The reason for the earlier cutoff is that people apply "millennials" to those who were growing up during the turn of the millennium, not born around it. Otherwise why would you include 1985 at the lower end (seems kind of far away) and why would it not be symmetrical?
It's like if we were defining a "hippie generation" -- you wouldn't say "people born while hippies were prevalent" you'd say "people born who became young adults while hippies were prevalent", meaning the people who grew into hippies.
For what it's worth I've usually seen millennials defined as born between 1980 and 1995.
No. Example: a scene where a woman is dressing not done in a sexually suggestive manner isn't a problem
The quote says "depicted in sexually suggestive clothing" not "dressing done in a sexually suggestive manner."
If you think it's the manner and not the clothing that matters, then you should have said "yes" not "no" because you are agreeing that the quoted criteria are stupid.
Oh yes Gates is real gangster. Why, one time he even bundled a web browser with his operating system!!!! I don't know why he isn't rotting in a prison cell right now. It's all blood money I tells ya.
The funny thing is both of your points are completely incoherent because Gates isn't hoarding anything. Unfortunately I haven't read The Republic so I'm not sure if your misuse of the word "hoarding" is a fatal flaw in your argument, or merely funny.
And it makes sense the gap would widen without significant societal assistance.
And as others have pointed out, that's false. Significant societal assistance wasn't needed to make Chinese immigrants, who used to be among the poorest, into one of the most successful immigrant groups.
or that school districts with better funding often provide better education
Anybody who pays attention to education funding knows that's not true. Obviously there has to be a baseline of funding as well, but past a certain minimum (which we're well past) it stops making much difference. Hence examples like Washington DC and NYC public schools that have the highest funding per student in the nation and some of the worst results.
You can't have it both ways though. You can't say it's good to game the indicator by having things like "bonus points" for hiring minorities, but bad to game the indicator by hiring more white guys in retail.
The reason gaming the indicator actually works is that it has an effect upstream. If blacks see that they have a good shot at a good job in Silicon Valley, then they will be more likely to go into computer science and end up working in the industry.
Yet apparently you're not willing to concede the same for whites, that white people who right now are poor, on welfare, etc won't see "hey look at that, white guys can also get good jobs working retail, it's not all girls and minorities hired to prop up diversity stats" and do the same thing.
Scientific research is a dangerous area to go into if you're into social justice. Science tells us there are group differences in races and genders, for instance.
If some people want to believe affirmative action is even on the same magnitude as believing other races are sub-human they are deluding themselves and making a very weak argument.
That's exactly what affirmative action is. It says blacks are not as good as whites, can't compete, and thus need a loving, guiding hand to help them up.
The reason circulating money adds to the economy is the assumption that circulating money equals work, and work improves life on the planet.
That's the most stupid bullshit I've read in a long time. [...] Or, in other words: Those $100 of money have turned into $700 of wealth.
That's what I said.
You are clearly confusing cultural value with economic value.
I'm not confusing it, I'm distinguishing it. Economic value is an approximation of cultural or moral value or whatever you want to call it. Quality of life basically. We can do things to economic measures to bring it more in line with something meaningful by applying things like inflation and PPP adjustments. It's still just an approximation which we bear out of necessity.
When it comes down to a single individual and a small list of actions, though, it is possible to make more precise judgments than just counting the number of dollars that circulate. If you give a random person a billion dollars, they might just sit on it and live a comfortable life and make their kids rich and just kind of trickle the money out for a few generations. Or they might be another Elon Musk and make strides in the space industry and electric cars. That's a big difference.
The problem with your original post was taking some crap you learned at university ("rich people hoard money in conservative investments, poor people spend every penny, so giving money to poor people results in greater overall economic stimulus") that spoke in generalities and large groups, and applying to a specific person like Bill Gates.
You spoke of scientific evidence... well where is your scientific evidence that Bill Gates himself spends like an average rich person? He doesn't. Most rich people are not tech-savvy philanthropists giving away billions with the specific goal of improving life through the application of technology.
Quote: "We find that the energy requirements of 87% of vehicle-days could be met by an existing, affordable electric vehicle."
They're only looking at electric driving range, not other issues like infrastructure or charging time.
Also, they're not saying 90% of people would have their needs met 100% by an electric car. It could be 100% of people have 90% of their needs met, or 50% of people have their needs 100% met and 50% have their needs 80% met, etc.
I'd be curious about the actual breakdown but like you I didn't pay to read the whole thing. It's probably something like 20% of people have their needs 100% met for a year, 50% have their needs met 98% of the time, and 30% have their needs met at X% (X less than 90, not going to bother solving).
800 miles is about my limit for driving in one day, with stops for lunch and dinner. But that means you're scenario would cost me an extra night in a hotel room. And that brings me to...
