Lurker > Hospy

People watching

Witcher 3 NG+ is not really a NG+ that you would expect though, iirc, it scales the enemies with the level you are when you started again so if anything its gonna be even harder on NG+ plus all your equipment is garbage.

If it is any consolation, once you get the hang of how to play the game is supposed to be played the game is pretty forgiving even at Death March. You might need to die a few dozen times at the beginning to learn it though.

ReturnOfFa posted...

your examples are all over the place. the USA wasn't fighting the average Afghani in Afghanistan lol.

Jen0125 posted...

Okay, Rambo lmao good luck with that.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Hospy better get started on the American Mujahideen!

I have 0% interest in fighting the government.

I'm just pointing out that, generally speaking, there isn't a military solution to any sort of a popular insurgency. The military has lots of expensive, fancy tools that are set up to blow up other state militaries, none of which are particularly useful for stopping people hiding within a population. Look how upset people are with police brutality and its lack of accountability; do you think people are going to be fine with people just getting drone'd without any due process? At the end of the day it's going to be guys on the ground with guns that keep order.

I would imagine the protestors in Myanmar wished they had guns given that they seem to be fighting the junta with, at best, potato cannons.

Jen0125 posted...

And you think Americans are comparable to people who experience war on their home turf since birth?

I think people are capable of lots of things when presented a bad situation.

Jen0125 posted...

If anyone thinks they can take on the military even with AR15s they're completely fucking delusional.

Our military budget is $700bn+ per year. We can't defend ourselves against the military.

The Vietnamese, Afghanis, and Iraqis have done a pretty good job of defending themselves from the US and its inflated defense budget.

No, if anything were not rigorous enough at holding students back for not learning. This fixation on increasing graduation rates by reducing requirements is ridiculous and just setting students up to fail.

Technically speaking arent you supposed to declare that income anyway? Now its just making a requirement above a certain point.

Well yeah, if you can save money every paycheck you should absolutely do that before doing anything drastic.

The situation I thought we were discussing was for people who are constantly living paycheck to paycheck and making no progress anywhere. If you're in a position to be saving up money to make the jump to a different position, I wouldn't really describe you as being stuck in a job.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Can you fucking read dude

I'm not going make your arguments for you, buddy.

Blightzkrieg posted...

If they used a fallacy as their sole argument, it's sufficient proof that their argument is dogshit. I don't need to rewrite LotR from scratch to prove that Sauron lost.

You may not be lazy, but you're trying really hard to be wrong.

Sure, but if you're going to argue that he's using a fallacy in his argument, the onus is on you to substantiate that it's a fallacy and hence why it is wrong.

LinkPizza posted...

Because the risk for making a worse situation is so high, that you stay the safer situation until you have to change. In the first situation, its bad, but youre able to survive. If you change, you have a chance of failing. Even if you dont fail at the class, you may not find a job. And since you took the class, you also have less money that you needed to survive. It has a high risk factor. On their own, someone might be fine doing it. But many people dont want to put their kids though a bad time, when the chance of failing can happen ok so many levels. At least without a backup plan. And many people may not have one. So, its better to wait until you have. If you change early, and fail. You couldve killed your whole family ok something risky when staying where you were would have been fine for longer. And couldve given you more time to come up with a back up plan. Thats why I say its safer to wait until youre forced. Because you have longer to live (if failure is in the future), or more time to come up with a plan. Unless you have no doubt youll pass and get the job, it super risky for everyone involved...

There's risk to doing anything, that's just a basic fact of life. People go to school without guarantees of a job (or even graduating), people open businesses without guarantees of making profit.

Yes, there are risks to making a change. There are also risks if you don't make a change. You could lose your job at any given point, and you'd end up in the same crappy position if you were living paycheck to paycheck. You're equally screwed, the only difference is whether you made the decision or someone made it for you.

Waiting and saving up for a back up plan works but I was under the impression we were talking about people living paycheck to paycheck which implies they aren't making any headway in savings.

