My ex would use St. Ives “Apricot Exfoliant” or something, which has powdered apricot pits and walnut shells. Those are waste products that I wouldn’t expect to cause problems but who knows.

To be frank, this is how you fight an administration/party that follows the rules. What this will likely do is just get TST disqualified as a religion and/or disallowed for some bullshit reason.

Republicans don’t play fair and give fuck-all about rules unless they work in their benefit. That includes Republican politicians, Republican senators, Republican representatives, Republican appointmented judges, and Republican appointed Supreme Court justices.

While I appreciate the game, the rules are whatever is convenient for Republicans. The game has changed.

I’m calling it now. Musk will fund Cuomo or Adams for the Israel America Party’s first candidate, for Mayor of NYC. The current record for election spending in NYC mayoral elections will get doubled. Media will be overwhelmed with racist, reactionary ads highlighting anything Mamdani has ever said, and some things he hasn’t said, about Israel and linking him to Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Chuck Schumer will have no choice but to change parties, for the sake of Israel America and endorse the third party candidate.

I mean, this was their idea last year…

Forever “Subscription Mouse”

I feel like “AI Mouse” is right up their alley.

Well, we’d better punish labor be raising interest rates and unemployment. Then they’ll finally be willing to work.

I’m sure some minority of the population is misogynistic and wouldn’t vote for a woman. I just don’t think it’s enough misogynists to ruin their chances.

Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an anti-establishment era.

Yes, Biden definitely suffered from this.

Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.

In the primaries, absolutely. However, once Biden won, he took on projects from the progressive wing, likely in exchange for full throated endorsement/support. Green new deal type stuff. Not amazing, but not nothing. A lot of the more progressive goals were wrecked by Democrats’ hopeless naivety, or feigned ignorance, when attempts were made to reach across the aisle and get some consensus from Republicans… who had made it crystal fucking clear that their only goal was obstruction and sabotage. Then other Democrats straight up ruined it themselves. Anyway…

Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.

Biden’s biggest advantage was that he followed Trump. I’m fucking appalled that people had already forgotten the first time. Makes me wonder if it wasn’t rigged by Republicans more thoroughly than had become obvious.

While those are two possible points of data, there are a number of other factors that contributed to each Democratic candidates’ loss vs. Trump.

• Both suffered from being establishment candidates in an antiestablishment era.
• Both were only really willing to push to milquetoast progressive policies.
• Both followed disappointing democratic presidents that promised a lot and delivered little, often due to their own party sabotaging attempts at major progressive reform.

I truly think that Democrat voters want real, progressive change (even if they find words like “socialism” scary) but most Democrat politicians aren’t willing to anger their wealthy Third Way/Neoliberal/Abundance/whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to-call-themselves donors.

deleted by creator

They found that cultural factors were far more correlated with criminality than socioeconomic status.

I don’t speak Swedish and it appears that the full report is only available in Swedish.

From the end of their English summary:

Research questions

The presentation of results is based on the following central question: According to the published research, what is the significance of socioeconomic family background during childhood for explaining individual differences in offending?

Sub-questions include: What do studies from Sweden and other countries say about the correlation between socioeconomic background during childhood and involvement in crime? Are there differences between men and women? How strong is this correlation, and how does this compare with the strength of the correlations found for various factors described in the research as established risk factors for offending? How do researchers explain the links between socioeconomic background factors and participation in crime?

I also don’t trust an automated translation to accurately convey a full report and any nuance it may contain. It sounds like they are analyzing socioeconomic background and not socioeconomic status, is that correct?

There is a substantial difference between “I grew up poor” and “I’m currently unable to afford a dignified life.” Yes, statistically you are more likely to continue to be poor, but you background does not define your current status.

I stated: Most crime is a direct result of poverty.

I’m not arguing that crime is the direct result of growing up in poverty. I’m arguing that the goal of most crime (and I’m focusing specifically on what you might call “economic crime”) is the manifestation of someone’s need or desire for something that someone not living paycheck to paycheck would take for granted.

I’ve tried deadlines. I’ve asked for things to be done before our next meeting with the vendor we’re working with. Hell, almost everything I need done is clearly conveyed as “I cannot proceed to move your project forward until you perform X task that I don’t have the rights to perform or make a decision regarding your department’s policy on X.” In fact, I’ve shown up at the meetings with them and the vendor and literally told them the situation - they do everything that’s piled up in like 5-10 minutes and are apologetic. Then two days later I need another small thing and it begins again. So now I call for a meeting to “go over the project days the next vendor meeting.” I really just have a list of shit I can’t work on for the next vendor meeting because ya’ll don’t respond to all my requests otherwise.

