In the past 12 months, have you gotten a raise at your current job, gotten a better paying job, neither or both?
27% got a pay raise. 6% got a better paying job. 5% got both. 62% got neither.
Note: among respondents who are employed full time or part time.
Sounds to me like great numbers. A very large amount of people in my experience are very passive, and will not look for a better job, nor bother asking for a pay raise. They just go with the flow, which is the "neither" part. Which means all they get are inflation correction kind of raises, plus the union/collective bargaining items, but they don't actually get raises or better paying jobs.
To me that looks that if you're active enough to either look for a better job, or ask for a pay raise and your work performance entitles you to it, you're going to get it in the current job market. So go and do it if you're in that 62%. And remember that while doing that, you must be looking for a better job while doing it. Yes, that's additional effort. And yes, that's how you get a raise instead of being a part of passive 62%.
Bottled water even in places where tap water is perfectly drinkable to the point where water being bottled is taken straight from the tap and ran through a simple filtering system that doesn't really do anything is extremely profitable because of marketing.
So it's sold.
That said, in places where tap water is of too low quality to drink, there's a genuine market for bottled water.
They're already doing that in case you missed it. It's simply less economically feasible and reduces efficiency, which leads to economic hardship caused by systemic discrimination.
Which notably is the exact problem that decent people had with treatment of black minority in US after WW2. Glad to see you admit that you're not among the decent people in that particular group as far as mindset goes, fully willing to systemically discriminate against minority you don't like causing them hardship and strife just because of your bigotry.
I didn't make the claim you're implying I made. Intentional misunderstanding of a clearly outlined point is the last defence of someone who doesn't have any arguments left.
The idea that trade policies are a functional tool of enforcement is more or less a correct one, when such polities can be backed by physical force to a significant enough degree. That's why it works on individual level, and tends to fail miserably on interstate level, where there is no authority with force to compel members to agree to it.
This seems to be the problem in descriptors. Traditional left wing is socialist and globalist. Traditional right wing is capitalist and nationalist.
So how do we rate Macron, who's globalist and capitalist? Those who are far enough on the left to classify "right = bad" classify him a right winger because of his economic policy. Those far enough on the right to classify "left = bad" classify him as a left winger because of his internationalist policy.
Can we simply agree that correct descriptors in this case are "globalist and capitalist", i.e. an amalgam of traditional left and traditional right?
And now a blatant misrepresentation of what I said to mean something completely different. Yes, people exactly like you who would willingly misrepresent british military uniform as a nazi one.
But that's a red herring. New platforms get fucked long before they become all bad. And fucked not by payment processors, but by small and very vocal and well connected circlejerk of far left extremist crazies who genuinely think that pewdiepie wearing some kind of an amalgam of british uniforms promotes nazism.
Payment processors and other similar organisations simply get massively lobbied by this well connected and loud group of crazies that are very skilled in using platforms like twitter to organise their hate mob.
But none of the actions you mention caused the reaction. Fuel tax however did. Don't forget that international coverage didn't really start until Yellow jackets got really big.
And what caused it was the fuel tax. Sure, once the fire was lit, and started burning in a manner visible to people outside the Yellow jacket protests, you started getting many jumping on the bandwagon (citation: that idiotic, self-contradictory manifesto some members released).
But what got people to the breaking point and over it wasn't taxes on the wealthy, nor the contrast. What got the people to the breaking point and over it was the fact that they could no longer afford a reasonable lifestyle outside major cities because fuel costs got too high.
The kind of cold fusion you're talking about is utterly irrelevant for the topic being discussed. It's like saying that interstellar travel is easy because you can make a rocket in your garage.
Fusion on Earth surface remains 50 years away, just as it was 50 years away 50 years ago. It's the eternal conundrum, where solving one problem appears to result in finding an even larger problem that wasn't foreseen. Essentially all wealthy countries already invested in it. It remain unfeasible with current technology and materials.
Most people missed it, but we just had a major event that told us exactly where the breaking point of people of a major Western country that is widely invested in cutting CO2 emissions is.
Yellow jackets. That increase in fuel taxes to fund fighting global warming was too much for the people.
>Put it another way, if you think people and nations only behave well because they are forced to by law and the threat of legal sanction or military force then you must not have looked at recent history.
Could you specify which parts of recent history prove this point? I can cite off the top of my head several major items where this statement debunks your argument.
He asked about enforcement, not litigation. Interstate enforcement is done primarily through power politics of various types, ranging from cloak and dagger actions to full blown warfare.
A cursory look at "bird strike damage nose" on images.google.com suggests that blood and guts are not too common in case of a bird strike at speed. Sometimes they're there, sometimes they're not.
Then discord has a massive advantage for you, because Discord has become the de facto voice communication and text communication/social networking platform for all things gaming. So you'll have discord installed regardless if you're in almost any kind of gaming community with other people.
Valve does keep making games. It hasn't been a month since their last game's release. It's just that they're increasingly divorced from the consumer side on gaming, being deeply specialized in maximally monetizing people rather than satisfying their needs, so their latest offering is just awful when contrasted against competition.
