Veritasium is YouTube propaganda. It's well documented - Derek takes sponsor money and gets people killed in the process. I blocked Derek on all platforms the day Tom put this documentary video out.

There are only five sentences of text on that page, with the last one explaining that this sort of marriage was not common at all. Where did you get the idea that the textbook is suggesting that this was the norm?

Not relevant. Trump voters don't care about reality, while the rest of us do. If the Democrats want to be the party of sane, responsible voters they'll need to put up a sane, responsible candidate.

Be better than Republicans.

45 minutes outside of Portland, OR in any direction will get you somewhere just as rural as the place you left in SC, only with better weather and sane laws.

Nobody is going to vote for Trump because of this. But it WILL cause enough folks to get dejected and not vote at all, and that's all it'll take for Trump to win. Democrats need a candidate people can be excited about voting for, or they WILL lose.

The "but the other guy is worse!" approach won't work this time.

Isn't this a pretty standard practice across the world? If someone has extensive ties to and/or sympathies for a specific regime, they'll be more susceptible to coercion and compromise by that regime. Why purposely put them in the place where they are most likely to be coerced and/or compromised?

You have to weigh the benefit (their familiarity with local perspectives and customs) against the cost (increased risk of counter-intel failures).

There's a reason Starfleet sends Captain Picard far away to the Romulan border when the Borg are attacking Earth. Or am I missing something?

It is true that women generally want a partner who makes the same or more than them, while men generally find income/career status less important in mate selection. That is a scientific fact before you politicize it. And it's also a fact that as more women receive higher education and fair pay, the pool of men who make the same or more than the average woman will shrink pretty dramatically.

So it is true to say that as women become empowered and more able to care for themselves without the help of a man, the majority of lower-income and males with a lower socioeconomic status will have a much harder time finding a mate. This mostly affects men negatively at a younger age when their earnings are lowest and they sit closest to the bottom of that hierarchy. Conversely, the negative impacts hit women later on when the end of their child-bearing years approaches and they realize that putting a family on hold to focus on their career may have been a more permanent decision than they'd intended now that they've moved up the economic ladder and the small proportion of men at or above their level are either already taken or happy to play the field non-monogamously.

It hits both genders just as hard and it's an issue we need to solve. Our evolutionary psychology and mate selection processes just haven't caught up with modern society. And since males are more prone to isolation and suicide, we see the affects against them more readily. But the affects to women will become more apparent in the next few decades.

I know this is politically charged territory, but it's pretty well established from a sociological and evolutionary psychology perspective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_preferences#:~:text=Mate%20preference%20priorities,-Research%20has%20been&text=In%20the%20study%2C%20it%20was,attractiveness%2C%20as%20the%20highest%20priorities.

Edit: Changed "lower-status males" to "males with a lower socioeconomic status" since that seems to be a trigger-word for some folks.

I spent about a year looking for a job (senior management in cybersecurity), and had basically ZERO luck until I got wise and did the following. Had a new role within 4 months afterwards.

1. Take your resume, and expand it 10-20x into a massive document listing every single project, accomplishment, or skill you can think of that could ever be potentially relevant in a new role.
2. Every time you apply to a new job, copy the job posting into a ChatGPT conversation, and have it edit your resume to a 1-2 page document that only includes the experience most relevant to the job posting, and to rewrite sentences to use the exact terminology from the job posting where appropriate.
3. Once you have the custom resume, use ChatGPT to generate a custom cover letter to include as well.

These 2 changes will cause your resume to get assigned a higher "relevance score" by the AI tool their HR or recruiting team uses to weed through the 400+ applications they receive, which means you'll be at the top of the list of names that gets delivered to first human in the process (the recruiter).

You'll actually start getting callbacks and phone screens at that point, which gives you a fighting chance. The rest is up to you.

There are paid services that'll do this for you (like Teal), but you can do it yourself and with more control as long as you have access to ChatGPT. If you can generate a completely customized resume and cover letter in less than 2 minutes, you can pump out 10 high-quality applications in less than half an hour per day.

