IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social

Posts

2

Comments

750

Joined

2 yr. ago

The Empire we broke from had this "feature" they seem to want so badly. And the thing is, these folks want this not realizing that there's a "losing team" built into this kind of function. See they forget the whole Act of Supremacy 1534 and how then when the other team got in, we had the Act of Supremacy 1558, and guess what happened to the losing team? Ireland remembers.

This isn't a one off thing. in the middle 1700s it wasn't uncommon for mayors to not get to hold office, even after being duly elected, because they were the wrong flavor of Trinity. There's the idea it's a single person and just three "personas" so to say, or it's actually three different people. That it's grape juice and crackers standing in and transubstantiation, you are actually fucking eating flesh and drinking blood.

And this all sounds like small details shit. But I wouldn't put it to chance on the smallness of those details to people who are worried if you look like you might go in the wrong bathroom. It's all fun and games till someone is trying to deny your right to vote because you think instruments don't belong in the church and that praise should only come from within.

See all the flavors of Christian are playing nicely at the moment because it's the enemy of my enemy kind of thing with the secular state. But once's that gone, we're partying like it's 1559. See that's what they all keep getting wrong, they all think they're going to end up on the winning team until someone starts saying "He ain't hurting the people he's supposed to hurt."

That's why they founders wanted a nation based in the people. See the King, his power come from God. And because of that, there's all this technical crap that basically makes it impossible to question him. But a Government of the people, that's the difference, the power of the nations isn't derived from God or whatever, it comes from basically all the vibes from all of the citizens in the nation.

And Founders they were religious, no doubt. And they believed God gave them power and what not, etc, etc, etc. But the nation they created, that derives from the people. The people can be all kinds of religious if they want to be, but our nation is consecrated by the will of the people. What guides that will of the people, that's for the people to pick. God, cool. Flying Spaghetti Monster, awesome. Reason and logic, amazing. Different strokes for different folks. Anyone who has read any of the people who created this nation's works will quickly understand there is a difference between what drives man and whence the power of this nation derives.

But within that is a smaller, hardcore group who also check other boxes in surveys — such as that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by God and that the federal government should declare the U.S. a Christian nation, advocate Christian values or stop enforcing the separation of church and state.

These people have no idea what they are asking for. They think that they'll somehow come out on top or that all the Christians will play nicely with each other or something. And they're just fooling themselves. We've got a lot of history that tells how "amazing" the various sects of Christianity play with each other.

He blamed “activists” on both the left and right for “hijacking” the process of banning books, accusing them of submitting book challenges solely to create a media narrative.

Even if that's true, he created the process.

Rule one of government: Don't create something that you aren't ready for it being abused.

All kinds of walks of life exist in a nation. There's conservative folks who abuse shit, there's liberal folks who abuse shit, there's socialist who abuse shit, there's libertarians that abuse shit, and I think we get the point.

Now the interesting thing is DeSantis is trying to apply more government mandate to fix government mandate. Which I don't think anyone needs to remind him how that'll play out. This is exactly the genesis for the mountains of red tape that so many people come to bemoan. This is exactly how it starts. If you have ever wondered how some Byzantine system of government got started, this is it.

Now DeSantis might not be around by the time this program goes full apeshit, but boy oh boy has he given it the fuel needed to get there. That's the thing about these kinds of odd ass programs that have ill defined goals, ill defined structure, and ill defined enforcement they get out of hand at fairly rapid pace. And that's the lamentation DeSantis is speaking to. He's seeing how something he started is quickly turning into a wildfire and he's hoping to not be on the hook for the conflagration.

AND THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T DO THESE THINGS TO BEGIN WITH. It's pretty straightforward governance and fairly obvious shit for anyone who spent longer than ten seconds studying history of governance. You don't invent some random ass broad sweeping bullshit and think, "Oh this couldn't possibly blow up in my face!"

Fucking shit, dude couldn't govern his ass out of a wet paper sack. And he actually thought he could run for President? Man likely couldn't run a Rotary club effectively.

One, the kids are also barred for a period of time.