Steam is the incumbent, where people have amassed large libraries of games and that has things like the messaging system and friends, so it also has some social control.
The fight is barely starting. I'm wouldn't dismiss Valve any time soon. Discord's strength is that it has a better messaging system that has supplanted steam friends for many gaming social circles. Epic's strength is a single title that is played by a very large and very specific category of players that haven't actually shown much interest in other kinds of games so far as well as a much stronger contact base among developers as an experienced engine developer.
So every party has unique strengths. The fight is on. We'll see how it goes.
Imagine being the modern youth, raised on the mindset that anything that causes you mental stress is bad and should be avoided. All while being taught that all matters of conflict should be resolved not by your own action, but by appealing to higher power like a parent or a teacher.
Quite a few of us really hate that feeling when we have to turn someone down. At the same time, there's no real higher authority to appeal to to solve this issue. So the logical conclusion is that simply not showing up is the best way of handling this situation.
Now people who had a proper upbringing understand that in such situations, the best closure is to take responsibility on yourself and show up to tell your employer that you're quitting, even if it makes you feel bad, and has a serious potential for interpersonal conflict where there is no higher power to adjudicate it. But modern youth that didn't have parents skilled and persistent enough to override the popular message permeating the upbringing of children over last decade or two, and that were literally told at every point in their upbringing to avoid this kind of scenario and cede responsibility to authority? I'm not so sure.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is the term that has empirical evidence, that simply outlines the observation that there's a large strata of society that utterly disconnects from observable reality when Trump is mentioned.
I.e. "subject x without mention of Trump". Rational discussion and agreement that subject x is good or bad can be had. "Subject x, Trump supports". No rational discussion can be had, subject x must be bad because Trump supports it, regardless of any and all evidence to contrary.
I'm not american either. Which is what makes it so easily observable. It's very clear from the outside perspective is you bother to look. It's also what makes it so annoying to talk about any subject when Trump is mentioned, because a significant portion of slashdot immediately disconnects from observable reality to take a position opposite to one Trump stated on a principle, regardless of observable reality. As they did in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
So here are the actual figures:
https://media.brstatic.com/201...
In the past 12 months, have you gotten a raise at your current job, gotten a better paying job, neither or both?
27% got a pay raise.
6% got a better paying job.
5% got both.
62% got neither.
Note: among respondents who are employed full time or part time.
Sounds to me like great numbers. A very large amount of people in my experience are very passive, and will not look for a better job, nor bother asking for a pay raise. They just go with the flow, which is the "neither" part. Which means all they get are inflation correction kind of raises, plus the union/collective bargaining items, but they don't actually get raises or better paying jobs.
To me that looks that if you're active enough to either look for a better job, or ask for a pay raise and your work performance entitles you to it, you're going to get it in the current job market. So go and do it if you're in that 62%. And remember that while doing that, you must be looking for a better job while doing it. Yes, that's additional effort. And yes, that's how you get a raise instead of being a part of passive 62%.
Bottled water even in places where tap water is perfectly drinkable to the point where water being bottled is taken straight from the tap and ran through a simple filtering system that doesn't really do anything is extremely profitable because of marketing.
So it's sold.
That said, in places where tap water is of too low quality to drink, there's a genuine market for bottled water.
"Microsoft doesn't really mind casual piracy of its products, because it hurts its competition far more than it hurts microsoft".
People might suggest this as evidence for it.
They're already doing that in case you missed it. It's simply less economically feasible and reduces efficiency, which leads to economic hardship caused by systemic discrimination.
Which notably is the exact problem that decent people had with treatment of black minority in US after WW2. Glad to see you admit that you're not among the decent people in that particular group as far as mindset goes, fully willing to systemically discriminate against minority you don't like causing them hardship and strife just because of your bigotry.
I didn't make the claim you're implying I made. Intentional misunderstanding of a clearly outlined point is the last defence of someone who doesn't have any arguments left.
I've visited enough developing countries to develop a strong immune system. I'll manage.
The idea that trade policies are a functional tool of enforcement is more or less a correct one, when such polities can be backed by physical force to a significant enough degree. That's why it works on individual level, and tends to fail miserably on interstate level, where there is no authority with force to compel members to agree to it.
This seems to be the problem in descriptors. Traditional left wing is socialist and globalist. Traditional right wing is capitalist and nationalist.
So how do we rate Macron, who's globalist and capitalist? Those who are far enough on the left to classify "right = bad" classify him a right winger because of his economic policy. Those far enough on the right to classify "left = bad" classify him as a left winger because of his internationalist policy.
Can we simply agree that correct descriptors in this case are "globalist and capitalist", i.e. an amalgam of traditional left and traditional right?
And now a blatant misrepresentation of what I said to mean something completely different. Yes, people exactly like you who would willingly misrepresent british military uniform as a nazi one.
Yes thank you, I mean people like this one.