Edit: I see you're getting a 40% response rate. You may be setting your sights too low if that remains consistent. If you're applying for roles that are a solid step up form where you're at, you would expect closer to a 10% response rate.

ITT: A bunch of folks who didn't read the article.

The article didn’t say young people were doing worse than before, which it seems like all of you assumed.

The reason the study found for why youth is no longer one of the “happiest times” is because they showed that people only do better and better as they age. So whereas before your youth would be comparatively happier to your 'mid-life crisis', they’re saying that crisis doesn't occur anymore and we just get happier and happier into midlife and old age. So your younger days didn't get worse, they just aren't as great in comparison because the rest of your life gets so much better as time goes on.

Sounds crazy, I know. But that's what the article was actually saying.

I'm linking to peer-reviewed scientific studies over here. If you want to dispute what I'm saying, avoid the genetic fallacy and engage with the substance.

By "lower-status", I meant lower socioeconomic status. Less education and less income. The two things women primarily judge potential mates on.

I bought my first house in 2009 - $125,000 on an income of $45,000. I even got a first time homebuyer credit of ~$8,000 to help make the purchase easier.

I make a little over $200,000 today, and I'm completely priced out of the market. I doubt I'll ever own a home again and am currently living in a rundown old sailboat.

I'd take 2008 over this economy any day of the week!

Same here. Call me old-fashioned, but the only part of my computer I have any interest in looking at is whatever is being rendered on the monitor.

I don't need any LEDs in my PC because the case is a black metal box with no side panels. Any time/effort/money spent on making a PC "look cool" is time/effort/money that should have been spent making it perform better.

There's an amazing alternate timeline somewhere where Jared Kushner and Hunter Biden are cellmates in a Federal Prison somewhere, and nobody can question whether the DOJ is politicized because folks from both sides frequently go to jail when they commit crimes.

Biden and the DNC knew that if he was forced to actually debate in an open primary, he'd be weakened as a candidate and would eventually lose to Trump. So they rigged the primary, hoped they could sneak a senile old man through without us realizing, and now they got caught.

The people in power are perfectly content to lose the cycle and try again in 2028. Newsom, Whitmer, etc. are all lining up to run against Trump's VP next cycle since he's term limited. And the reason Biden hasn't been thrown overboard yet is that the other potential candidates haven't decided if they want to throw away their carefully laid plans for 2028 to take a gamble here in 2024.

The only people that truly believe Trump winning in 2024 means there won't be an election in 2028 are the most myopic hyper partisan Democrat voters, and they believe that because it's a useful fallacy for the Democratic elite to have them believe. Because fear is the only motivator they have left at this point. But their actions clearly show that they don't believe it themselves.

Agreed. Was just stating what the law is.

The average black person cares way less about having a black president than the typical white Lemmy user assumes they do. Only the most off-the-rails liberals support allowing race to be a factor in hiring decisions. Hell - even far-left California outlawed affirmative action.

If you're picking a president based on race, you are implicitly racist and therefore part of the problem.

It really doesn't vary that much by state.

You can check all 50 individually from page 1 of this document - https://handgunlaw.us/documents/USRVCarCarry-1.pdf

Here's the breakdown for the most populous states, which would cover most people in the US. This also includes the most restrictive states in terms of gun laws like NY and CA, so most will be more permissive than this.

California: Prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle unless it is in a locked container or the trunk. Concealed carry permit holders must adhere to these rules.

Texas: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Florida: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

New York: Generally restrictive. In New York City, it is prohibited to have a loaded firearm in a vehicle. In other parts of the state, a permit is required, and rules can be strict.

Pennsylvania: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Illinois: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Ohio: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Georgia: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

North Carolina: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Michigan: Allows permit holders to carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle.

Fair enough, you convinced me. I was originally only thinking of this as a limited case regarding the 14th amendment. But if the supreme Court rules against Trump in this case, they'd be ruling that there was an insurrection, which could open his wife up to legal liability on that front. Based on that new understanding, I'd agree that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself.