Time is basically never on your side. People have roughly ~50 years of work in them, and the more time you spend doing entry level minimum wage stuff is time spent not doing something better paid, not to mention the fields that are going to stop being available to you once your body is no longer capable of doing them.

Saying someone's argument is dogshit is an argument though, just not a very well phrased one.

Just throwing out a "haha, you used (logical fallacy x)" is an incredibly lazy argument though.

LinkPizza posted...

Waiting for the world to force you would probably be ok, though. You do what you do until you cant anymore, then make the risk because theres no other choice. If you make the risk on your own and fail, its worse because you could have still been ok. If the world forces you, you didnt change until you had to. So you went as far as you could. Who cares about the pride of switching yourself if you fail?

I'm having a hard time following you here.

You're in a bad situation, but you don't want to make any changes that might improve your situation because you might fail, so it's better to not do anything until you're forced to do it? It just seems like a convoluted way of trying to avoid taking any personal responsibility for what happens.

LinkPizza posted...

The reason why its the safe answer is because its still working...

Right up until it stops working.

The question is whether you make that change on your own terms or the world forces you to.

LinkPizza posted...

It's the obvious answer because it the safe answer. Changing could end up causing a lot more problems. And it's putting not only you, but your children at risk, as well. Many might do it if it was only them. But when children are involve, lots of people will take the safer route...

The entire point is that it's not the safe answer. If you're spending all your time and never getting ahead, you're betting on that nothing bad is ever going to happen in the future which is, at best, wishful thinking.

LinkPizza posted...

But if your choices are to keep working, and make enough to live. Or try to change, which could end up putting you and your children in a worse spot, the obvious answer is to keep working. It sucks and is hard, but it's still the safer choice at the time since you know that if nothing changes, you can still live. Taking the class could end up bad if in the end, you can't do that job. Or learn it and can't land a job doing that...
If you can. That;s where the problem lies. It's not always fast and easy to find a job. Especially when you need the money you're making. In the case of a single mother who needs every penny she earns, it'll be nearly impossible to find a job quick while working and taking care of children...

Your choices are: remaining in a position that you know is terrible and is never going to improve unless someone else does something, or make a change to try and get out of that situation. Staying and working and hoping it fixes itself isn't the "obvious" answer, it's just avoiding having to make a hard decision which in itself is a decision.

There are risks to everything in life. Yes, there are risks to looking for a jobs. Yes, you might not be able to get a job fast or easy. But if you never look you're guaranteeing that you'll never get a better job.

Mead posted...

and as we all know people that look different have been historically more than welcome in some of those rural areas

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/georgia-governor-calls-shooting-video-absolutely-horrific-70566532

Generally speaking, urban crime rates are higher than that of suburban and rural areas.

LinkPizza posted...

It's hard to make those decisions, though. Many people work keeping what they can together until something happens... Because they want that miracle to happen. Regardless, it doesn't make sense to go to a night class when you literally have no time... Not to mention, probably don't have the money. Because I think those also cost something, don't they? And I think they night classes were more...

I absolutely agree that it's hard to make those decisions, but the alternative is to not make any changes which is guaranteed not to work. We can make unlimited excuses why we can't do x, y, or z, but the point is that every person is in control of what they decide to do.

LinkPizza posted...

Not that. What I mean is, some employers are dicks and can screw you over even when they know that by doing certain things, they'll put you in more trouble or more debt... And they can definitely break up marriages by making it so you have no free time or other stuff, though that also depends on the job... or spend. These aren't super common or anything. But definitely possible...

There are things you can and cannot change. I cannot change the fact that my employer may be a dick (unless they are doing something actually illegal in which case I probably can). I can choose to not work there and find another place of employment.

Fam_Fam posted...

so you think that all people with jobs take the job believing that what they are compensated is reasonable and fair?

No, but I think the person best qualified to know whether the amount of money they get paid for their work is reasonable to them is that person.