Two, the big kicker is:

He also continued "the appointment of an Independent Monitor" and ordered "the installation of an Independent Director of Compliance" for the company

There is going to be eyes and ears on everything Trump attempts to do to weasel money around, especially given how often Trump shifts funds illegally to maintain his grift. That monitor is absolutely going to be dragging Trump back into court sooner or later. The man knows no restraint, he's absolutely going to FAFO.

As of the end of 2023, the typical U.S. worker could afford the same goods and services as in 2019, prior to the pandemic

The hell I can.

and had an additional $1,400 to spend or save per year

Bullshit.

And Yellen acknowledged that life remains precarious for millions of people

Yeah, that's not good. There are 209M 16-64 people in the US.

Childcare is expensive. Education is expensive

That affects a shitton of that 209M.

We know that almost half of Americans on one occasion or another have felt they couldn't afford to fill a prescription

That's not getting ahead. Lady you've got some WILD definition of "ahead" that I would say over 50% of the United States does not share. Holy fucking shit. You all should fucking stop for a second, especially with interviews with CBSNews. We are not in positive territory. That is not the definition of victory by anyone grounded in reality.

I'm glad people's paychecks are going up a paltry sum. But none of that makes any difference if we cannot afford food, live saving medicine, or child care. Those are really, really, really fucking important things. There is no victory if those are not addressed. I get since you're under the treasury, money in/money out is the primary research here. But maybe just stick to those factors and not a broader commentary on the economy if those three basic things are still major issues with over 50% of the United States.

HOLY SHIT how disconnected from reality can one be?

I guess my point is that we’re already talking about a hypothetical situation

Oh okay, fair enough. Yeah ideally that’s the direction it preferably should go in.

Why does everyone always assume that if minimum wage went up or if tipping went away that the customer would absorb the cost?

There’s no technical reason for why, just based on current evidence where 100% of the time producers shove any increase in cost to consumers.

You’re correct that there’s nothing technically preventing producers from eating the increase, it’s just that they’ve never done so, at least in the US.

Only real example where that has happen was with Nintendo and the WiiU. I’m sure there’s more but the fact I’m drawing blank past that but could name you over a thousand times when the cost was shoved off to consumers kind of is my point in a nutshell.

So that said, that’s why a lot of people just assume increase in cost of production equals increase in cost to consumers.

Someone drinking coffee like that seems to me like they’re trying to avoid tipping by going into cardiac arrest.

The penguins are crossing the Drake Passage and taking our jerbs!

I'm a bit wordy, that's something I'm working on. Thank you here's your boost for the kind reminder.

"Congress has taken decisive action to defend our constitutional order and hold accountable a public official who has violated his oath of office,” Representative Mark E. Green, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee

But you decided to tank the bipartisan border reform bill. Clearly sound logic here. SMH

But yeah, even Republicans in the Senate are indicating that it's likely the Senate will dismiss the trail as, shockingly, everyone has way better things to do.

However, this is Republicans attempting to normalize impeachment. So this way, when someone mentions Trump being impeached twice they can say, "well so-and-so was impeached sixty-three times!! Impeachment doesn't mean anything!" Which impeachment does mean something, just in this case it shows how petty the House Republicans have become.

Impeaching someone ALWAYS means something, just that if you're sitting there impeaching someone over border issues when yourself have tabled solving those border issues at the behest of the leading candidate for a political party, it clearly doesn't say the thing these Republicans are hoping it says. You cannot reasonably believe people OF SOUND MIND can look at the justification of this impeachment and the recent tanking of solutions by this exact body in the House and think that the conclusions were arrived at in an apolitical manner.

Literally Trump said, "Don't give Biden the win on the border." I mean c'mon, okay you might have an issue with how the guy was running things, you're Congress, you can literally pass legislation forcing the guy to do your bidding. That's actually an option. But Republicans of the House cannot actually get it passed, not just because of their dysfunctional nature, but because Trump told them to not. So this is the result, rather than actually pass legislation to set the guy on the "right" path (I mean I'm going to give GOP House a benefit of doubt here, that they actually want to fix something) and boy oh boy, it was bipartisan it COULD HAVE been a slam dunk here. But rather than do that, they did this.

