Am I the only one that notices so many blacks, particularly black women, who wear masks, but wear them on their chin?
Like, I totally understand wearing a mask on your chin if you're forced to wear a mask and don't want to, so you let it drop down to your chin. And, I disagree with, but at least understand the germaphobic mindest wearing a properly fitted mask, even when you aren't forced to.
But I absolutely do not understand choosing to wear a mask, but still wearing it in a manner that absolutely does nothing.
Like, seriously, what is the mindset there? Is it a fashion statement? Do they not realize they don't have to? Is it to be at the ready if someone makes them? Do they actually think that helps something? I just don't get it.
REAL PATRIOTS SHOW THEIR IDENTITY SO THEY CAN BE IMPRISONED INDEFINITELY JUST LIKE THE J6ERS!
I don't believe that she can't even fathom why a person would vote for Trump. I think she does understand the other side, if she just takes a second to think about it, and she is just lying to make a tweet.
The idea is that if everyone does it, there would be so much of a public outcry, that the IRS would quickly become powerless if they start arresting everyone.
It would be completely futile. Even if we could all band together to stop paying taxes at the same time such that they couldn't arrest of all of and even if we don't then fall for their tricks to make us get back in line, all they would do is print more money, which is the indirect taxation of inflation that you can't control if you're still using their currency.
The only way to do this truly is to switch to a different currency which they do not have the ability to create more of and stop paying taxes collectively.
I agree. It's not a "scam" necessarily, depending on your employer. I know I've had employers in the past who genuinely only cared about what you produced, not the hours you worked. You could take a week of vacation every month, but as long as you're still providing adequate value, you'll still be promoted. But then I've also been at employers (not for very long, because I won't stick around) where they value your time sitting at your desk more than anything else.
Most shitty employers in modern times are the latter. The reality is that most employees today are actually worthless and don't provide any real value, so the only metric that can really be used to who gets promoted and who doesn't is who has the most seat time. Moreover, seat time is one of the only truly objective things, which makes HR happy as their only priority (besides ulterior motives to further personal bias) is to prevent employment lawsuits. It's actually very hard to objectively measure an employee's value/performance in a way that is easily explained to HR (and thus to a judge or jury). You can't go by lines of code written. You can't go by how optimized a given piece of code is. There is so much more nuance to it.
With all of that said, start your own business. You'll still have only an illusion of true freedom, possibly even more so, but you're that much closer. If you start a business, you'll quickly find that you're at the mercy of Amazon, or your website host, or your government, or someone else. Ultimately, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to be truly free.
Unlimited vacation typically refers to employers who offer unlimited paid time off. It's a very common thing for the reason I listed.
If you are referring to unlimited unpaid time off, then we're talking about different things. Unlimited unpaid time off is only commonly seen in very low-tier jobs, like fast food and retail, where the employees are readily expendable. It's more "flexible scheduling" than anything else.
I'm sure it's a retarded typo. Citi is indeed the third largest bank in the US. JPMorgan Chase is the largest bank in the US.
Not being required to pay out unused vacation time is a drop in the bucket for employers, and isn't the real reason behind them pushing "unlimited" vacation time policies.
The actual reason is that unlimited vacation time is proven to lead your employees to take less vacation overall, while also giving them the illusion of autonomy, making them more productive. Employees who are given two weeks vacation will always take the two weeks. Employees who are given unlimited, will worry they're being too greedy if they take two weeks.
The hopium is that these lay-offs will be the diversity hires. The reality is that these lay-offs will be the remaining whites.
The hopium is that laying off the only people doing a decent job at developing the product will cause the business to tank and a more ethical business to take marketshare. The reality is that the actual product no longer matters to consumers, all that matters is brand recognition and marketing.
The hopium is that laying off the only people who are competent marketers, who are smart enough to employ all the borderline unethical marketing tactics, will cause the business to fade into obscurity. The reality is that the real marketing comes from the media and recognition by the government.
The hopium is that filling high level positions in the media and the government with diversity hires and elects will cause them to lose power. The reality is that these positions are only puppets to the real people pulling the strings, and those people will never be replaced with diversity hires.
I wouldn't say that Iowa proved anything. Did anyone doubt that Trump would win the republican nomination?
I am very curious how the old refrigerants would work in a modern design heat pump, assuming that heat pump was actually made for the old refrigerant.
Heat pumps are pretty cool. Could they be even better if they weren't neutered?
Dollar General is not Dollar Tree. Two different stores. Two different business models.
Dollar Tree's model is weirdly small portion sizes. Often they're from major brands and they're in sizes you only see at Dollar Tree. I don't even know how they get those contracts.
Dollar General's model is to pop up in food deserts where nothing else is around and sell normal stuff. Their stuff is usually price high for what it is, too, so you really are paying for the convenience of not having to go to the next town that has a real grocery store.
Of course, in both examples, there are outliers where something is cheaper at the Dollar General or Dollar Tree than it is at a normal store. But it's not the norm. And I've also noticed many times I've found that something I buy is cheaper at one of these places, I get in the habit of buying it there, then a couple years later I realize the prices have crept and now I'm properly paying a lot more and I would have been better off just going to the normal store from the beginning, since I'm not going to actively price compare every single time I shop.
Aldis is fine, too. I mentioned Save A Lot because that's what we have near me, but Aldi's is another alternative.
Anything but Dollar Tree, which is a business model that preys on poor, stupid people who can't do the math.
I want to take a minute to clear something up for any readers here: Dollar Tree is not a good place to go if you are struggling to afford groceries.
Their business model is weirdly small portion sizes and lots of processed products with long shelf life.
For many prices, if you do the math, you'll find buying the smaller portion Dollar Tree sells ends up being more expensive per serving than buying the bigger portion a grocery store sells.