LinkPizza posted...

Thats if you have time, though. A single mother working two jobs may not have that time. Even working one job, they may not have time... For example, people still need sleep...

The unfortunate truth is that if you are a single mother working two jobs and still aren't making ends meet, that's not a sustainable situation to begin with. At some point something is going to happen, whether your hours get cut, your position gets removed, an emergency pops up, and you're going to have to make hard decisions on what to do. You are probably better off making those hard decisions on your own time to invest in your future rather than waiting for the world to force you to make those choices.

LinkPizza posted...

I think thatll change person to person...

Your employer is there to provide compensation in exchange for your time and effort. I don't think your employer is responsible for you having children, or breaking up your relationship/marriage, or for the partner not providing childcare/spousal benefits, or for how much money you spend.

adjl posted...

Ultimately, it's not feasible to expect an employer to pay an employee more than that employee makes for them, but if that requires many workers to work for sub-living wages, that's not a working system.

The question then is are these employees better off with a job that doesn't pay very much, or no job at all? Manufacturing in particular has suffered heavily from outsourcing to other countries where the cost of labor is a fraction of what it is here. I'm not condoning the practice, it's just that there are always unintended consequences when the basic equation is meddled with.

Places like Pittsburgh were always going to be better off transitioning away from the relatively slow-skilled steel industry, but there's at least one generation of workers who probably wished it was an actual transition rather than an abrupt collapse.

Unbridled9 posted...

All those things take time to learn though. When you're a single mother trying to feed her child you don't have the time to learn plumbing. If you're someone living paycheck to paycheck to try and stave off bills and debts a single missed week can be the difference between 'survival' and 'jailtime'. Plus let's not forget that there's only so many trade jobs and/or alternatives.

Many trade and vocational schools offer evening classes for this reason. Apprenticeships generally pay you while you learn on the job as an assistant. My old employer is constantly looking for people but it's in a relatively obscure field that nobody doing a casual job search is going to turn up because it never occurs to them to look it up.

Yes, being a single mother living paycheck to paycheck on a minimum wage job and still going into debt is a bad situation to be in, but how many of these problems are the fault of the employer?

Unbridled9 posted...

If you don't think someone should be able to survive doing a job, do you think we should even have the job at all?

Jobs generally exist because the employer derives value greater than or equal to the cost of having an employee. If a prospective employee thinks the compensation is worth the time and effort working the job then it all works out between two consenting entities.

adjl posted...

But you don't need the best people for that. You just need people that don't suck.

"Need" probably isn't the greatest term for it. The business world is cutthroat. Small companies grow up and eat big companies because of leadership. All these big companies didn't just magically pop out of the ground huge and just need a stable hand at the helm. History is littered with big corporations that shriveled because of their leadership's inability to adapt.

The obscenely huge pay amounts doesn't guarantee you'll get good people, but it gives you the best chance at getting and retaining quality people for the position.

adjl posted...

Heck, I wouldn't actually be surprised if holding incompetent execs accountable for their failures does more to motivate good company leadership than handing out bonuses like candy does, particularly where most of these execs are so rich already that an extra $10 million is functionally meaningless (the approximate equivalent of one of us finding a $20 bill).

That's what performance based contracts are about. If the company does good, you do good. A punishment clause quite frankly would just make your job offer look terribly unappealing.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Yes but you're missing the point of my post.

Tons of companies are willing to pay their employees dogshit wages and benefits, because they don't actually give a shit about retaining quality employees (there are exceptions, but it's not the norm). This level of thinking very rarely extends to corporate level employees.

There is little need to retain quality employees at entry level positions because entry level positions can be filled by anyone. If Walmart decided to start paying its greeters $50 an hour, they could have some of the best greeters in the industry, but that's not going to translate to the company doing any better.

