Well to be fair salt and sugar "sell" because that's what people want to buy. Companies don't stay in business long selling what people dont want to buy.
If companies were lacing their food with heroin or cocaine to get people hooked, there would be an outcry (except on slashdot, of course, where drugs are always a Good Thing). Unnecessary sugar and salt are just a milder version of the same tactic.
That aside, it is fairly rare to eat meat as is. Like of take a cut of meat, put it over heat, and then eat it. Usually we like to season it. Guess what? That changes the total composition.
If I season a steak with salt and pepper then cook it, the end product is probably 99% beef, that's close enough for me. No way is it going to be only 80%.
Subway has done a lot to distance themselves from fast food and have chosen to represent themselves as a healthier choice. The whole Jared losing weight by eating only at Subway thing. I don't really consider them a fast food restaurant, they are a sandwich shop.
That's like McDonalds advertising "fruit bags" as an option for their Happy Meals to show how healthy they are. There must presumably be one original fruitbag in McDonalds HQ somewhere that they took the menu photo of, but I've never seen one in the wild.
If you try asking for one, they're always "sold out". Their audacity is breathtaking.
Maybe I'm just the odd one out, but I really don't care if it's a mix of chicken and soy as long as it tastes good. Soy is not in any way unhealthy, and has plenty of protein.
The point is that if it's not actual slices chicken meat, you're basically eating ground up chickens which includes beaks, kneecaps (or whatever they're called on chickens) and a fuckton of artificial ingredients, most of which probably cause cancer and/or make your testicles fall off.
Right. I love the one that admits they use 1% soy and still flexes the "made from 100% chicken" line, which is technically true of anything containing even a scrap of real chicken, and it's clear from the context they're relying on this technical interpretation.
It's the same thing that lets McDonalds say their burgers are made from "100% beef", well yes, in the sense that a cow's arsehole is beef.
The One Percenters do not need the unwashed anymore.
You need some pool of people able to work for you and buy your products. Other One Percenters aren't going to be eating in McDonalds and driving taxis for fun.
As another example, there are a lot of good things to say about Churchill but nobody praises him for his Gallipolli plan. The Cuban missile crisis was not Kennedy's best work.
Gallipoli resulted in the ultimately futile deaths of tens of thousands of men. The Cuban missile crisis averted WW3. I don't see how that is a valid comparison.
If he actually learns from this and changes, then he will be an example of an incredibly good CEO. How many of us don't have interpersonal flaws? Someone who notices problems and improves is rare indeed.
This is the "reformed child rapist" school of logic, which has a fairly obvious counter-argument.
The video shows off Kalanick's pugnacious personality and short temper, which may cause some investors to question whether he has the disposition to lead a $69 billion company with a footprint that spans the globe.
"Pleasant temperament" doesn't seem to be a requirement for being CEO.
The point about being a CEO is that you are supposed to sublimate your more sociopathic tendencies in the pursuit of profit. Wasting energy on arguing with your minions is a clear sign that your priorities are not straight, this is why Uber's CEO now has to admit that he needs leadership training.
I thought Uber's single goal was to put all possible forms of transportation out of business and essentially become a gatekeeper that will exact a toll from people who need to travel around and be mobile.
I think their goal is best summed up by their corporate motto: "Be Evil".
Yeah this is starting to look like a hit job. An 'uber did X' story every 2-3 days. Anyone willing to dig and see the connections? Too lazy myself to do it. But it smells 'odd' and put on.
Until recently almost all the Uber stories were presented as "cool disruptive Uber blocked by boring old laws yet again". This is just part of a correction to the overwhelmingly gushing treatment Uber have had here up to now.
And, of course, I must be a shill for the legendary and all-powerful Taxi Cartel for daring to criticise Uber.
If you base your decision on cost you'll never have kids. They are not rational from an economic point of view. It's not like 2-300 years ago when they would help you work on the farm when they were young and look after you when you got old.
But life is not primarily about rational economic decisions, whatever economists like to pretend.
If a house in X costs more than you can afford, don't get a house there. It's really that simple.
I recently paid $240,000 for a 3,500 square foot, five bedroom house with a pool, just outside a major city. So clearly there are other options.
More to the point, you are not entitled to a fabulous house any more than you are entitled to a Lamborghini.
If you are the sort of person who wants/needs fabulously expensive things, then go out and work or marry for the money and stop pretending that life's unfair because someone's got a better yacht than you, or that you're poor because you can only afford a $100 instead of a $500/bottle champagne.
Not to mention the $30 for a grilled cheese and coke.