Republicans are going to think that this is some sort of win, that's cool, whatever helps them to sleep. But nobody is going to forget that Trump literally asked Republicans to tank any kind of solution. That's what this impeachment says. And literally, that's the echo over at r/conservative, it basically boils down to a "take that Biden!" Rather than people actually going, "shouldn't have Congress given clarity if they had issues?"

But of course you ask that question to some of them and it'll instantly devolve into "did Democrats give Trump … ?" And that's the tell that it's tit-for-tat for those people.

In approving the charges, the House also appointed 11 Republicans to serve as impeachment managers, including Mr. Green and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, the right-wing lawmaker who has led the charge against Mr. Mayorkas.

LOL!!! In a perverse sense though, I would love to see MTG attempt to form solid arguments in an impeachment trail. Lady routinely trips on logic and her fallback is just screeching, which given a Democrat would be presiding over the trial, I would love to see Sen. Patty Murray figuratively chuck a gavel at MTG's head and tell her to "shut the fuck up!" Ah man, I almost miss the chance to see MTG as an impeachment manager. Impeachments are usually highly politically charged (hence the reason the background upon which it is set is pretty important) and that's like Rep. Greene's trigger to ignite. Lady doesn't know how to pump the breaks on her partisanship or emotions (which there's a time and place for that in Congress for sure, not when you're in the Senate with the opposite party presiding). Now Rep. Mark Green now that's an obvious choice, he's absolutely got a flare for dotting the i's in an argument. Perfect choice for a manager into this and has a great deal of understanding this domain. But him opposite of MTG, that's just hilarious. I would love to see Rep. Mark Green give Rep. Greene side eyes to reel it in on an almost consistent basis during the hearing.

That's just entertainment you cannot make up.

MMMPox!

indiscernible screaming

MMMPox.

cries of agony

Yeah, yeah!

While Crystal Dynamics didn’t specify which content it’s referring to, it’s speculated that it could be the animalistic depiction of Pacific Island natives in Tomb Raider 3, who are implied to be cannibals.

Yeah that's with any position. Things change. More argument about loyalty being a transitory thing. My second job was like that. Was really good and then the company we third partied for was sued by a US State for fraud. When the contract wasn't renewed I thought we'd move on, but I was surprised by how many of our eggs had been placed in a single basket. The vast majority of the company I worked for relied on those contracts to supply jobs, so when that went away the company went from thirty software developers to one. 90% of the company I worked for's value evaporated within two months.

It was this that I also became aware of what the WARN Act was.

I guess I'll interject with personal experience so take everything that follows as, my most humble opinion of things. I have zero expectation for anyone to agree.

Gen X myself, I am currently in a position that I am completely happy with now. That did not come without a massive fight. This is quite literally my 6th job in my field (system's programming) and now the second longest I've stayed with a company. Quoting from the story:

Without the promise of high returns for their loyalty, Gen Z has learned to follow the money

And this should be people's default until shown otherwise. I cannot count the number of times I've heard "it's just business" in the course of my various jobs. At the end of the day, your employer is looking at bottom line most times. One should not invest themselves into any relationship when the other is simply looking at the piratical ramifications of the relationship and not the broader nature of that relationship.

It's about the money and being able to pay for living expenses, which is reasonable. The dollar went a lot further when baby boomers were entering the workforce. It doesn't go as far now.

Yeah, while suffering when sufferable was okay when a taco was under a buck, dollar doesn't go anywhere today. The amount of time to have shits and giggles with an employer on actual compensation is about seven seconds today. When I first got into the field being underneath the region's average for X number of years wasn't unheard of. And for me, it was all cool because shit was cheap. Today, being under the region's average for a position needs to be measured in X minutes, not this year shit. Employer's that want to play games, Gen Z should not budge for a second on the matter.

When a raise and promotion don't hit swiftly, Gen Z is quick to jump ship

I'll say this. When I got to my current position, I knew right off that this was a good company. How? I can't really put a finger on the how, but having been in two jobs previous that were hyper toxic, I had a feeling. Now, I still didn't play games coming in though. I indicated exactly what I expected and that the job couldn't be "all hands on deck" 24/7, 365. That's just shitty management. I gave them six months to show me the money and if it didn't come through I had every intention to hit the door at the 121 day mark.

