I hear this criticism all the time, but I’ve never seen it happen in 5 companies I’ve worked for so far. Usually there’s an understanding that estimates are wild guessing, and things are planned using dependencies rather than timeliness.
Imagine phones having stupid logic like printers - no you can’t make a call, your smell cartridge is empty
It doesn’t hurt you so don’t worry about it
Eh, not so sure. Beauty standards propagate, and pressure to conform to those standards is real.
That’s just how fashion works. In this case fashion requires disabling a functional part of your body. It’s at least a bit icky.
None of these articles make sense until you reform your electoral system to allow for multiple parties. Until then it basically do you want complete idiots, or a smaller amount of stupid takes.
Technically they could. Just that nobody is brave enough to suggest it
Removed by mod
Sigh unfortunately it’s true. One thing I learned about American culture through the years is that everything must have a race. Food, drink, sports, music, neighborhoods, bus lines, careers … Everything is assigned a race and only people of that race can use it without criticism
“just because we are very concerned about misogyny enslaving half of the population” ftfy
Removed by mod
Currently I have WhatsApp, Instagram, Telegram, Signal, Viber, a Matrix client (Fluffy), Discord, Slack, SMS, email.
I try to use Signal whenever I can, but convincing people to install yet another messaging app is hard. I don’t see the situation getting better, none of the major players is close to going out of business.
deleted by creator
People speculating in real estate are doing so for passive income
You severely underestimate the role of real state in the current economy. Banks, investment funds, pension funds, real estate agencies, insurance … Individuals looking for passive income are just a part of it.
Especially in North America, Europe and China (but true everywhere generally) real estate speculation takes a huge chunk of investment money of both individuals and companies.
you feel that homelessness isn’t included in them
It’s not, except as an afterthought. It’s not me inventing these statistics
Reducing home prices requires destroying an entire branch of economy - real estate investment. Mind you not construction but owning property as an investment. It would noticeably drop the GDP and any other economic statistic as well as leave a bunch of people without jobs.
I guess in the mind of most politicians it’s not an acceptable course of action, even though avoiding it makes things worse in the long term.
It’s full of originally stupidly pro-communist, now joined by the stupidly anti-communist people. Most of their discussions are “communism good you dumb” and “communism bad you dumb”, with a bunch of kindergarten level gotchas.
I’ll give you a different perspective. I don’t vote in the US elections (given the impact on people in other countries maybe we should) so I won’t focus on the Democrat/Republican thing but on the reasons for selecting a specific candidate.
Step 1 - deal breakers. Determine if the proposed policies cause any immediate regression in what is already achieved. Rolling back existing trans rights, banning abortion, stuff like that.
Step 2 - vibes. This is the critical one. Don’t immediately look at positive policies you want implemented. Look at how a candidate winning would move the Overton Window .
After this election there will be more, and who wins today moves the general vibe of the entire political system. It sets a base for policies of future candidates who might not even know it yet.
Step 3 - narrowing down. Now if you have several candidates that pass step 2 equally, you can look at the specific policies. Generally you can expect any politician to overpromise (khm lie), but usually they try to achieve at least some of the stated goals.
In two-party electoral systems basically you can’t often reach the step 3, but you do have primaries so it can be applied there.
Why is this oniony? Except as an ingredient in the bowl
Speed limits are generally bs, only useful for justifying police budgets. The goal should be designing roads with safety in mind.
Introducing arbitrary rules helps nobody. Not in reducing the amount of cars on the road, not people who are forced to drive for some reason.