The first time had enough plausible deniability that he meant it in a “See what happens” type of way.

I still think that is the most reasonable interpretation of his statements but he’s intentionally playing into the media to keep the debate going. Letting people hear what they want to hear; Those that want to believe he meant the bad version (either because they like the message; or want to be mad about it) will hear that way. Those that want to believe he meant the innocent version will believe that.

It’s just very sick. What a disgusting terrorist.

And they all think they are extremely original and creative.

Like a bunch of yellow snow flakes.

It’s a 20/80 rule thing.

Coming up with a proof is the first 20% of work. Actually checking and validating the proof is the next 80% of work.

Yes I agree. To reach my current comp in basically any field, it would be a 10 year grind.

I’m better off just sitting in tech and letting inflation eat away my TC over the next 20 years until it pays similar to other low-end eng work. But in the mean time I’ll make above-average while working 30 hours/week. Woe is me.

The lack of a universally agreed upon definition does imply the lack of an objective definition. And it also does not imply there isn’t a general definition that most people agree on that works in most cases.

Almost all words have different meanings when you get into a specific niche. “Elastic” in casual contexts means stretchy, but in physics contexts, specifically describes a materials ability to return to it’s prior state after being stretched. But if it happened to be that “Elastic” lacks a definition in physics entirely, we wouldn’t run around saying “nothing is elastic”.

Yet for some reason people do that exact thing with Vegetables/fish.

You can double an hourly rate to approximate the annual wage. $30/hr ~= $60k / year.

Because 50 paid weeks * 40 paid hours = 2000 hours -> 2k

$30 * 2k = $60k

If I could make 70% as much in a different field, I would have switched by now.

I no longer enjoy my field as a profession. There is no “solving” anything anymore, it’s just prompting a bot and building tools that make it better and better at replacing me. But the reality is, without pursuing a masters in a different field, this is the most money I can make for the lowest amount of work. The field is dying and in the mean time we’re taking home standard salaries.

Personally I’m pursuing a fintech specialty since IMO specializing is our last hope to survive the AI destruction. But I don’t enjoy it.

The moon causes tides, but mooning does not involve tiddies

It’s hard to imagine any of them would live. I guess one near the top might survive by using the flood of elephant pieces to slow their fall. But an elephant can’t survive a ~10 foot fall. That’s about 2 elephants tall, and the bottom two or the ones I am most confident are dying in this.

“Fish don’t exist”-ass fact.

Yes they do. Something lacking a definition in one specific profession does not remove it’s definition from other fields or the colloquial definition.

Shapes don’t exist because actually they are all squares, circles, triangles, etc.

At least in the major retailers in my area - yes.

They are annoying AF and that’s coming from a pretty antisocial person.

The moon of course causes the tides, but the tides are also causing the moon to drift away from earth.

Self checkout in theory is better for both sides - business and consumer.

That said most self checkout as implemented is insufferable. The modern experience is waiting 5 minutes for someone to clear out your order because you accidentally clicked the version of Limes that this store doesn’t sell, despite it being an option on the POS, or to tap no / decline on the 5 different “Donate? Round up? Bag? Survey? Phone number?” prompts, or for the POS to lock up because you scanned a single can 3 times rather than 3 cans once, or for the cart to lock up so you slam your shin into it because the camera determined you were a thief.

Personally I avoid all self checkouts.

A company made $1k extra.

In order for you to get a raise, they are first going to give your boss $1k.

Now they can’t afford to give you a raise.

The end. That’s it. That’s trickle down economics. Nothing else happens.

Not sure if you’re aware of this, but companies break laws in the EU too.

That policy is likely illegal in the US & it certainly is extremely uncommon. I’ve never heard of it. This post isn’t an EU vs US thing which they were trying to make it.

That’s the meaning.

It’s almost certainly illegal in the Us too

That policy is likely illegal.

But the same can be said about gambling platforms.

Actually it’s called Super Slots. We’re rebranding to a new stronger, really a more accurate, but a strong name. Super Slots. Because the old name was actually wrong and weak. And “slot machine” made people think it was bad odds but actually, it’s good odds, good strong odds which is why we’re changing the name. We changed the name. To Super Slots. People are already calling it that I guess they really love the name.

Some have, most haven’t. And those that have had mostly adopted the philosophy of “Every token spent is a a token spent well; except the ~10% of staff that abuse/misuse them”.

And with that philosophy, you naturally want to set the per-person budget at around the 90th highest spender. Which is what most did (some version of it).

So very few companies have actually set a truly restrictive policy. Just a “don’t abuse this” policy. But that will change IMO.