raise to reflect my new duties.

Big boss says "we don't negotiate raises, you were hired at 60% qualified, you'll stay there, and get 1-3% raises annually based on merit. If you want a raise, find another job." I did.

Last I heard my job was filled by one of my subordinates who was maybe 30% qualified. The good news is the job was kind of a joke, so I'm glad one of my old reports was getting a huge raise to do essentially her same job, because even my boss didn't understand the changes I made, and they were instantly forgotten when I left.

My boy Aristotle thought men had more teeth than women, and whatever testable hypothesis he created to prove that fact didn't include, you know, counting the teeth of men and women.

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, and will agree that "classical elements" is probably the dumbest thing to accuse him of being wrong about. Hell, I have considered getting a Bekker number tattoo, but he was definitely full of some shit. It's okay to acknowledge he was right about some things and wrong about others. That's the whole point of this thread.

My man has a date with an Ace later and he wants to be an ally, but he wants Chicago style pizza more.

High fees, inconsistent/false advertising, burdensome chores? When was this article written, 2017? This has been the state of Airbnb for half its lifetime. There was a year, maybe two, at the very beginning where it truly was "crashing at your friend's place", in the same way Uber was "getting a ride from a friend". Both have become full time corporate institutions with wage slaves pushing a product that's somehow worse than the original problem (generally due to the lack of regulations around these "gig economy" alternatives), at the detriment of communities and others who attempted to make a living "playing by the rules".

At this point, if you're using Airbnb, not only are you impossibly ignorant of the problem, you're actively contributing to it.

People hanging Christmas lights do the whole house and when they go to plug it in, they realize they have the female end by the outlet, not the male end. "Fuck, I'm not gonna redo the entire process" the idiot thinks to himself, I'll just get a male/male adapter.

It's not sold because as soon as you plug in the side to the house, the other ends become live, and touching them means "big ouch".

"That's okay, I'll just plug the end into the lights, and then into the house, problem solved" the idiot thinks.

Except the far end of the lights has a male adapter and that end is still live. Plus, anyone who doesn't know about your deadly modification is in danger of hurting themselves because they don't realize the hazard.

There are exceedingly niche applications where these cords are used, but those applications only come up for trained electricians who know how to make one of these cords, and use them responsibly. If you're asking the minimum wage guy in the blue vest, this sign is for you.

A coworker of mine was recently bragging about their new electric mustang and its zero to sixty time. "Have you ever gone zero to sixty?" was my only response. Of all the facts and figures, 0-60 has you to be one of the least important when buying a car.

The number of times I shout "your car is supposed to be smarter than that!" As a Tesla does something like, without signaling, whips around me and into oncoming traffic to pass a stopped city bus is staggering.

Medi-Cal is already available to all Californians that meet income requirements?

I'll answer for me, and 70% of Americans:

1. It was the only plan offered by my employer. Vision and dental insurance are typically optional extras, but medical is mandatory. Some jobs provide a choice between one or two different insurances, or a good/better/best plan. My wife (who is on a different plan than me, because she works elsewhere and neither of our jobs covers family members at a reasonable discount) selected the "better" option because she takes a few prescriptions and it works out to be cheaper long term.
2. N/A (but the answer is the affordable care act)
3. Insurance providers have a website where you can search for "in network doctors" by specialty. When I joined my current network, there were exactly two primary care doctors within 20 minutes of my home. Vision (which is separate insurance, generally) is often much easier to find. Dental (which again is separate insurance, often) is usually even harder to find a provider, in my experience. At my last job I could pay $200/month for insurance accepted by a dentist in my town, or $12/mo for dental insurance where the nearest dentist was over two hours away.
4. I would prefer the entire system was scrapped and replaced with government healthcare at low to no cost, including prescriptions, dental, vision, and mental health.

Am I insane? I've been seeing avocado toast on menus for years. Granted, I was living in California at the time, but still. I feel like Dunkin donuts introduced avocado toast to their menu like three years ago.

I'm not really a "brunch" guy, but I feel like every breakfast spot I've been to since 2015 has done avocado toast.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says dogs can't play basketball! We've been over this; there's a series of documentaries about it.

There was a rubric for qualified scores. Software X power user? +8%. Experience in position Y? +1% per year. Bachelor's degree in the following fields? +20% The premise was "make everything internally clear and we can internally promote, set career progressions and encourage people to remain loyal. This was a huge company that tried to absolve themselves of any accusation of racism/misogyny/ageism by saying "no, we apply the exact metric to everyone".

