Sure, and that’s fine - but if that’s the case, why do we get long-winded explanations with stats and math like the one linked to earlier? Maybe not everyone got the memo that it wasn’t supposed to hold up to scrutiny, but when someone writes something like that, apparently with the intention of it looking like an actual statistical analysis of an actual situation, they’re opening themself up to analysis and criticism.

That smug apathy where you giggle at other people’s misfortune because they might have had it coming is the one that horrified me and I think is the unpopular opinion I have.

Ah, got it, I misunderstood what you were saying initially, I think.

I certainly don’t giggle at other peoples’ misfortune… but in the voting instance, I certainly don’t feel bad for them.

recently i started telling candidates right in the first interview that greptile offers no work-life-balance, typical workdays start at 9am and end at 11pm, often later, and we work saturdays, sometimes also sundays. i emphasize the environment is high stress, and there is no tolerance for poor work.

The fact that he ever gets through that interview without the candidate laughing themself right out of his office is just baffling.

They are responsible for their own problems that doesn’t mean I cheer for their falls.

Being apathetic towards someone’s suffering doesn’t mean I’m cheering for it, that’s just psychopathic. However, I’m not going to lose any sleep worrying about your sister’s situation. If she needed help (and would accept it), that’d be different, but it sounds like she won’t. I’m sorry to hear about her situation, though.

That said, if she was my sister, rather than a random stranger, I’d be a lot more invested, so I can empathize with your situation, wanting to help her but being unable to reasonably do so.

I also won’t claim I don’t experience schadenfreude when I read an article about someone who (for instance) voted against their self-interests being negatively affected by the result of that action, but I’d still prefer that nobody was put into that situation in the first place.

Sometimes the people themselves are the problem, and they don’t want to be or are resistant to being fixed. Personally, I’m very apathetic to self-inflicted suffering when the person inflicting it on themselves isn’t open to changing the behavior that’s causing it.

I guess that makes me an asshole.

This seems to be comparing percent of women who’ve been attacked by a bear to the percent of women who’ve been attacked by a man, which… I mean, I guess? But a more fair statistic would be comparing the percentage of bear encounters that result in an attack to the percentage of man encounters that result in an attack. This is also comparing fatal bear attacks to non-fatal man attacks. Not to mention, their conclusion that a woman is safer in a forest with 260 bears than with one man assumes that the man is with them, and the bears just exist somewhere in the forest and may never see nor even be aware of them.

I agree with the conclusion that a woman has a greater chance of being victimized by a man than by a bear, but this whole argument just feels like it’s designed to not stand up to critical analysis with the intent of labeling whoever tries to call it into question a misogynist, though, and I’m not going to get into all of that again.

I assume that part of the intent with these type of scenarios is to draw attention to toxic masculinity by baiting out toxic responses, which is fine and obviously it’s effective if that is the intent. However, any attempt to respectfully disagree with the premise was also treated as toxicity and that just made me not want to engage with feminists or the discourse at all, which seems counter-productive.

I’m not here to argue about the bear metaphor, but this claim seems spurious at best. Even if there’s only 1 fatal bear encounter per 10 years, the number of bear encounters is so low that I don’t think this statistic can possibly be true. Do you have anything to back up your claim, or is this just a gut feeling sort of thing?

Software engineers at the company can expect to make $120,000 to $200,000 per year, according to job postings on Greptile’s website.

So that’s the equivalent of 60k-100k at a job where you can work normal hours. I could see this maybe if he was paying more than twice the market rate for more than twice the normal amount of work, but he’s not. Not even close.

They’re pre-chewed, for that authentic baby bird experience.

I singled her out because she’s the easiest person to get stuck seeing on the front page, so it quite literally and unavoidably feels in your face, thus it’s a bit of a meme right now to cite her.

I had to search for her to figure out who you meant; I’ve watched some of her content, but she’s nowhere near my front page. This is just the YouTube algorithm working against you. You can choose ‘Don’t recommend channel’ to avoid seeing her videos if you don’t want to.

I feel like this comment of yours is a jab against me

It’s not, I just assumed (apparently correctly) that you had a specific perspective since you called her (and only her) out by name.

The only way to guarantee that you don’t cause a paradox is to not use the power at all.

Why don’t you tell us about your own experience with Mormonism and how it differs from Alyssa’s?

I used to play a cleric in Everquest. We used to play the ‘purple bar game’.

If you drop to 0 hp, you fall unconscious, but you’re higher than, if I recall correctly, -20, you don’t die. Instead, you bleed for a few hp per second until you reach that threshold (or, more frequently, something hits you). When this happens, your HP bar turns purple.

We used to make it a game to try and time heals so they didn’t land until the tank was unconscious. It resulted in many, many deaths.

If you teleport to it and back, that’s way more valuable than anything you’d actually be buying. I’d just use it for that purpose exclusively. Choose a plot of land to “buy” that’s calculated to a specific timeframe, matching how long I wanted to be there. “I want 200 square feet in Norway.” Day trip to Norway, let’s go!

I’d argue that the taxes are a separate cost, which would be paid separately rather than being included in the “purchase price” you’re using your dollar to offset. In OP’s example, the TV requires electricity to run, but the cost of that electricity is (presumably) not bundled into the purchase price. Just like maintenance on the house would not be included up front, as it’s a separate, additional cost.

If you reject that, I’d argue that the land will exist well beyond the fall of civilization, and at some point, there won’t be a government to tax it. It will, however, still exist. If the land costs $400,000, and taxes are $10k / year, and we expect Earth to last about 8 billion years, and we expect government taxing the land to exist for, say, generously, 10,000 of those years, that’s only a net cost of $0.0125 per year. In this case, the land itself only costs $0.00005 per year, so you could buy quite a lot of things for your dollar, in fact.

Buy a plot of land, preferably with a house on it. If you assume that the land will last until the death of the planet, even if it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to ‘buy’, $1 / day worth of that would still last you for your lifetime. If it doesn’t last that long, you could calculate the length of time until the death of the planet (or of the human race) by dividing the time you got it by the price in dollars, and that’d be valuable information, too. Bonus points if you only keep it for a few minutes.

It’s like he just learned the word ‘tariff’ and needs to include it in every conversation now to show it off.

Is it possibly your distro? Maybe share what you’re using, and see if others are having different luck with it?

This guy has posted this exact same thing at least 3 times in the last 2 days, on different communities, from different accounts. It keeps getting deleted, he keeps re-posting it. Don’t support this shit.