Excellent interpersonal skills

Oh well.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I’m still sullen about napster. It didn’t change anything about music sharing- other than to take music sharing into the spotlight. I.e., they got greedy and gained the attention of the media.

By extension of this philosophy, we shouldn’t bury people, since worms will desecrate their deceased flesh. It seems to me then that shrunken heads might be a good way to save space.

I’m okay with it. Unless we start putting them on keychains. That might be taking it too far.

Uh. This is not a good picture my journalism dudes. It’s strap-on; what kind of tasks are we talking about here?

Do you expect us to consume that?

Just because you click on it that doesn’t make it accurate. More importantly, that text isn’t “clickable”, so they can’t be measuring raw engagement either.

It’s not A/B testing if they aren’t getting feedback.

LMG says they didn’t do a thing

Yes, please show me this language.

And I never said I was waiting for proof, thanks. Feel free to read the whole thing.

I really key in on the language of these types of releases. First is,

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same.

So… keeping yo mouth shut is not ensuring a “fair investigation.” It’s protecting yourself.

Next, phrases like,

Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

Is not proof of anything- other than there was no proof. That’s why you hire a third party to speak for you. Instead of you saying, “I didn’t do it,” (which of course almost anyone would - true or not) the “independent” investigator can say, “I didn’t find any proof.”

The strongest language here,

Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

…is interesting. I guess it depends on what they mean by “addressed.” If I slapped a colleague on the back and said, “That was hilarious!”, I hardly ignored it. You could even say I addressed it.

I’m not saying I believe I’ve way or the other. All I’m pointing out is this means basically nothing.

I’ve heard the early Internet age referred to as the future dark ages. When all the work, information and content is digitized, it’s prone to being lost to history forever.

This doesn’t sound like a subscription, so much as consumption based billing. They make their money back by cornering the building-level market (perhaps landlords can put in competing chargers?) and charging a higher charging fee… okay that’s confusing. Charging a higher “fillup” fee.

Wrong button, oops. Lol #420

Starting an international corporate race to carve up the moon seems like a good choice.

Yes but… the word stupid is not in the sidebar (other than the community name). I did check first! :)

The first question has been answered already a few different ways. As to the sub-question:

Why do we focus solely on this one aspect of life?

It’s because we as a society lost track of other aspects of life, e.g. relationships for the sake of relationships- which if we question our basic humanity, we also need. Instead we focus on materialistic requirements, both for basic survival but also for status, security, and comfort. I would argue that second aspect (status) is an indirect (and inefficient/ineffective) means to accomplish the forgotten parts of life (relationships).

We can think of it as a universal language for trading. It doesn’t matter what item you eventually want, you can trade money to get it.

We subsidize exports? Show me.

To that end, this means we would need to lower standards, use some forced labor, and increase taxes to increase subsidies in order to compete.

Republicans would shoot down the subsidies.