middlemuddle

If I had a friend I knew for decades that was convicted of some awful shit like this, I'd find it pretty easy to just not write a letter about their good character. Maybe I never saw even a hint of the monster that was convicted, but it'd be pretty messed up for me to just ignore the reality of the present and talk about how good they were to me in the past. Attesting to someone's character has a limit. They could have very easily just kept their mouths shut on this topic not supported a convicted rapist. My hypothetical friend can go deal with the consequences of their own actions themselves while I try to internally come to terms with the fact that my friend betrayed me by lying to my face for so long.

An ad-free web is definitely a pipe dream. But a targeted ad-free web should be a simple option available to users. I'd guess that the majority of the public doesn't care too much about being tracked, and may even appreciate having their relevant interests targeted so that they see an ad that is more interesting to them. The problem is that, for those of us who don't want to be targeted, there is no simple way to disable that. Companies have baked their ad targeting directly into the functionality of their platforms so it's incredibly difficult to avoid targeted ads if you still want to use the most popular sites. I think this is the reality that is unacceptable.

Every browser should have a simple toggle to enable targeted ads and it should be every site should respect this. I'm not super educated on Google's Topics solution, but maybe the step away from cookies could theoretically support that kind of reality. I don't think Google is going to lead the charge on that kind of change, but we certainly need to get away from cookies somehow.

The US has limits on free speech in the name of public health and safety. There's no assumption of limitless free speech in the US. People who cry "free speech" typically have no understanding of its actual legal definition in the country and just want an excuse to be a bigoted asshole without consequences.

Twitter, not being part of the government, gets to decide what content they allow and doesn't need to worry too much about the legal definition of free speech. But, despite Musk's claims, Twitter is not actually a space of limitless free speech. They've taken plenty of actions since he took over that limit the speech of individuals he disagrees with. Twitter is just interesting in giving a platform to hate. There's certainly money to be made in monetizing hate (see Trump), but hopefully it doesn't work out well in the end for Twitter or Musk.

That seems like a pretty solid approach. It still rewards the asshole, but calls them out on it without being rude and commits to not letting it be repeated. I don't think screaming at someone over a missed fast food order is ever warranted, but I think it's reasonable to be extremely charitable and give the person a chance to recognize and learn from their behavior.

The managers don’t want a fight so they’ll just give them what they want so they leave.

Unfortunately, this contributes to the problem. It's a reward for being an asshole. I don't blame managers or staffers for giving in just to get rid of the asshole because it's not worth getting screamed at. But it's like the "customer is always right" approach devolved into "being an asshole gets you free shit". I wish corporate culture was "treat our employees well and we'll treat you like a king, be an asshole and you're banned for life" or something along those lines.

Also, your money recommendations are on point and OP should definitely do some smart saving while they have the extra cash. It'll help them out a lot later in life.

My argument is that it's not surprising that someone would choose to pay $20/mo for 1 service with all the things they want versus paying $100/mo to deal with 4 services.

The fact that Netflix et al pay their creators squat is a separate component. I was just pointing out that saying you want to pay content creators for their work doesn't really equate to paying for a Netflix subscription. If someone wants to ensure they're paying creators for their content, there are much better ways to do so. You can pay the $20/mo to pirate stuff, then donate to the Entertainment Community Fund, or buy something directly from a writer's website with the $80/mo you've saved.

what’s the point?

Simplicity and overall cost. Pirating is cheaper and allows you to get everything in one place versus 5 different streaming platforms. I see the draw.

And it's hard to make the case that paying streamers equates to paying the content creators with the strikes highlighting how little the actual creators get out of the deal. I'm in favor of paying for content, but you can't say paying Netflix their continually increasing, and more restrictive, subscription fees is actually contributing to supporting creators who make good content.

Please don't give their statement any credibility without adding the important context. Based in some truth may be technically accurate, but when compared to all the other possible causes of bird death it's basically inconsequential.

https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds

If there's a solution, such as painting one blade a different color, then great. We can leave it up to the turbine engineers and wildlife agencies to address it, it doesn't need to be part of any news cycle. Giving their outlandish claim any air at all lends it far too much weight.

I knew I wasn't going crazy! That press any key habit is so ingrained because it's been around since I played my first game on a 286 PC, probably longer.

I'm not experiencing that issue either and I have half the amount of RAM that you do. I've noticed an unnecessary autorefresh only after closing out of the browser for a long time, never in the middle of switching between apps. But, that does sound like annoying behavior.

I think that differentiation is only a difference in how the benefit would be calculated. It would be quite a departure from the current state of things, but it's worth being part of the discussion.

Assuming we're all compensated at different rates based on our value to the company, then one person's time is more valuable than another person's time. As the employee, commute time and work time might as well be conflated since it's time spent away from the rest of our lives. It's different for the company, of course, since commute time is not productive work time, but if we're talking about this as benefits that companies might offer in order to retain or attract employees then I don't think the company's opinion matters.

I think you can factor it in along with all other benefits. Employees absolutely consider commute time when applying for work. If companies want employees in office and are trying to compete with employers that allow remote work, they need to start making a case for why the commute is worth it. Tech companies tried doing that with ping pong tables and beer, but now that remote work is so common that doesn't carry much weight. Compensating an employee for commute time in some way seems like a reasonable benefit that companies should consider offering.