Instead, if you are struggling to afford groceries, you should be shopping at a regular grocery store, but avoiding the "center aisles." You should be shopping for only the raw essentials: lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, and things like flour and plain rice. You should intentionally be avoiding things like boxed rice "kits," frozen meals, and, of course, things like chips.
Dollar Tree isn't a good place to go, but a place like Save A Lot can be. They sell real food (meats and produce), but their prices are lower than a Kroger or Publix. The meat and produce is lesser quality, but that's the cost savings.
I understood the joke, you just can't read.
And the argument in this new version of student loan forgiveness is that the executive has congressional approval via the Higher Education Act of 1965. This forgiveness plan is narrower in scope than the previous one which was shot down by SCOTUS.
Like it or not, this move is not Biden brazenly violating SCOTUS's rulings. He's done that in the past (eviction moratorium extension), but we don't need to spread misinformation that he's doing it now, too.
Look at my comment more closely.
Reagan doesn't belong at #1 with Trump for the sole reason of openly supporting the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994, after his two terms concluded, which probably drove it to pass Congress when it otherwise would not have. That was a massive erosion of gun rights.
You specifically mentioned you have difficulties finding the thread to reply when arguing with liberals. Worsening your experience for going against the narrative is an attenpt to modify your behavior. Keep it up and you'll soon find yourself in "Facebook jail".
No, I understand it. This was actually my original thought when it started happening. I explained this in my first comment.
What made me realize it wasn't this was when 1) I had the same issue when talking about non-political matters in the comments, or even when I was actually arguing for the state-approved narrative in cases where my views happen to align and 2) I have heard the same bug affecting normal NPC liberals who always follow the narrative.
I did not think of the angle of boosting "engagement" by forcing people to dig through comments to find the comment they wanted to find. However, based on my own anecdotal, personal experience, I think that has to be outweighed by the number of times a person gets frustrated with the entire site and closes out of it, rather than resuming their endless scrolling.
I truly believe this one can be chalked up to incompetence. As shitty as these people are, I do not believe that any engineer gets a direct memo from a higher up to "boost engagement by hiding the reply after a user clicks a notification for that reply." I have a more realistic view on most conspiracies that they are a lot more casual than that. For example, I believe planned obsolescence in products isn't spoken about, but rather, when an engineer asks a higher up if they should go route a or route b, where route a is more expensive, but route b will cause the device to fail possibly within a year, the higher up makes a decision with the idea of planned obsolescence in his head, but covers it with "we need to save costs."
I thought there was something nefarious to it at first, too. My thought was that it was an attempt to subtly "shadow ban" me by forcing me to stop having a discussion and just making me quit, while plausibly hiding behind a "bug." But it happens when I'm in discussions that aren't remotely political in nature. And I've talked to leftists who describe the same exact phenomenon.
Mind you, I'm not saying that the "Most Relevant" feature is a bug in and of itself. And I'm also fairly confident that is used to lightly censor content the algorithm deems unfit. The bug I'm referring to is specifically a comment that is literally a reply to mine, that mentions me, that I got a notification for, that I came to the thread by clicking the notification for, is considered not relevant. The rest of the conversation will still be visible, including the parent comment. But the most recent comment, the one the notification for, will be missing. Their comment, not mine.
There is not a nefarious reason why Facebook would do it that way that I can think of. And there is plenty of good reason to have that feature working. I would understand hiding my argument with someone else from the rest of the people who might be scrolling through. But hiding just the latest comment (made by the other person, who is usually arguing the liberal side) from me? Any nefarious reason I can come up with for that just doesn't add up.
If they simply didn't want me to respond, as though to make it seem like I didn't have a response and lost, it would make way more sense to simply not send the notification. A "missing notification" bug would be completely acceptable to consumers, and most people would never notice the vast majority of the time, and not think anything of it if they caught it. But giving someone a notification and then not showing them the thing once they clicked on? That's just sheer incompetence.
Funny enough, Meta could actually be in a position to genuinely make a Twitter killer if they simply made a Twitter clone that wasn't buggy as shit. The hard part of making a successful social media site is getting people to join it, since most people won't join it until their circle is already on it. Meta already has a user base they could begin to migrate over and integrate it into their existing platforms, so this would be easy.
The thing is they would need a reason to get people to use it instead of Twitter. Twitter has a lot of shortcomings, even to a normie. Put aside the censorship discussion and just look at what normies care about. All they have to do is release something simple without rampant bugs.
But, the silver lining, is that they are utterly incapable of doing that. There are major bugs in Facebook that have been around for years. Obviously, easily replicated things. And they don't care to fix them. Things like clicking on a notification for a comment, but it not taking you to that comment because "Most Relevant" is selected by default when you click the notification and apparently the comment you got the notification for wasn't relevant. So you turn it off, but then it's not auto-redirecting, so you have to manually scroll through hundreds of comments to find the one the notification was for. It's been like that for years and they aren't fixing it. Major bug, directly affects user engagement and thus ad revenue, and they can't/won't fix it.
I know why. It's the problem all big companies, especially tech companies, suffer from. And that's shitty employees resulting from liberal hiring practices.
"Protected classes" are categories, not specific groups.
I.e. "Black" is not a protected class, "race" is. So "white" is equally protected, as written (and recently applied in a case where a white woman was fired from Starbucks for being white and won her lawsuit).
Is it crazy to anyone else how relatively little money these people have as their "net worth"?
I personally know tons of people with over a $5million net worth. It's not hard to find yourself in that position if you bought real estate (even just your primary residence) in an area that exploded recently. Or if you started a moderately successful company.
My point is that these net worth figures are probably grossly downplayed and there is far more than money. Power and influence isn't part of your "net worth."