I didn't personally rewrite my job description. I was able to demonstrate other programs and processes were able to achieve the same/better results, and would do so quicker/cheaper/more easily. This was really easy because the job was stuck in the past. Shit like "I can upload a csv to import this data" was basically witchcraft, as the current description called for typing thousands of lines by hand (and rewarded this experience with +2% qualification for every year of data entry experience). Suddenly the two week long job that required ten years of experience was done in thirty minutes.

I convinced them the -35% hit I took on my qualifications because I'd never used done ancient software could be swapped out with a +40% qualification in excel, for example, so my supervisor rewrote the job to include these advancements.

I used to know a hardware store that sold guns in the 80s. Guy bought one, walked down the block, robbed a bank with it, and died in ensuing police shootout. Store stopped selling guns after that.

Love the idea of Twitter advertisers becoming $username, !username for public figures, and +username for Twitter blue subscribers. It also means it would be super easy for people to write scripts to filter out certain users.

If we're adding somewhat related concepts OP might find interesting, I've always thought these were neat: grammatically correct sentences your brain doesn't process the first time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence

Yes, because when I think of a state with robust energy infrastructure, I think of Texas...

I didn't suggest Amazon run the process. I just meant "logistics infrastructure exists on a scale unimaginable in 1996". 600 million COVID doses given out in the US might have been a better comparison. Or 7.2 billion packages by USPS in 2022. There are 708k cops in the US. That's 2 guns recovered per cop per month to have it done in 90 days.

There is literally no argument in the world where "the logistics make it impossible" is a reasonable claim.

Likewise, "we'll never get 290 votes" is a lazy and cowardly claim. Yes, it'll be hard. Yes, it'll be a fight. Yes, we'll have some minds that will be impossible to change. But your apparent argument in defense of gun rights seems to be "aww, jeez, it seems pretty tricky" which is truly mind boggling to me.

This metaphor falls down when you realize the table is in a restaurant owned by a Nazi, and the table by the window makes the restaurant look really popular.

Refusing to concede the table is literally adding value to the Nazi owned table, and giving others cover to say "no we also hate Nazis; we're just here because that table looks cool" which furthers the problem.

I mean, you're throwing out a lot of numbers claiming it is impossible, but we have logistics and resources that Australia didn't in 1996. If Amazon can deliver 7.7 billion packages a year, and the US can count 150 million votes in a week during election season, we can figure out how to break down 400 million guns over a month, a year, or a decade. It doesn't have to happen overnight. The "Australian plan" doesn't have to work here, but getting guns off the street somehow does.

I don't think he can afford rusty nails and broken glass at this point...

STARK: "wow, your intellect is stunning. I look forward to seeing what you'll be able to accomplish in the next few years"

CAMERA PANS

GRETA THUNBERG SMILES

First, how dare you accuse me of looking up someone else's claim before engaging in debate on the internet. I would never...

But seriously, they originally said people are moving to places where companies are building. Someone else responded with something along the lines of "companies are building in red-leaning areas due to poor labor protections". Without addressing that point, the original guy said Texas is building more green energy than California. With that comment he: side stepped the claim that companies are building where there are fewer labor protections, and talked about a hyper specific example of one section of one industry where one state is creating more output (not more jobs, mind you) than another state. I responded with a claim that state-led conservative governments have not been a shining example of "how to govern in the best interests of your population".

So now, like an idiot, I'm gonna start googling things so that I can address his point and yours. First him:

Texas generates more green energy than California. He is correct. According to Wikipedia, but according to that same data California produces a higher percentage of green energy than Texas. Neither are in the top position for green energy production, or percentage. Even if they were, green energy production is not a direct correlation to economic prosperity, corporate development, or well employed populations. Better examples might have been standard of living, median income, or new jobs created. Texas beats California in only one category (new jobs created), but neither are in the top spot in any of the three. Are there better metrics? Undoubtedly- like median income divided by cost of living, or job growth of only jobs earning 1.25x annual cost of living by state, but I'm not gonna sit down and do that math, and I wouldn't want to make an unsubstantiated claim that doesn't fully paint the picture.

Now, to you:

Their statement is true, but as I've just demonstrated, trivially so. I responded with a dismissive remark because they, as well as many others, knew their claim didn't support their original thesis. We can sit and argue about why they were down voted and I was up voted, but you're probably correct. Left leaning sites like Lemmy probably didn't get more critical than "Texas bad, California good" with their voting. Or, maybe, they got down voted for attempting to lie with statistics by proving a point no one was arguing, and did an obviously bad job, which the users on this site critically analyzed and down voted accordingly. We'll never know.

You, however, came in and disregarded my point, and attempted to discredit my argument without disproving it, based on an appeal to the audience that I'm a partisan hack without the spine to engage in the debate at hand. Ironically, in doing so, you created a comment no better than mine, based on your own position, and a lot less pithy and amusing.