There was still friction, no meaningful relationship doesn't have those moments, but the things I was indicating was actually being taken serious, and compensation for kicking ass on my end was forthcoming. If your employer doesn't like talking money with employees, you're going to have a lot of friction and I'm not telling anyone what to do, but employer's feeling uncomfortable with the topic of money should be a red flag for you. If that's the straw that breaks the camel's back or just a stone in the wall for you, that's your call. But in my opinion, employers that get squishy about the word money shouldn't be employers. Not with how this world currently is. Maybe we can go back to the "ha ha ha" playing coy game when a significant percentage of a person's paycheck doesn't have to go for simply feeding themselves.

But Gen Zers "haven't lost the passion for what they want to do,"

And I have never thought they have. The Gen Z that I oversee are some of the best workers I've ever dealt with. But the world isn't allowing them to be slacking on ensuring that proper compensation is constant. Inflation is eating away any kind of raise I can give them as fast as I can give it to them. As far as I have seen, Gen Z is some of the best workers to date to come out of the woodwork and it's actually kind of shitty they cannot have the environment to flourish that I had at their age.

Again, from my personal experience, I think there's a lot of management that's still in the lax mood of how employment might have worked back in the day. When a few years under the line of compensation was just the name of the game. But the game has seriously changed and a lot of the folks my age and the boomers as well are still stuck in "the way things used to be™" and it's so bad right now, no one has time for that anymore.

As I've heard so often, it's just business. But I think employers have been so used to the giving that advice, they are completely at loss when receiving it. The Gen Z I've worked with, and it may be different for others, but the ones I've worked with and the ones I currently manage, they're some of the hardest workers who take everything they do as personal value and will be some of the best employees IF YOU ENCOURAGE THEM AND COMPENSATE THEM.

I too dislike that the world has become really centered around pay. But to quote some Tolken:

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Treat your folks like people, and the rest mostly falls in place.

I guess I'll interject with personal experience so take everything that follows as, my most humble opinion of things. I have zero expectation for anyone to agree.

Gen X myself, I am currently in a position that I am completely happy with now. That did not come without a massive fight. This is quite literally my 6th job in my field (system's programming) and now the second longest I've stayed with a company. Quoting from the story:

Without the promise of high returns for their loyalty, Gen Z has learned to follow the money

And this should be people's default until shown otherwise. I cannot count the number of times I've heard "it's just business" in the course of my various jobs. At the end of the day, your employer is looking at bottom line most times. One should not invest themselves into any relationship when the other is simply looking at the piratical ramifications of the relationship and not the broader nature of that relationship.

It's about the money and being able to pay for living expenses, which is reasonable. The dollar went a lot further when baby boomers were entering the workforce. It doesn't go as far now.

Yeah, while suffering when sufferable was okay when a taco was under a buck, dollar doesn't go anywhere today. The amount of time to have shits and giggles with an employer on actual compensation is about seven seconds today. When I first got into the field being underneath the region's average for X number of years wasn't unheard of. And for me, it was all cool because shit was cheap. Today, being under the region's average for a position needs to be measured in X minutes, not this year shit. Employer's that want to play games, Gen Z should not budge for a second on the matter.

When a raise and promotion don't hit swiftly, Gen Z is quick to jump ship

I'll say this. When I got to my current position, I knew right off that this was a good company. How? I can't really put a finger on the how, but having been in two jobs previous that were hyper toxic, I had a feeling. Now, I still didn't play games coming in though. I indicated exactly what I expected and that the job couldn't be "all hands on deck" 24/7, 365. That's just shitty management. I gave them six months to show me the money and if it didn't come through I had every intention to hit the door at the 121 day mark.

There was still friction, no meaningful relationship doesn't have those moments, but the things I was indicating was actually being taken serious, and compensation for kicking ass on my end was forthcoming. If your employer doesn't like talking money with employees, you're going to have a lot of friction and I'm not telling anyone what to do, but employer's feeling uncomfortable with the topic of money should be a red flag for you. If that's the straw that breaks the camel's back or just a stone in the wall for you, that's your call. But in my opinion, employers that get squishy about the word money shouldn't be employers. Not with how this world currently is. Maybe we can go back to the "ha ha ha" playing coy game when a significant percentage of a person's paycheck doesn't have to go for simply feeding themselves.