It won't be long until apartments start to realize that they can make money by installing charging infrastructure.
That is going to suck. Because it's going to be an extra fee. Same with hotels, stores, whatever. You know how you pay $10 for wifi at a hotel? It'll be $20 for a "charging permit" that you hang in your window or whatever. You know how apartments add $50/month for washer/dryer hookups? It'll be $100/month for an EV hookup, plus the cost of electricity. Heck maybe it'll be 2x the cost of electricity because the apartment complex makes a deal with the electric company to subsidize the up front cost of installing all those charging points.
It's all in the gimmick stage right now. It's promotional and they give it away for free to look cool, and it costs next to nothing because barely anybody uses it. When electric cars are more widespread, it's going to be brutal price gouging, because instead of gas stations that serve potentially thousands of people per day, and compete with a dozen other gas stations for local business, it's going to be little fiefdoms and monopolies. Your primary charging point has to be somewhere where your car is sitting 8 hours per day. That means home or office. Some businesses will do that for their employees (I'm sure Google will for instance), but the guy living in a cheap apartment and working a retail job at the mall? Nope.
I used TCL for writing Eggdrop scripts (an irc chat bot). Then I did some stuff embedding TCL in C. It had the best interface for doing that at the time... much better than Perl embedding for instance.
The myth comes from cout "Hello World!"; and C programmers wondering what the fuck have they done to the bit shift operator. If unnecessary operator overloading is used in the most basic of samples it sends a bad message I guess.
I'm trying to understand why you would think of a person you don't know in those terms. Gates has already done more for destitute people in Africa than you our your descendants will ever do. What would make you think he's a "worthless piece of shit"?
Hey now. If we stripped Bill Gates of his wealth and distributed it equally to everyone, OP would take his share (about $11) and do AMAZING THINGS with it. He would spend his $11 to solve world hunger and create a global education system.
He just hasn't done it yet because Bill Gates has his $11!
Or in other words: In Bill Gates hands, these are 78 billion. In the hands of ordinary people, this would be 90, 100 or more billions. That is the real damage the super-rich do to all of us.
lol what? Do you really believe that nonsense?
It would still be $78 billion. You may be thinking of economic impact or something because it circulates more.
Please don't conflate economic measures with "damage to all of us" though. The economy is just an approximation of value. The reason circulating money adds to the economy is the assumption that circulating money equals work, and work improves life on the planet. If I spend $10 on electricity, that's giving someone else $10 to spend, plus I get light and heat and TV and all that. Win-win.
But at the same time, it's an imperfect measure because it assumes that all work is equal. In other words it assumes perfect labor pricing. In reality, if I discover a great unknown artist and give him $100 to paint something, that produces more value than if I give a crappy unknown artist $100 to paint something. There's just no way of measuring that so precisely, so we don't bother taking it into account with economic measures.
When you're talking about one single person though, you kind of have to take it into account. The pros and cons of Bill Gates can't be measured simply by how much his money circulates, that's stupid. The question is whether you think stuff like fighting malaria with $1 billion is subjectively worth more than a bunch of poor people spending $1 billion on big screen TVs from China, 90% of which goes to the super-rich of China anyway. The numbers are the same but the impact is different.
You can't possibly be so naive as to believe that the value of money is relative to your own net worth, in philanthropy or anything else. Nobody cares about your $1.50 because it's just $1.50.
Model citizens? Check unemployment and welfare rates on refugees in Germany versus the native population. Read the educational literature being given to refugees ("rape is not okay, okay?"). When the mayor of Cologne's advice for avoiding rape by refugee men is "stay at least arm's length away" what does that say to you about refugee men? I have to wonder wtf you define as a model citizen.
I don't think anybody likes smart TVs with apps. They're always soooo slooooow it's insufferable.
The little devices like Fire TV sticks and Chromecasts are much better.
That said, people with a little bit of tech savvy are going more and more to PC solutions these days... I had a computer hooked up to my TV 15 years ago, but now my brother in law has one, several of my friends have them, and my mom wants one. These are all people who tried the special purpose devices and found them too slow... they're fine for special apps like Netflix, but are utter garbage for stuff like basic web browsing/Facebook.
I think the worst offenders are the "big name brand" places like hustler, where the woman really are 40+.. the probably got their start in the 80s and 90s and are still going. Union protection maybe?
If you put in the slightest modicum of effort you'll find much better porn.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for the earlier cutoff is that people apply "millennials" to those who were growing up during the turn of the millennium, not born around it. Otherwise why would you include 1985 at the lower end (seems kind of far away) and why would it not be symmetrical?
It's like if we were defining a "hippie generation" -- you wouldn't say "people born while hippies were prevalent" you'd say "people born who became young adults while hippies were prevalent", meaning the people who grew into hippies.