Corporate officers get paid a lot because they have an enormous impact on the future of a company. If an Intel entry level guy messes up his job, nothing significant is going to happen to the company, but if the CEO messes up like Intel's previous CEO did, the company gets hit big.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Im always curious about why companies are willing to shell out s much money (millions in some cases) as bonuses for executives, rather than risk losing them. Do investors really believe on some level that these individuals are irreplaceable? Or does it just become self destructive at some point to go against them?

It's the same reason why any company pays higher wages to its employees versus its competitors: because you want better employees. If you were some super amazing executive guy, and you had a choice between working for a guy paying you a million dollars versus a guy paying you ten million, which would you take?

Unbridled9 posted...

Excuse me if I feel that it's bullshit to say office work can be 'just as bad' when I've had people demand I be fired because their kid stole a toothbrush and I asked for it back, or have had to literally clean up stalls covered in human feces from floor to ceiling, or been yelled at by my manager for not staying two hours after my shift ended to 'finish all the work' when the reason it wasn't done was because they cut back on the employee payroll leaving only one manager and one employee to handle the entire store.

It might be a little naive to think that there are no office workers who have to deal with angry clients or bosses or have to deal with crunch time with project deadlines.

I don't think it's a terribly controversial thought that working in general isn't enjoyable; I've never enjoyed working and if I didn't get paid to do my job, there's no way I would do it. If I feel the compensation isn't good enough for the amount of crap I have to deal with, then I either negotiate a raise or find a different job.

When you say you see unskilled labor who should just go back to college and get other jobs I see people who are subject to abuse day in and day out effectively trapped by their need to do things like eat and support a family instead of going to college or engaging in job hunts. I see employees who stay up all night only to get harassed by managers and others for being 'lazy' and sleeping in the day. Or people who come in so sick they can't even speak because they're so terrified of being fired and/or unable to afford a doctors visit.

There are other options besides low skilled entry positions and going to college. There's a whole variety of skilled and semi-skilled labor positions out there that are constantly needing to be filled simply because they are either not glamorous (like plumbing or basically any trade), or people have never heard of them (there's about a hundred different types of medical technician for completely exotic medical equipment that nobody has heard of until you actually need to get tested on it). Trade schools, paid apprenticeships, free job training seminars, job placements, etc are things that are out there that people can look for. There may be hard decisions to make, but continuing in the same position without making any changes and hoping for it all to work out is wishful thinking.

Entity13 posted...

I fear I am missing a premise here. Where is the premise from Ziggi/Clark that nothing you/Sunny say(s) cannot be true? Logic requires stringing together premises in order to reach a conclusion, after all.

My initial entry in this entirely unfortunate affair starts on page 5, but the condensed version is that I said ideas should be judged based on their own merits, not on the person who speaks them. Attacking the speaker, regardless of who or what they are, is not a reflection on the validity of the idea itself.

The responses I have received in turn are either that I shouldn't be defending this mystical sunny person, or that I am in fact, the sunny.

Taking the argument backwards, if I am sunny as they claim, any ideas that I present are not valid because I am a suspect individual. But if I present a statement generally known to be true, then that idea stands for itself regardless if I am the nefarious sunny, which is my initial point.

ClarkDuke posted...

please, stop talking to yourself sunny, its making this more uncomfortable. perhaps its your old age, but you unsuccessfully tried this using this exact tactic, ok?

The current year is 2021.
The Declaration of Independence of the United States was ratified on July 4, 1776
Humans require oxygen in order to live.
Pythagoras's theorum states that given a right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares on the other two sides.

By your logic, if I'm Sunny, these statements cannot also be true, so which is it?

GanonsSpirit posted...

Oh, I get it. This is a sunny alt.

ClarkDuke posted...

bingo, ok?

Krazy_Kirby posted...

referring to yourself in the 3rd person...

