Crumbs is such a cute name, but a little small when he’s the whole loaf
Crumbs is such a cute name, but a little small when he’s the whole loaf
Springtails and certain mites also love to eat fungus. I use them to keep mold under control in my terrariums
Women can experience internalised misogyny, you can also internalise your misandry
I know you peeps probably didn’t mean it this way, but men fall victim to the same psychological traps women do. It’s not that easy to just leave a bad relationship, especially if you don’t have the expectations and tools required to identify what’s not normal
Fairly sure 2 of them are those vegans and the other is just being contrarian for the sake of it.
It’s a genuinely uplifting post, and there’s not much to say other than it being good news, so the more disagreeable sort are poking holes
I get what you’re saying, and in my ideal world inheritance would be limited to personal effects with sentimental value. I just don’t think being more extreme is going to get us anywhere, and definitely has different moral concerns regarding high value items with sentimental value
It would be taxed per recipient, so it wouldn’t go into the 100% territory
It should be lower for 200.000$ then slide up to 100% on anything above 1.000.000$ or so
People inheriting 200.000$ aren’t causing the huge gap in wealth inequality
So CrowdStrike shouldn’t allow real time threat protection? That’s what caused the issue. It needs to update its threat library to do deal with any day 1 attacks. It’s one of the main reasons it’s used
Forced updates of an optional corporate anti-virus designed to immediately detect and distribute information on threats should be illegal?
Or is this just an unrelated comment?
I don’t understand how so many people are taking “Program with level 0 access shipped faulty code that caused the OS to refuse to boot until a single file is removed” as “Windows bad lmao”. Not that I disagree with Windows bad, just the over liberal application and acting like this is some sort of Linux win.
Give me kernel level access and I can make anything refuse to boot
You’re welcome <3 You seem like a kind person, and those people are easily taken advantage of. I don’t like seeing people lose that kindness because they forget to put themselves first.
This person you’re dealing with could have any number of good and valid excuses for their behaviour. But it’s still straight up abusive, and could equally stem from a harmful and malicious place. Unless you know for sure, the best you can do is not antagonise them.
An official report would be valid in your situation. But I wouldn’t get involved any further. Just save her messages and any evidence you have of her behaviour, on the off chance it does escalate and you or another coworker need to protect yourselves
Whilst I agree with the above, remember to look out for number one. It’s important that you prioritise your own mental, physical, social, and financial wellbeing over that of a coworker you don’t seem to know all that well.
It’s important to give the benefit of the doubt and be charitable when you can, but not at any significant expense to yourself
The original 20 minute video in the article makes it clear he’s talking about job roles, and mentions writers a few times (admittedly not close enough to draw an 100% certain link). I don’t think it’s enough to discredit this just based on the assumption that he’s talking about actors or that there isn’t enough context. Obviously it’s vague enough that we can’t draw any solid conclusions, so I agree with you there.
The main reason I think this is bullshit is that the guy’s testimony isn’t credible for two main reasons:
These two points, regardless of how true his story is, give him an ulterior motive for embellishing the story and exaggerating facts, which ultimately means we can’t trust this.
I’d like to see a full investigation, as with any accusation of discrimination. But we all know that when nothing turns up, it wouldn’t shut the right wingers up
Have you seen Alex Jones? You are on Lemmy, so you’re going to find a lot more demonisation of the right on here, than say Truth Social. Go over there and you’ll find plenty of posts about lefties eating babies and Biden draining the blood of the young to sustain his life
quality of life increases overall fertility rates decrease
Look at Elon Musk, Boris Johnson, or a whole host of incredibly wealthy people with stupid amounts of children. Quality of life increase is also linked to higher economic power. This is linked to higher human capital investments, meaning that it’s now disproportionately more expensive to raise a child to be successful in the new economy with the higher quality of life. Quality of life increase generally correlates to life being disproportionately more expensive.
Solve the cost of raising children and you solve fertility rates
Lemmy in particular seems to have a high percentage of reasonable people. As in people who can be reasoned with, but might just be stuck in a ideological rabbit hole. I’ve found that by dropping hostility and acknowledging common ground I can quickly turn an argument into a productive discussion, where both sides learn something. This happens with people who are on the left or right of myself. So it’d be shame to overly ban one side and lose that.
It equally must suck for the mods, because I’ve seen some very very vitriolic comments here, again, on both sides. Removing these comments helps cool people’s heads, but unequal enforcement may be an issue. I’m also generally against censorship, I just absolutely hate the platform when some stupid toxic divisive topic/meme gets posted everywhere for like a month. I really don’t know where I stand on removing comments or banning people, seems like a fine line to walk
Thank you for the calmer reply, I’ve upvoted you, and appreciate your response. I’m 100% with you on improving access to education, and the issues women and minorities face in university courses. My end goal is the same as yours, I want to see equality in the workplace and elsewhere, I’m just trying to address what I think are legitimate concerns that the previous commentator raised.
I get that senior hiring is a thing, the problem is that as you’ve mentioned, historical discrimination has made it very difficult for women and minorities to get the appropriate credentials and skills required to adequately perform in senior roles. Not saying they’re incapable, of course not, just that this is an issue we’re still suffering from.
My worry is that this historical discrimination will force companies to over hire women and minorities in starting roles, and be unable to hire women in senior roles, if we pursue short term demographic equality. This leaves young men, particularly poor young men, at a disadvantage, and does nothing to fix the historical oppression women have suffered from.
I chose law in particular, because it’s fairly even in graduates today, even in women’s favour, and there’s way more graduates than jobs, which means that if we wanted immediate demographic equality the industry as a whole could experience the same issue as the hypothetical company above, but obviously not as dramatic. Which is why I take issue with the short term goal being equal demographics. The short term goal should be equal hiring, with the long term goal being equal demographics as the older generations filter out.
In many metro areas young women already earn more than young men.
It’s not fair that women and minorities have been held back, but I’m worried that going too hard too fast is going to cause more long term problems
Firstly, I’m a different person. I’m just interested on what your solution is. No need to be so hostile. I’ve likely just misunderstood you.
My critique is specifically on the bit I quoted. You need to divide it by generation. The hiring, especially for starting roles, is heavily biased towards the young. These people are just coming out of college.
Giving your example of 50% women in the population, and a law firm is 100 people, 90 of which are men. That firm now needs to hire 90 women and 10 men to reach that 50% goal. But now you’ve also influxed a tonne of women into that workforce, meaning now you’ll need to hire disproportionately more men next generation after the original 90 men have retired. It creates a cycle of discrimination. Obviously that’s oversimplified, and there’s additional factors you could add to the example e.g. staff turnover.
I don’t disagree with setting hiring goals 50/50 men/women if that’s what your advocating for? It doesn’t immediately change workplace demographics, but it should even out over time. And there are still issues stemming from the amount of male vs female degree holders in certain subjects that are heavily gender biased, like engineering, vetinary practice, and IT.
I’m also totally for raising funding for public services and education to ensure everyone gets the best start on life they can. No disagreement there. It’d be ideal if we could encourage young men/women to more evenly participate in different subjects.
Again I’m sorry if I misunderstood your point, it wasn’t clear to me
At the moment it looks like what the market is demanding. A few years ago specialisation was in