Augh
The people making the big decisions aren’t the ones working. They’re the ones put in charge to make money for investors, who want monthly returns. Not “here’s what will get us 1XX% growth in 6-8 years,” but now.
And you’d think this would only be the case with public companies, but private equity is gobbling up quality companies and milking them dry by cutting costs and abusing their brand’s good name. People want returns on their investments QUICK these days.
“look at all the benefits you get from being in a fascist state that doesn’t have laws respecting rights to a fair trial and sufficient burden of proof!”
Like there’s a reason we only see the taliban + authoritarian regimes do this, lmao.
You sound really sure about your understanding of statistics and probability, and I didn’t think anything I can say can impact that. I’m going to defer to the experts, but you do you I guess.
The thing about long-term predictions (at least ones that get publicity) is that usually the goal is to change them, so few have been “proven”. No one is printing stories about how an isolated set of rocks is going to be decayed by X% due to weather, because no one cares.
Except birth rates aren’t physics that will progress if left alone, they’re dominated by cultural choices that are impacted by economics and governmental policy.
Exactly. Those are the factors that are being considered when making these predictions. If economic factors and policies are making it harder to have kids, then birth rates drop, which is what we’re seeing now. What else is going to have as much of an effect?
These predictions don’t exist to take bets on. They’re not scrying into the future. They’re just binoculars that point to where we’re going.
No, they just need to be kept in that context. We trusted science on chlorofluorocarbons impacting the ozone layer, and chose to fix it rather than let it keep going. Was the projection “wrong” because CFCs were regulated, or did we just interact with it in a practical way?
The same applies here. There’s a population issue that (as you mentioned in another comment) without other factors, will come into effect. China can fix it, or let things play out and see if the “unknowns” can fix it for them.
“AI isn’t good enough to replace workers yet, but it’s good enough to convince CEOs it can.”
You’re correct, and I agree. It does shift dems to the right slightly. But again, it’s hyperbole to say dems are now “radical” on the border, which is what I was responding to.
So now the dems endorse the radical rights position on the border. You don’t see how that’s an issue?
Equating “letting the opposition party fuck themselves as they try to pass a bill THEY don’t even want” to actively endorsing extreme policy is hyperbole.
At a very surface level you’re correct, but using that to state that the entire democratic party has abandoned their morals is absurd.
As someone who deals with business analytics/ budgeting, “not meeting sales expectations” is a 1:1 translation to “bad sales.” Sony has R&D, manufacturing, and other “static” costs that need to be recouped with more unit sales–decent isn’t enough when you’re balancing everything around great.
(This translates to much of peak-covid -> “post”-covid business decision backlash. So much short-term thinking based on the economy being temporarily on crack with everyone at home).
I think they were commenting on how people seem to be zealots for Firefox on Lemmy, despite having some (reasonable) flaws. Despite this news, I’d bet a lot of them will continue. Not a pro-Chrome stance by any means.
(I had to block the Firefox and Linux subs day 1 because of how much anti-Chrome/ anti-Windows I saw).
That’s what the [sic] is for. It’s showing “here’s what the person literally said, to make sure we’re not misquoting them.”
It’s standard practice, as “stepping up and taking charge” would mean substituting someone else’s words for your own, which is a slippery slope. “Oh he said X, but meant Y, so I’ll write that instead” can very easily be abused by people actively looking to misrepresent other’s words.
Source: BA Journalism, who had to use [sic] when quoting non-native English speakers (was part of an immigration story). Whenever possible, I’d try to clarify/ correct mid-interview: “oh, you said A, but I think you might’ve meant B. Is that correct?” That way, you know for a fact it’s still their words.
“That’s your problem” is a terrible way to get people to support policy. These are real, valid concerns that many people simply can’t deal with without other systems in place that currently don’t exist.
This type of “fuck any gradual change, revolution now” is just armchair anarchy pushed by kids who don’t face financial pressure.
Kaiju stand user?
B U L L S O N P A R A D E
Cute twink who makes thirsty songs. Peep the video for “Rush” by him if you want to get an idea for how his vision of this show would go.
The more time that passes between each repost is more time for the premise to be less “2005 dude-bros can’t fathom being unmasculine for a second” and more “when did Troye Sivan write this?”
I’d argue that ignoring that any forced, unpaid labor under threat of violence is slavery is worse than “minimizing chattel slavery,” full stop.
This is unintentionally drinking the corporate prison Kool Aid at best, and actively sanitizing our prison’s cruel labor system at worst.
Accurately calling prison labor slavery isn’t a knock on chattel slavery, it’s an acknowledgement that it’s changed. Say it’s not as bad all you want, but it’s still the same forces at work.
I already have tech tips, thanks tho
Just had to open a link in Teams and it ignored that Chrome was my default to launch Edge, then tried to set itself as the default for anything clicked in Teams.
I can easily see Microsoft doing something comparably shitty for people opening links in Word or PowerPoint. If not for Apple’s even more egregious ecosystem practices (among other things) I’d be very tempted to switch.
It’s environmental geopolitics 🤷 seeing widespread adoption of a policy that the US (Reagan) ignored get traction in Ireland helps highlight how shortsighted that view was. Considering the US has had a small hand in building the world’s energy supply, it seems at least tangential to remind people why such policies have existed.
The IPO announcement w/ shares being offered to Reddit users. Also, the deal with AI training off of user data without consent. Hard to keep track these days lol.