This comment is the equivalent of trying to have a real conversation with someone and they start singing a commercial jingle.

That’s an interesting read, but I think it misses a point of where that 25% GDP is really coming from. The US makes 25% of the GDP because they outsource. To use other country’s labor, other countries people, other other people’s brains, and they take a huge chunk of profit from it. They then claim that’s their GDP.

America is a very efficient country, with a lot of skilled workers creating a lot of cool products and stuff, but it’s not 5x other countries. The only way to get those numbers is by leveraging the work of other people and claiming it for yourself.

Yeah, guilty as charged and I don’t even mind.

I buy the games on sale if I play them then good for me, if I don’t then I supported developers. I see no problem here.

Mainly 100% removal from Ukraine (not unreasonable, but also not going happen without Ukraine doing much better on offense) and a shit ton of reparations for all the damage done and people killed (this is never going to happen).

IMHO The most likely scenario is Russia keeps 50 to 80% on land they’ve already captured and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO and the war stops. Keep in mind much of the land that they’re currently fighting over will be useless for a generation due to all the mines and shells shot into it. (Maybe “useless” is too strong, but it will take a lot of work to make it safe for living and farming.)

The reality is that both sides are laying out unrealistic terms for surrender right now… and that’s fine. The start of a negotiation is always to start with a stated position and go from there. This war will end at the negotiation table… at least we hope it does becuase unconditional surrender won’t come from Russia, but it could come from Ukraine.

The real question is have both sides suffered enough for a negotiated end to this war? Look, it sucks, but that’s the truth of it. It would be good to see an end to the fighting and dying in Ukraine. Wars suck. The only side winning in this war is the US. They/we spend a pittance of money and watch Russia burn their future generation, military reputation, and global standing to the ground. That’s the #2 political opponent the US has in the world, and it’s acting as a great example for to show China (the #1) why it should behave itself over Taiwan. Win win!

But wars suck. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines, but there a lots of people fighting and dying over there who have nothing to do with make the decisions for war. Yes Putin’s demands are ridiculous, but so are Ukraine’s. That’s fine. Put them in a room and hopefully they can figure out way to end the killing that’s in between the two.

AI is just a tool. It’s like a computer. Right now it’s possibilities look limitless, but soon we will know the limitations and it will just be another tool in our toolbox. It will drive some people out of jobs… mostly for the betterment of society, but the disruption will be hard for anyone who is working one of those jobs, so there will be complaining. For example, is it really good for society to have people reading prearranged scripts off a screen at massive soul killing call centers?

As will all technological innovations there are advantages and disadvantages. Learn to adopt the advantages and look to fix or attack the disadvantages. IMHO, the biggest issues will be in privacy and monitoring, so we should be looking for laws and protections we look to put in place to shield ourselves from this.

If you don’t like it, don’t use it. But this will be like computers, robotics, and cell phones. If you go full Luddite, you’ll be left in the dust in both in culture and job prospects. This is change and change is scary, but the old adage of “adapt or die” still holds true.

Ben Carson… I thought he died.

But the reality is managers want to pick who gets laid off. It’s not that they want to just cut heads and reduce costs… upper management. may want that… but the actual managers want to keep their best and brightest. They know who the people are who get shit done, and they want to keep those people. Rto tends to have the opposite effect.

The reality is it is often the best employees, the most experienced employees, and some very high level employees who have the most confidence and are most willing to say " screw you, I know I can find a job somewhere else" And give the middle finger to the employer who’s trying to do an RTO plan.

Don’t be fooled by the headlines. Real businesses want to control who they let go. They want to have all the power in the relationship. They want to cut their lower performers and keep their superstars. RTO is about the worst head cutting program you could dream up.

This is the home of Tesla. There are a million EVs here.

I’m in the SF bay area.

The off-hours rate for my electricity is $0.04 cheaper than the prime hours rate. It’s laughable. $0.51 vs $0.47. Why bother even thinking about it at that pathetic difference? It’s certainly not going to change the math much.

It’s shockingly high. I live in the SF bay area and I’m a bit pissed off at how bad we’re getting screwed.

We have a Volvo XC90. Much bigger (and probably heavier) than your Bolt. It gets ~26MPG on the gas only mode. It has an 18.8kWh battery and can go ~30 miles on a charge. So again, bigger, heavier, and less efficient. At $0.50 per kWh, it takes ~$9 for 30 miles, and ~$5.5 in gas to go 26 miles.

That’s all great, but the real thing that will stop it is economics. We have a PHEV and I calculated it out and we pay $8 per gallon equivalent compared to $5.50 for regular gas. That’s a pretty big difference. Right now we ignore the EV part of the vehicle. (Live in California and I pay $0.50/kwh.)

We’re planning on getting solar shortly and that may make it feasible, but until then, it’s not.

If you have no margin of error then that’s the way it is. Every vote can be a veto.

What’s really interesting is how the bar was 60 votes when this was happening but it’s now 50 votes due to massive watering down of veto power in the Senate.

WHy not both?

That’s weird because the world is in better shape than it was when I grew up. You have drills for what to do in active shooter situations. I had drills for what to do in case of a nuclear war. I don’t think it’s as much to do with how bad the world is vs how bad the economy is for young people… and I"m not even sure if it’s statistically worse. Certainly housing is worse. Are there any other metrics that are really worse? (This is an honest question, I"m not looking for a generational fight. None of us have any control over when we were born.) Wealth inequality has gotten worse, but it was pretty bad before too.

I guess what I"m really arguing is that I think there is too much negativity and pessimism in our society especially amongst the young. Some things do suck. But finding someone who you love and then deciding to start a family with them and creating a small pocket of a better world seems 100% worth it to me.

His personality probably changed when he started taking all the drugs.

The issue is that romance tends to be prioritized over friendship in media even for straight relationships

This doesn’t seem strange to me. Personally I do this. I’m in a committed long term relationship married, but even before that I prioritized romantic relationships above friendships. I don’t get why this is weird (forgetting the exaggerated “I met this guy I have nothing in common with 2 days ago and we’re so totally in love” part).

The reality is that even if they’re pretty in shape, they wear enough gear and body armor that running in that stuff is going to be quite a workout. If you and the cop are equal runners with no gear, you’re going to beat him by a mile when he has his gear on.

So you only heard about climate change when celebs like Taylor Swift started promoting it? The writing has been on the wall for decades (from scientists) and we’ve been hearing about it for that amount of time. If you think that the only reason you know about it is from celebs then apparently they were needed in order to reach you.