Is there some local Bay Area law that says you have to pay whatever stupid prices for something that someone decides to charge? Or is there perhaps just one small cafe in the whole area that can serve you a grilled cheese and coke?
Nobility used to die of pneumonia for this reason.
Quite a shitty deal, if the huge cold as fuck rooms and leaky roofs don't kill you, you get to sit at one of the fireplaces (wood supply is not unlimited either) and breath in fumes that are about as healthy as chain smoking.
Yeah, and the simple solution was to swap places with the wonderfully healthy lives led by the peasantry, right?
Come to Australia. Nationwide our house prices are 10x - 12x salary.
Something in the same range here in the UK, but I thought our excuse was that we were a crowded little island, they're not making land any more, and so on.
What's the explanation in Oz? Is it just that most of the country is actually uninhabitable due to flying venomous spiders, drop bears, etc?
BA must be insane. $150k/yr will get you a $2M house, including taxes and insurance.
I'm pretty sure parent meant that you could afford an reasonable mortgage on a reasonable house if you're earning $150k/year, not that you would be spending $150k/year on your mortgage...
Also, that's not including that everything else is more expensive too. All of the businesses around him and their employees have to make more than they normally would as well to pay their own rents. So guy in SF is paying $3k for less, has a higher tax rate, and everything around him is more expensive.
Even if $3K is half his take home pay (which seems unlikely) he's still got $3K a month to spend. He might not be in the yacht-and-Ferrari class but he's hardly struggling.
You've forgotten that we need to pay for our health insurance, plow money into a 401K (it would be stupid not to, right?). So that is all money that is sucked away as essentially taxes.
In that case you might as well define rent, utilities, food, transportation and clothing as "taxes" as they're all things you pay for privately for instead of being provided by government and funded through actual taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Well to be fair salt and sugar "sell" because that's what people want to buy. Companies don't stay in business long selling what people dont want to buy.
If companies were lacing their food with heroin or cocaine to get people hooked, there would be an outcry (except on slashdot, of course, where drugs are always a Good Thing). Unnecessary sugar and salt are just a milder version of the same tactic.
That aside, it is fairly rare to eat meat as is. Like of take a cut of meat, put it over heat, and then eat it. Usually we like to season it. Guess what? That changes the total composition.
If I season a steak with salt and pepper then cook it, the end product is probably 99% beef, that's close enough for me. No way is it going to be only 80%.
if someone gives me Budweiser but tells me it's PBR and I drink and enjoy it, then two things are concurrently true:
You forgot
3. It proves I have no functioning tastebuds.
Subway has done a lot to distance themselves from fast food and have chosen to represent themselves as a healthier choice. The whole Jared losing weight by eating only at Subway thing. I don't really consider them a fast food restaurant, they are a sandwich shop.
That's like McDonalds advertising "fruit bags" as an option for their Happy Meals to show how healthy they are. There must presumably be one original fruitbag in McDonalds HQ somewhere that they took the menu photo of, but I've never seen one in the wild.
If you try asking for one, they're always "sold out". Their audacity is breathtaking.
Maybe I'm just the odd one out, but I really don't care if it's a mix of chicken and soy as long as it tastes good. Soy is not in any way unhealthy, and has plenty of protein.
The point is that if it's not actual slices chicken meat, you're basically eating ground up chickens which includes beaks, kneecaps (or whatever they're called on chickens) and a fuckton of artificial ingredients, most of which probably cause cancer and/or make your testicles fall off.
Turkey is fine if you coat it in breadcrumbs or batter and fry it in butter, but then so is almost anything else, including courgettes and Mars Bars.
Right. I love the one that admits they use 1% soy and still flexes the "made from 100% chicken" line, which is technically true of anything containing even a scrap of real chicken, and it's clear from the context they're relying on this technical interpretation.
It's the same thing that lets McDonalds say their burgers are made from "100% beef", well yes, in the sense that a cow's arsehole is beef.
The One Percenters do not need the unwashed anymore.
You need some pool of people able to work for you and buy your products. Other One Percenters aren't going to be eating in McDonalds and driving taxis for fun.
As another example, there are a lot of good things to say about Churchill but nobody praises him for his Gallipolli plan. The Cuban missile crisis was not Kennedy's best work.
Gallipoli resulted in the ultimately futile deaths of tens of thousands of men. The Cuban missile crisis averted WW3. I don't see how that is a valid comparison.
If he actually learns from this and changes, then he will be an example of an incredibly good CEO. How many of us don't have interpersonal flaws? Someone who notices problems and improves is rare indeed.
This is the "reformed child rapist" school of logic, which has a fairly obvious counter-argument.