I work from home and live on a sailboat, sailing up and down the west coast (south in Winter, north in Summer). Not exactly a lot of opportunities to develop or maintain social connections other than on Discord/Steam. How would I even meet anyone during the week or so I stay in a given town before shipping out? And who wants to date a guy who's only in town for a week or two per year?

The only way I could maintain a relationship would be an LTR where she lived onboard with me, but I don't see how I could every date someone to establish that LTR in the first place. Kind of a chicken and egg situation.

I may be one of the few guys in the 6, 6, 6 club who's been single for years with no hope of finding a woman. And I just don't think the changes I'd have to make to my lifestyle to make that easier would be worth it. So... I guess I'll just die alone?

If you’re going to fight a just but losing battle, fight the one that informs all others that won’t get rotten fruit unfairly pelted at you in the public square.

Love this line. I've been eating a lot of fruit here on Lemmy. Going to have to put some thought into this one.

The AI isn't "generating" it - it's just whittling down from what you provide to it and swapping out synonyms to match the job description. Try it - you shouldn't need to make any manual edits if the input data and prompt line up correctly.

Agreed - that's probably the easier way to charge the father in this case. Focus on child endangerment, reckless abandonment, etc. I'm just saying a gun charge probably isn't the best path to conviction in this case.

He literally told it to give the answer "in km". That's on him, not Bing.

Hold up. Are you telling me that 100,000 refugees already own homes? Be right back, need to go vote conservative real quick.

Actually, the article didn't say young people were doing worse. The reason that youth is no longer one of the "happiest times" is because the study showed that people only do better and better as they age. So where before your youth would be comparatively happier to your mid-life crisis, they're saying we just get happier and happier into midlife and old age.

Pure copium.

I haven't made any arguments to "bad faith". I just saw OP saying the father should face gun charges, and that's a topic I know a bit about, so I thought I'd chime in with a quick fact check. I never said the father wasn't a piece of shit or that he shouldn't go to jail.

My understanding was that they weren't included in the ISO and had to be installed manually after the fact.

No. The solution is to dump Biden and try to get a candidate that can prevent that.

Isn't Grim the guy from Breaking Points & CounterPoints? I never knew he had another podcast...

I'd start planning a move to the west coast so that your 'side' isn't outnumbered when things pop off. Assuming you haven't already made it out to Cascadia.

The Cruise propaganda video that Derek from Veritasium put out on YouTube is what finally got me to unsubscribe/block his channel. Cruise was using shady tactics way before these safety incidents.

Relevant Vid: https://youtu.be/CM0aohBfUTc

I had no idea. I use SponsorBlock to avoid seeing sponsored segments like that one. Thanks for the heads-up.

Agreed. Unfortunately the law and common sense don't always align. Maybe the father could be charged with reckless endangerment or some sort of neglect - I'm only saying there probably isn't a direct firearm storage statute that was violated here.

Edit: Sadly, it'd probably be easier to charge him for leaving the kid in the car based on how hot it was, with the gun storage issue maybe as an aggravating factor.

Didn't Democrats control the House and Senate for the first few years of his presidency? Looks like they failed to use the time they had very effectively. Why reward lazy behavior with another term?

Please don't put words in my mouth, or assume that I'm a conservative. Personally, I don't see how a president could be impeached for something he did as a Vice President, no matter what past transgressions the Republicans end up finding related to Hunter Biden.

I wasn't suggesting that Clarence Thomas not recuse himself because his wife wasn't the judge, I just didn't understand how her involvement in the insurrection had anything to do with a court case about interpreting the 14th amendment. And I've changed my mind on the recusal question after reading some of the good faith replies folks were nice enough to post.

Let's just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn't hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be "well mannered"?

My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn't matter what their overarching beliefs are, nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.

That's not good manners, that's an echo chamber.

Agreed. I was just quoting the actual law. I store loaded guns unsecured in my car and home, but I live alone and don't have kids or allow kids in my car or home. Obviously the situation would be different if I did.

Most carjackers don't use guns.

I'm not defending them. It is possible to describe a political reality without endorsing that reality. That's all I'm doing.