Also remember, some of these are directed at my superiors - like the boss of the department I’m working with. It’s their project so it’s not like I’m getting in trouble or missing my deadlines. It just murders my flow state and frustrates me to no end when it can take days or weeks to get a response.

When I started my career I quickly became convinced that meetings are the opposite of work. Now a large part of my career is hosting meetings. 😬

I feel/felt similarly but I am now calling for meetings because it seems to be the easiest way to get my peers and superiors to do their fucking job so that I’m not stuck in limbo waiting for their parts to be finished. It seems like they only respond to slack mentions / emails / task assignments at random which leaves important, unanswered requests/questions just sitting there.

Sorry, this past year I’ve been working with another department for a project that, due to aforementioned woes, has run about 6-12 months more than it needs to.

I’m in the public sector and everyone is very busy and pulled in many directions so I kind of get it… but I want to be done with this thing.

It makes no difference cost wise to save a few cms of wood.

The cost savings is not only in materials. For manufacturing, lower quality materials and larger tolerances. Time to install and repair is lower because of how open the design is. Time to clean is lower because you can just soak the floor and mop without worrying about each stalls’ corners.

Brutal efficiency at the cost of comfort and privacy is what capitalism is all about. The US is just used to it and somehow also incredibly puritanical.

That said, efficiency isn’t a bad thing. There are some countries with some bathrooms that don’t have stalls - legit indoor public bathrooms where you just squat over a hole or urinals that are just one long wide trough. It’s about what you are used to.

Sadly many people have an ideological aversion to prison

The aversion I’m aware of is Punishment vs. Rehabilitation vs. Isolation.

Most crime is a direct result of poverty. Society should do it’s best to make sure we don’t have to weigh the moralality of stealing something you or your family need in order to survive and live a life of dignity. Those things should be provided.

Right now we basically just let those in poverty suffer and punish any of them that extract wealth from others (more accurately those not in poverty) in an “uncivilized” manner (stealing)… while simultaneously revering those who extract wealth from others in a “civilized” manner (wage theft, poverty wages, fraud, deceptive marketing, rent seeking, anticompetitive practices, frivolous lawsuits, etc).

Genuine dangers to society do need to be isolated. However, it’s important to at least try rehabilitation and addressing their needs before determining that someone is a genuine danger to society.

There is also the free will argument - arguing that people are who they are, free will is an illusion, and punishment is pointless - but it honestly just comes to the same general conclusions. If you can modify the behavior of a person so that they are able to coexist in society then work to do so. If rehabilitation is not possible, keep the public safe from that person and deal with that person as humanely as possible.

I’m not usually impacted by celebrities but I was hit surprisingly hard by the death of John Bain aka TotalBiscuit on YouTube. Why? He just kind of seemed like a regular, fairly young gamer and decent dude who just wanted to let people know whether a game might be worth buying… and then suddenly surprise, cancer. A shit ton of treatment and four years later, gone. It just felt like a reminder that life is random and unfair.

Hi 👋 I’m your AI news assistant, trained on Apple Valley News! Have any questions about this story? Tap a prompt below or ask me about anything!

And a terrible reminder of how things are going for us humans…

The Constitution is conservative toilet paper unless they are referencing it for their own gain. They define reality in the moment as what is most convenient for them. Also, if you disagree with them you hate America, obviously.

That was an example of a situation where time zones make sense. Any time it is important where the sun is in the sky, the time that it occurs will differ depending on where you are in the world. When is lunch break? When do backups run? When can you see the eclipse? If we weren’t in an interconnected world, it wouldn’t matter much but we need some convention to communicate information that is dependent on where the sun is, as that very often dictates human activity.

It seems like a universal time makes sense but I can’t think of a way to get around the fact that activity will vary according to timezones anyway.

And there are no other external factors that could possibly influence their compensation besides their objective “worth” to the hiring organization?

Edit: To clarify, might personal bias from the employer lead to a higher compensation? If two CEOs are interviewed and one went to the same college as several members of the board, or if several members of the board know one personally, but the known CEO isn’t as accomplished… is it possible that the CEO benefitting from bias is going be hired? Will the benefitting CEO receive a lower compensation, higher compensation, or the same compensation?

Is it possible for a CEO to lie about their ability and get hired under false pretenses? Is it possible for a CEO to be hired for political or “public image” reasons rather than talent/productivity reasons? Are these reflected in their compensation?

I suppose the context of condiment vs. ingredient is enough. I don’t think many recipes use ketchup/catsup and most meals don’t leave tomato sauce out to be used as a condiment.

What I consider ketchup/catsup includes much more sugar and vinegar than what I consider tomato sauce. Is that not the case where you are from or is there a different word used?