For what it's worth I've usually seen millennials defined as born between 1980 and 1995.
No. Example: a scene where a woman is dressing not done in a sexually suggestive manner isn't a problem
The quote says "depicted in sexually suggestive clothing" not "dressing done in a sexually suggestive manner."
If you think it's the manner and not the clothing that matters, then you should have said "yes" not "no" because you are agreeing that the quoted criteria are stupid.
Oh yes Gates is real gangster. Why, one time he even bundled a web browser with his operating system!!!! I don't know why he isn't rotting in a prison cell right now. It's all blood money I tells ya.
Jesus Christ you people sound stupid.
The funny thing is both of your points are completely incoherent because Gates isn't hoarding anything. Unfortunately I haven't read The Republic so I'm not sure if your misuse of the word "hoarding" is a fatal flaw in your argument, or merely funny.
Google Fiber is thinking about trying a wireless last mile approach in some cities so you may get your wish.
Who defines what services are needs though? My mom's house doesn't get gigabit internet, that seems like as much or more of a need than Uber service.
And it makes sense the gap would widen without significant societal assistance.
And as others have pointed out, that's false. Significant societal assistance wasn't needed to make Chinese immigrants, who used to be among the poorest, into one of the most successful immigrant groups.
or that school districts with better funding often provide better education
Anybody who pays attention to education funding knows that's not true. Obviously there has to be a baseline of funding as well, but past a certain minimum (which we're well past) it stops making much difference. Hence examples like Washington DC and NYC public schools that have the highest funding per student in the nation and some of the worst results.
You can't have it both ways though. You can't say it's good to game the indicator by having things like "bonus points" for hiring minorities, but bad to game the indicator by hiring more white guys in retail.
The reason gaming the indicator actually works is that it has an effect upstream. If blacks see that they have a good shot at a good job in Silicon Valley, then they will be more likely to go into computer science and end up working in the industry.
Yet apparently you're not willing to concede the same for whites, that white people who right now are poor, on welfare, etc won't see "hey look at that, white guys can also get good jobs working retail, it's not all girls and minorities hired to prop up diversity stats" and do the same thing.
the solution isn't to fire them and hire more white guys at retail. We are trying to make things better, not worse.
But that would make things better, if your goal is to move closer to the workforce being representative of the population. That is the goal right?
Scientific research is a dangerous area to go into if you're into social justice. Science tells us there are group differences in races and genders, for instance.
If some people want to believe affirmative action is even on the same magnitude as believing other races are sub-human they are deluding themselves and making a very weak argument.
That's exactly what affirmative action is. It says blacks are not as good as whites, can't compete, and thus need a loving, guiding hand to help them up.
The reason circulating money adds to the economy is the assumption that circulating money equals work, and work improves life on the planet.
That's the most stupid bullshit I've read in a long time. [...] Or, in other words: Those $100 of money have turned into $700 of wealth.
That's what I said.
You are clearly confusing cultural value with economic value.
I'm not confusing it, I'm distinguishing it. Economic value is an approximation of cultural or moral value or whatever you want to call it. Quality of life basically. We can do things to economic measures to bring it more in line with something meaningful by applying things like inflation and PPP adjustments. It's still just an approximation which we bear out of necessity.
When it comes down to a single individual and a small list of actions, though, it is possible to make more precise judgments than just counting the number of dollars that circulate. If you give a random person a billion dollars, they might just sit on it and live a comfortable life and make their kids rich and just kind of trickle the money out for a few generations. Or they might be another Elon Musk and make strides in the space industry and electric cars. That's a big difference.
The problem with your original post was taking some crap you learned at university ("rich people hoard money in conservative investments, poor people spend every penny, so giving money to poor people results in greater overall economic stimulus") that spoke in generalities and large groups, and applying to a specific person like Bill Gates.
You spoke of scientific evidence... well where is your scientific evidence that Bill Gates himself spends like an average rich person? He doesn't. Most rich people are not tech-savvy philanthropists giving away billions with the specific goal of improving life through the application of technology.
First they came for the smokers and the Big Gulp soda drinkers, and I did not speak out.
Quote: "We find that the energy requirements of 87% of vehicle-days could be met by an existing, affordable electric vehicle."
They're only looking at electric driving range, not other issues like infrastructure or charging time.
Also, they're not saying 90% of people would have their needs met 100% by an electric car. It could be 100% of people have 90% of their needs met, or 50% of people have their needs 100% met and 50% have their needs 80% met, etc.
I'd be curious about the actual breakdown but like you I didn't pay to read the whole thing. It's probably something like 20% of people have their needs 100% met for a year, 50% have their needs met 98% of the time, and 30% have their needs met at X% (X less than 90, not going to bother solving).
800 miles is about my limit for driving in one day, with stops for lunch and dinner. But that means you're scenario would cost me an extra night in a hotel room. And that brings me to...