The video shows off Kalanick's pugnacious personality and short temper, which may cause some investors to question whether he has the disposition to lead a $69 billion company with a footprint that spans the globe.
"Pleasant temperament" doesn't seem to be a requirement for being CEO.
The point about being a CEO is that you are supposed to sublimate your more sociopathic tendencies in the pursuit of profit. Wasting energy on arguing with your minions is a clear sign that your priorities are not straight, this is why Uber's CEO now has to admit that he needs leadership training.
I thought Uber's single goal was to put all possible forms of transportation out of business and essentially become a gatekeeper that will exact a toll from people who need to travel around and be mobile.
I think their goal is best summed up by their corporate motto: "Be Evil".
Yeah this is starting to look like a hit job. An 'uber did X' story every 2-3 days. Anyone willing to dig and see the connections? Too lazy myself to do it. But it smells 'odd' and put on.
Until recently almost all the Uber stories were presented as "cool disruptive Uber blocked by boring old laws yet again". This is just part of a correction to the overwhelmingly gushing treatment Uber have had here up to now.
And, of course, I must be a shill for the legendary and all-powerful Taxi Cartel for daring to criticise Uber.
I felt that way about my first job as a computer programmer back in the 1970s.
I have never felt that way about any job whatsoever. It's called "work" instead of "fun hobby" for a reason.
Don't have kids, if you can't afford them.
If you base your decision on cost you'll never have kids. They are not rational from an economic point of view. It's not like 2-300 years ago when they would help you work on the farm when they were young and look after you when you got old.
But life is not primarily about rational economic decisions, whatever economists like to pretend.
If a house in X costs more than you can afford, don't get a house there. It's really that simple.
I recently paid $240,000 for a 3,500 square foot, five bedroom house with a pool, just outside a major city. So clearly there are other options.
More to the point, you are not entitled to a fabulous house any more than you are entitled to a Lamborghini.
If you are the sort of person who wants/needs fabulously expensive things, then go out and work or marry for the money and stop pretending that life's unfair because someone's got a better yacht than you, or that you're poor because you can only afford a $100 instead of a $500/bottle champagne.
Not to mention the $30 for a grilled cheese and coke.
Is there some local Bay Area law that says you have to pay whatever stupid prices for something that someone decides to charge? Or is there perhaps just one small cafe in the whole area that can serve you a grilled cheese and coke?
A person with $200k in income and $150 in expenses will pay $46,000 in taxes plus everything else, and will be running in the negatives every year.
Yes, it's a crying shame that the $150K is all in fixed costs that you can do nothing about.
you pick them for lower noise levels; but you end up paying a lot more in heat/ac.
Similarly, the gold plated seats in my Bentley get a bit chilly in January. My life is a nightmare.
Nobility used to die of pneumonia for this reason.
Quite a shitty deal, if the huge cold as fuck rooms and leaky roofs don't kill you, you get to sit at one of the fireplaces (wood supply is not unlimited either) and breath in fumes that are about as healthy as chain smoking.
Yeah, and the simple solution was to swap places with the wonderfully healthy lives led by the peasantry, right?
Wow!! 2 - 3 years salary?!
Come to Australia. Nationwide our house prices are 10x - 12x salary.
Something in the same range here in the UK, but I thought our excuse was that we were a crowded little island, they're not making land any more, and so on.
What's the explanation in Oz? Is it just that most of the country is actually uninhabitable due to flying venomous spiders, drop bears, etc?
BA must be insane. $150k/yr will get you a $2M house, including taxes and insurance.
I'm pretty sure parent meant that you could afford an reasonable mortgage on a reasonable house if you're earning $150k/year, not that you would be spending $150k/year on your mortgage...
Also, that's not including that everything else is more expensive too. All of the businesses around him and their employees have to make more than they normally would as well to pay their own rents. So guy in SF is paying $3k for less, has a higher tax rate, and everything around him is more expensive.
Even if $3K is half his take home pay (which seems unlikely) he's still got $3K a month to spend. He might not be in the yacht-and-Ferrari class but he's hardly struggling.
He makes 160k, with bonuses I make 80k. He pays $3k in rent, my Mortgage is $1500 a month. I'm not broke, somehow this guy is?
He's paying somebody else's mortgage, cost of repairs, insurance, plus profit.
The point is that the guy earning 160k still has a higher disposable income than OP and yet he's whining that he's poor.
You've forgotten that we need to pay for our health insurance, plow money into a 401K (it would be stupid not to, right?). So that is all money that is sucked away as essentially taxes.
In that case you might as well define rent, utilities, food, transportation and clothing as "taxes" as they're all things you pay for privately for instead of being provided by government and funded through actual taxes.