There's really nothing I can say to make you believe I'm not a specific person, but for the sake of science, which of these examples seems more likely to you:

1) There is more than one person on the planet who may not agree with your position, or
2) Everyone who disagrees with you is just one guy with unlimited accounts, including one that has been active since 2005

The internet has breached countless barriers in terms of distance and language and socioeconomic factors, without which we'd probably never communicate with anybody on here. I find it perplexing that in the modern world with the easiest means of communication never before seen in history that you would willfully choose to close your mind to ideas simply because you don't like the person who speaks them. I don't know anything about any of you, and it doesn't matter for the purposes of discussing things.

You don't have to like someone to talk to them. You don't have to agree or disagree with someone to engage with them. There's a huge variety of people out there and if you only talk to people you agree with you're just limiting your understanding of the world.

Zareth posted...

Someone being a narcissist actually does change the validity of their ideas, as if their ideas are ever called in to question they can never be convinced that they are wrong.

Whether or not someone can be convinced they are wrong or not has no bearing on whether the idea itself is bad.

If you have the most narcissistic liar in the world and they say "we shouldn't nuke orphanages" is that idea inherently bad because of who said it?

Aculo posted...

you obviously don't know sunny well enough, ok?

If you're not willing to engage with someone other then calling them names, what's the point? Just ignore them and get on with your day.

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Fam you look foolish. Learn about the guy before ya burn bridges here for a narcissist.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/79378046

The entire point is that who or what the person is makes no difference on the validity of their ideas. It doesn't matter if he's a narcissist, or a serial killer, or the patron saint of the criminally insane, or a twelve foot inflatable elephant plush toy.

Question of character are really only relevant when it pertains to the truth when it comes to personal testimony.

ClarkDuke posted...

ill keep this simple, some ideas are good and some are bad, but multiple bad ideas shouldnt be ignored, ok?

sunny is a fountain of misinformation and a narcissist who believes every event in the world is about him. so if you want to piss in the wind while dying on this hill, have fun, ok?

The way you confront bad ideas is by explaining why they're bad, not by attacking the person espousing said ideas. By attacking the person you're just entrenching the person's beliefs rather than making any attempt to reason with them.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Stop being generous with the definition of the word "idea"

What are you even arguing?

ClarkDuke posted...

hes a massive conspiracy theorist, maybe lurk more before you look foolish defending sunny of all users, ok?

BlackScythe0 posted...

Stop defending a nonsense conspiracy theorist.

If you think those specific beliefs are wrong that doesn't mean everything else he believes is also wrong. Would you bring this up if he stated that 2+2 = 4, or that the ocean has water in it?

Ideas are ideas regardless of where they come from. Attacking the person for having the idea isn't arguing the point at all.

ClarkDuke posted...

which is why youre an antivaxxer, right? because you would never become the pawn of a movement you know next to nothing about.

How does that address what he said?

Going straight to ad hominems hardly fosters discussion.

Well, the military junta in Myanmar just shot and killed another 90 protesters today.
Xi Jinping is responsible for putting a few million minorities into reeducation camps
Putin exists

Clench281 posted...

The YouGov poll includes all individuals lumped together regardless of gender. The NPR poll has the data for men and women split. It stands to reason that since the pooled poll results will include less than 100% men, it will result in a lower "never" response rate.

In general, the NPR poll has fewer "unsure" responses. This could be due to the more specific wording of the NPR poll, predicated on the condition "if you are offered the vaccine," which precludes an "I don't know" response resulting from uncertainty in availability.

The NPR does have an entry for 2020 Trump support who wouldn't take the vaccine at 47% (it's the entry beneath white evangelical christians). Comparing 47% to 38% to 35% doesn't make it look any better.

Clench281 posted...

You can't look at the results and not conclude that a large proportion of conservative men are saying they're not planning to get the vaccine.

But what do I know, It's only my job to generate/analyze/interpret data

Sure, "a large proportion of conservative men are saying they're not planning to get the vaccine" is a reasonable statement to make based on the result of this survey.

On the other hand, saying "50% of americans who voted for Trump said they would never get the vaccine" based on the results of these surveys is simply being dishonest.