So now the ball is in your court. Are you gonna do hours and hours and jobs research, determine if it's blue or red states that create more economic prosperity for their occupants, and post your findings, or are you gonna look it up, realize I'm right, and decide to respond in a way that doesn't actually address what I said?

Do keep in mind the conversation is blue vs red states, not California vs Texas, and it's overall prosperity, not one or two cherry picked metrics. That was the mistake the original guy made, and if you do the same, I'm probably gonna respond with a single sentence joke dismissing the work you put in as an attempt to mislead.

Took 13 years to undo prohibition, which unlike abortion and gun rights, was based on a clear and direct constitutional amendment with no arguments about "framers intent" or changes to technology/interpretations of rights over time.

This entire "50 years of cultural shift and overcoming supreme Court decisions" is straight bullshit.

Right, but we're not talking about gun-caused child deaths per capita, we're talking about the leading cause of child death. If you do the actual math, it's about 20%.

But of course you know that isn't as compelling for your argument. Thank you for joining me for another lesson in lying with statistics.

https://usafacts.org/data-projects/child-death

Also, have you used sheets? Hot shit compared to the fucking powerhouse that excel is.

tried not being a grumpy godless commie?

You know you're in Lemmy, right?

I was having this same conversation the other day. Have you ever seen that picture where different people involved in the creation of the video game Kirby draw the title character? Two look really good, and the rest are awkward blobs that only look like Kirby because of the power of suggestion.

Anyway, I genuinely think a team of Tesla employees (independent of Musk) were talking about building a truck, and all took turns drawing something while pulling together numbers before the pitch to Musk. As a joke, the design team mocked up the worst sketch in 3D, and Musk accidentally saw the design in the Slack chat history and demanded it.

Either that, or some sort of "have your kid draw the next Tesla" employee contest, and the design teams modeled the funniest ones as actual cars for the company newsletter. Like those companies that'll turn your kid's drawings into real life stuffed toys.

Competition is the answer, though. The problem is companies ended up competing the wrong way. If I could watch "The Office" on any streaming platform, suddenly they're all in competition to create a better platform (quicker loads, different pricing models, integration with different devices, etc). By limiting shows to only certain platforms, sure, you're creating an easy way to differentiate between platforms, but you're letting the competition stagnate as you just create cable TV with extra steps: minimal choice, minimal ease of use, minimal cost upside.

I wonder who makes the mainframes used at NSA domestic spying server farms, or who run the computing for predator drone targeting systems. "Not profitable to be vocal in support of antisemitism" hardly means "currently on the moral high ground"...

I assume he means "processed acai, also known as acai na tigela".

Unless acai is a different fruit entirely.

An ex and I used to jokingly sing "avocados from Mexico" because that was an advertising jingle, and she definitely ate avocado toast all the time. We broke up in 2013, so it had to be kinda popular before then.

I think OPs point was the exact opposite. They give three examples where "matters of taste" are narratives guided by boardroom profit in the last twenty years rather than actual consumer preference.

People didn't want bigger cars. Corporations made bigger cars to circumvent American fuel efficiency regulations (because it's cheaper to circumvent a law than it is to make a more efficient engine), and convinced consumers bigger is better. Size difference between the #1 selling truck in 1950 and 1990 is nothing compared to the difference between pre-CAFE and present day.

People don't want huge, fattening meals when they go out. It's cheaper for companies to give "more", "saltier", and "fattier" meals than it is to create "tastier" ones, and for the most part we've been hoodwinked again. I'm talking about the "buy one for here get one free to take home" promotions at Applebee's.

People have been convinced owning a home is "the American dream". Construction companies have found they can put a 2800sqft house on a .25 acre plot just as easily as they can a 1400sqft house, so that's all they build. "Starter homes" aren't as profitable as they used to be, so the companies are banking on the narrative they've created to force people out of apartments and into gigantic houses because it's the "American dream".

Completely agree, but that wasn't the question. Progress is progress, even if it's decades late and only a tenth of what it should be.

I always cut my frozen pizzas into eighths. I eat the whole thing in one sitting either way, but I prefer smaller slices.

Oh, shit, well as long as they got to the restaurant before the Nazi bought it, I guess there's no harm in continuing to support it. Especially if they don't have the technical knowledge to... Stop using a website?

For a service like Twitter, where user numbers define value, using it is 100% supporting it. Again, the metaphor falls apart because suggesting they can't use other options suggests they might die, which is painfully untrue for the vast majority of Twitter users (literally no user in a developed country relies on Twitter for life/death information in a way other sources can't provide).