It won't be long until apartments start to realize that they can make money by installing charging infrastructure.
That is going to suck. Because it's going to be an extra fee. Same with hotels, stores, whatever. You know how you pay $10 for wifi at a hotel? It'll be $20 for a "charging permit" that you hang in your window or whatever. You know how apartments add $50/month for washer/dryer hookups? It'll be $100/month for an EV hookup, plus the cost of electricity. Heck maybe it'll be 2x the cost of electricity because the apartment complex makes a deal with the electric company to subsidize the up front cost of installing all those charging points.
It's all in the gimmick stage right now. It's promotional and they give it away for free to look cool, and it costs next to nothing because barely anybody uses it. When electric cars are more widespread, it's going to be brutal price gouging, because instead of gas stations that serve potentially thousands of people per day, and compete with a dozen other gas stations for local business, it's going to be little fiefdoms and monopolies. Your primary charging point has to be somewhere where your car is sitting 8 hours per day. That means home or office. Some businesses will do that for their employees (I'm sure Google will for instance), but the guy living in a cheap apartment and working a retail job at the mall? Nope.
I used TCL for writing Eggdrop scripts (an irc chat bot). Then I did some stuff embedding TCL in C. It had the best interface for doing that at the time... much better than Perl embedding for instance.
The myth comes from cout "Hello World!"; and C programmers wondering what the fuck have they done to the bit shift operator. If unnecessary operator overloading is used in the most basic of samples it sends a bad message I guess.
I'm trying to understand why you would think of a person you don't know in those terms. Gates has already done more for destitute people in Africa than you our your descendants will ever do. What would make you think he's a "worthless piece of shit"?
Hey now. If we stripped Bill Gates of his wealth and distributed it equally to everyone, OP would take his share (about $11) and do AMAZING THINGS with it. He would spend his $11 to solve world hunger and create a global education system.
He just hasn't done it yet because Bill Gates has his $11!
Not only that but a 5% withdrawal rate is generally not considered sustainable.
Or in other words: In Bill Gates hands, these are 78 billion. In the hands of ordinary people, this would be 90, 100 or more billions. That is the real damage the super-rich do to all of us.
lol what? Do you really believe that nonsense?
It would still be $78 billion. You may be thinking of economic impact or something because it circulates more.
Please don't conflate economic measures with "damage to all of us" though. The economy is just an approximation of value. The reason circulating money adds to the economy is the assumption that circulating money equals work, and work improves life on the planet. If I spend $10 on electricity, that's giving someone else $10 to spend, plus I get light and heat and TV and all that. Win-win.
But at the same time, it's an imperfect measure because it assumes that all work is equal. In other words it assumes perfect labor pricing. In reality, if I discover a great unknown artist and give him $100 to paint something, that produces more value than if I give a crappy unknown artist $100 to paint something. There's just no way of measuring that so precisely, so we don't bother taking it into account with economic measures.
When you're talking about one single person though, you kind of have to take it into account. The pros and cons of Bill Gates can't be measured simply by how much his money circulates, that's stupid. The question is whether you think stuff like fighting malaria with $1 billion is subjectively worth more than a bunch of poor people spending $1 billion on big screen TVs from China, 90% of which goes to the super-rich of China anyway. The numbers are the same but the impact is different.
You can't possibly be so naive as to believe that the value of money is relative to your own net worth, in philanthropy or anything else. Nobody cares about your $1.50 because it's just $1.50.
Model citizens? Check unemployment and welfare rates on refugees in Germany versus the native population. Read the educational literature being given to refugees ("rape is not okay, okay?"). When the mayor of Cologne's advice for avoiding rape by refugee men is "stay at least arm's length away" what does that say to you about refugee men? I have to wonder wtf you define as a model citizen.
Of course the banks care, you aren't liable for fraudulent charges (which includes a mugger taking your card and making unauthorized charges).
Actually your point reminds me of the cases where a person is kidnapped and taken to an ATM and forced to withdraw money. It usually doesn't end well.
smart TV with its suite of 4K apps
I don't think anybody likes smart TVs with apps. They're always soooo slooooow it's insufferable.
The little devices like Fire TV sticks and Chromecasts are much better.
That said, people with a little bit of tech savvy are going more and more to PC solutions these days... I had a computer hooked up to my TV 15 years ago, but now my brother in law has one, several of my friends have them, and my mom wants one. These are all people who tried the special purpose devices and found them too slow... they're fine for special apps like Netflix, but are utter garbage for stuff like basic web browsing/Facebook.
I think the worst offenders are the "big name brand" places like hustler, where the woman really are 40+.. the probably got their start in the 80s and 90s and are still going. Union protection maybe?
If you put in the slightest modicum of effort you'll find much better porn.