In comparison to the survey which was cited in the original post/#4 which has that number at 38% that took place in the same time frame.

The survey previous to that one had it at 35%. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/imdk8zumh5/econTabReport.pdf

You don't think results that have a variance of ~25% between surveys puts up some red flags on accuracy?

Original post says "50% of americans who voted for Trump said they would never get the vaccine"

The survey linked that you also pointed out states the question was only posed to those who had not already been vaccinated, herego the original post is incorrect.

What is the confusion.

Clench281 posted...

... As pointed out, plainly and clearly, in post #4

So?

Clench281 posted...

Try post #4 in this topic

Clench281 posted...

Also, did you know that a poll of 1500 Americans has a margin of error under 3%, which is considered very good?

The survey listed doesn't seem to have anything that says 50% of Trump voters would never get the vaccine.

The author seems to be looking at the answers for number 8:"When do you plan to get vaccinated?" to get the 50% number, however, there is a caveat of "Asked of those who have not been vaccinated for COVID-19". According to this survey, 25% of Trump voters had already responded that they had been vaccinated, consequently, the conclusion based on this data, is that 50% of Trump voters who have not already been vaccinated say they will not get vaccinated, or 37.5% of people who voted for Trump.

While the poll size of 1500 may be theoretically "accurate" assuming a perfectly random selection, please bear in mind it is practically impossible to do so given the necessity of garnering responses.

Im pretty skeptical, the previous poll they conducted (of a whopping 1500 people) less than one month prior had that number at 35%, so having that number jump almost 50% is betraying some significant problems with their polling selection and/or size.

For what its worth I cant find their survey results that state 50% anywhere.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Sure, its government involvement similar to how a teacher teaching a child is government involvement

Yes?

It's not a good or bad thing, it's just what the government does.

darkknight109 posted...

Theoretically? Yes. Practically? No.

The original US constitution allowed slavery and restricted the vote to white men.

That the sort of permanency you're looking for?

And it was amended by the process that it allows, is that not a point in its favor?

MICHALECOLE posted...

So a minimum wage is government involvement?

hot take

How else would you classify it, a directive from the almighty?

MICHALECOLE posted...

The surcharge is done by the company, how is this government getting involved?

I presume the surcharge was created in response to the new minimum wage requirements.

Clench281 posted...

Really?

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Renunciation-US-Nationality-Abroad.html

Citizenship is a status that is personal to the U.S. citizen. Therefore parents may not renounce the citizenship of their minor children. Similarly, parents/legal guardians may not renounce the citizenship of individuals who lack sufficient capacity to do so. Minors seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship must demonstrate to a consular officer that they are acting voluntarily, without undue influence from parent(s), and that they fully understand the implications/consequences attendant to the renunciation of U.S. citizenship. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent to relinquish citizenship; children under 18 are provided additional safeguards during the renunciation process, and their cases are afforded very careful consideration by post and the Department to assess their voluntariness and informed intent. Unless there are emergent circumstances, minors may wish to wait until age 18 to renounce citizenship.

I stand corrected then, either I heard my cousin incorrectly or surrogacy is handled differently.
FatalAccident posted...

Gave up as in took away American citizenship?

I believe the implication was he gave up the babys US citizenship but the post above states otherwise

Clench281 posted...

Pretty sure that at least in the USA it's not up to the parents whether the child retains citizenship. Nor should it be the parents' decision.

No, the parents can give up their childs citizenship. I have a cousin who contracted a surrogate to have a baby here and they gave up the babys citizenship.

adjl posted...

You can, however, make reasonable estimates based on average sales. Managers already do this in scheduling their staff. You'll still have days where you end up with the surcharge being over or under the wage increase, but you can get a whole lot closer than it sounds like TC's restaurant is getting consistently.

Id have to see more than one day of receipts and pay to comment further, but $169 after credit card fees is prolly around $160-165 or so, and $39 after payroll taxes is probably around $50-55 in costs.

Yeah you can give it up.