But that's a red herring. New platforms get fucked long before they become all bad. And fucked not by payment processors, but by small and very vocal and well connected circlejerk of far left extremist crazies who genuinely think that pewdiepie wearing some kind of an amalgam of british uniforms promotes nazism.
Payment processors and other similar organisations simply get massively lobbied by this well connected and loud group of crazies that are very skilled in using platforms like twitter to organise their hate mob.
But none of the actions you mention caused the reaction. Fuel tax however did. Don't forget that international coverage didn't really start until Yellow jackets got really big.
And what caused it was the fuel tax. Sure, once the fire was lit, and started burning in a manner visible to people outside the Yellow jacket protests, you started getting many jumping on the bandwagon (citation: that idiotic, self-contradictory manifesto some members released).
But what got people to the breaking point and over it wasn't taxes on the wealthy, nor the contrast. What got the people to the breaking point and over it was the fact that they could no longer afford a reasonable lifestyle outside major cities because fuel costs got too high.
The kind of cold fusion you're talking about is utterly irrelevant for the topic being discussed. It's like saying that interstellar travel is easy because you can make a rocket in your garage.
Fusion on Earth surface remains 50 years away, just as it was 50 years away 50 years ago. It's the eternal conundrum, where solving one problem appears to result in finding an even larger problem that wasn't foreseen. Essentially all wealthy countries already invested in it. It remain unfeasible with current technology and materials.
Most people missed it, but we just had a major event that told us exactly where the breaking point of people of a major Western country that is widely invested in cutting CO2 emissions is.
Yellow jackets. That increase in fuel taxes to fund fighting global warming was too much for the people.
>Put it another way, if you think people and nations only behave well because they are forced to by law and the threat of legal sanction or military force then you must not have looked at recent history.
Could you specify which parts of recent history prove this point? I can cite off the top of my head several major items where this statement debunks your argument.
He asked about enforcement, not litigation. Interstate enforcement is done primarily through power politics of various types, ranging from cloak and dagger actions to full blown warfare.
Strange that one needs to deny things observed in social sciences, pretending them to be anecdotal.
Read Lukianoff's and Haidt's "Coddling of the American Mind" as a good primer on the topic.
A cursory look at "bird strike damage nose" on images.google.com suggests that blood and guts are not too common in case of a bird strike at speed. Sometimes they're there, sometimes they're not.
Then discord has a massive advantage for you, because Discord has become the de facto voice communication and text communication/social networking platform for all things gaming. So you'll have discord installed regardless if you're in almost any kind of gaming community with other people.
Valve does keep making games. It hasn't been a month since their last game's release. It's just that they're increasingly divorced from the consumer side on gaming, being deeply specialized in maximally monetizing people rather than satisfying their needs, so their latest offering is just awful when contrasted against competition.
Citation: Artefact.
Steam is the incumbent, where people have amassed large libraries of games and that has things like the messaging system and friends, so it also has some social control.
The fight is barely starting. I'm wouldn't dismiss Valve any time soon. Discord's strength is that it has a better messaging system that has supplanted steam friends for many gaming social circles. Epic's strength is a single title that is played by a very large and very specific category of players that haven't actually shown much interest in other kinds of games so far as well as a much stronger contact base among developers as an experienced engine developer.
So every party has unique strengths. The fight is on. We'll see how it goes.
Imagine being the modern youth, raised on the mindset that anything that causes you mental stress is bad and should be avoided. All while being taught that all matters of conflict should be resolved not by your own action, but by appealing to higher power like a parent or a teacher.
Quite a few of us really hate that feeling when we have to turn someone down. At the same time, there's no real higher authority to appeal to to solve this issue. So the logical conclusion is that simply not showing up is the best way of handling this situation.
Now people who had a proper upbringing understand that in such situations, the best closure is to take responsibility on yourself and show up to tell your employer that you're quitting, even if it makes you feel bad, and has a serious potential for interpersonal conflict where there is no higher power to adjudicate it. But modern youth that didn't have parents skilled and persistent enough to override the popular message permeating the upbringing of children over last decade or two, and that were literally told at every point in their upbringing to avoid this kind of scenario and cede responsibility to authority? I'm not so sure.
Vive runs well on a 1k-ish PC, and has a wireless adapter if you want to pay for convenience. The problem that remains is the lack of software.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is the term that has empirical evidence, that simply outlines the observation that there's a large strata of society that utterly disconnects from observable reality when Trump is mentioned.
I.e. "subject x without mention of Trump". Rational discussion and agreement that subject x is good or bad can be had. "Subject x, Trump supports". No rational discussion can be had, subject x must be bad because Trump supports it, regardless of any and all evidence to contrary.
I'm not american either. Which is what makes it so easily observable. It's very clear from the outside perspective is you bother to look. It's also what makes it so annoying to talk about any subject when Trump is mentioned, because a significant portion of slashdot immediately disconnects from observable reality to take a position opposite to one Trump stated on a principle, regardless of observable reality. As they did in this case.