But Gen Zers "haven't lost the passion for what they want to do,"

And I have never thought they have. The Gen Z that I oversee are some of the best workers I've ever dealt with. But the world isn't allowing them to be slacking on ensuring that proper compensation is constant. Inflation is eating away any kind of raise I can give them as fast as I can give it to them. As far as I have seen, Gen Z is some of the best workers to date to come out of the woodwork and it's actually kind of shitty they cannot have the environment to flourish that I had at their age.

Again, from my personal experience, I think there's a lot of management that's still in the lax mood of how employment might have worked back in the day. When a few years under the line of compensation was just the name of the game. But the game has seriously changed and a lot of the folks my age and the boomers as well are still stuck in "the way things used to be™" and it's so bad right now, no one has time for that anymore.

As I've heard so often, it's just business. But I think employers have been so used to the giving that advice, they are completely at loss when receiving it. The Gen Z I've worked with, and it may be different for others, but the ones I've worked with and the ones I currently manage, they're some of the hardest workers who take everything they do as personal value and will be some of the best employees IF YOU ENCOURAGE THEM AND COMPENSATE THEM.

I too dislike that the world has become really centered around pay. But to quote some Tolken:

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Treat your folks like people, and the rest mostly falls in place.

This is the second time this question was tossed at SCOTUS. SCOTUS denied hearing the motion the first time around before the trail even began. I've yet to hear a convincing argument on why the high court would change their mind on the matter.

Now the SCOTUS will take it up and sit on it till November

I'm doubtful they'll sit on it. As you said, they already indicated a lack of desire to pick it up last time Trump submitted an appeal to them on this basis. I'm pretty sure everyone is expecting a repeat performance here. Remember the rule of four would apply here and I'm sure Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Roberts would do exactly the repeat as before.

There's just not the numbers to play petty favors for Trump here.

Hey OP, I think you're focusing on specific use cases of broader issues.

Globally speaking, energy is about 25% of all CO₂ emitted into the air. Farming and agriculture is another 25%. Industry is 20% and transportation is about 15%. So in just those four categories we're talking about 85% of all CO₂ emitted.

So when you indicate:

We have semi trucks burning diesel to bring pet food and pet supplies to all parts of the world.

That's transportation.

We devote some amount of farm land and livestock to feeding those pets

That's farming.

We have big box stores for pets

That's both energy (for power) and industry (concrete).

So I just wanted to point that out. Now I also wanted to address something else.

It’s interesting when people suggest to reduce global human population

Rich people suggest this and poor people think it sounds good because they believe that the reduction is not including themselves. We have a TON of resources on this planet. We just do not have enough resources on this planet for the current distribution system. That's the key point here.

Population reduction should be viewed in the same manner on how humanity did the horse population reduction. The second we invented the car, horses were no longer useful, so we got rid of a ton of them. As we continue to progress in technology, we render a lot of people no longer useful through no fault of their own. So there's a few folk out there recommending we do the same to them as we did horses.

Now where that lies on your ethical meter, you know, I'm not here to judge. Humanity is a spunky bunch. But just remember that the folks indicating population decline as a viable answer, if you're not pulling eight or nine figures a year, you're in that group up for consideration for culling.

But back to your point. I mean the pet thing is indeed an interesting take on the four factors of climate change. Indeed an interesting take on them for sure. I don't have hard numbers on the CO₂ emissions for pet ownership, but they do indeed contribute to the big four. I cannot imagine that they account for a single percent of any of the big four's underlying values. 900 million dogs do sound like a lot but it's actually pretty small in terms of footprint on the environment. The big thing is that the vast majority of those dogs globally are not living high CO₂ producing lives. Just a few of them are. Same with cats. The vast majority are feral beasts. Wrecking diversity of various ecological areas for sure, but not exactly producing massive amounts of CO₂.

Which ecological impact is something that's a different topic than climate change but the two do sometimes overlap each other. But they are two different studies at the end of the day.

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

— 18 USC § 2383

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

— 18 USC § 2384