Uh oh. If people realize that 700M in subsidies is the same amount of money as 700M in free buses, it’s all over. You’re supposed to act like one of them is cheap and the other is expensive. There’s not supposed to be math involved /s
Says who? In a typical month I make myself most of the above at least once.
Rather than tell you what I personally eat, maybe it will be useful to know what American diners serve for breakfast. You can walk into any locally-owned diner anywhere in the country and order from a menu almost exactly like this:
And then each diner will have their own “famous” specialty, like stuffed French toast, “home fries” (pan-fried potato chunks), huge pancakes, or sausage made in house. It’s hard to go wrong though, American breakfasts are consistently pretty tasty.
New Republic is a tabloid. As are Newsweek and Raw Story, which are all uncritically posted to this community multiple times a week.
They’re tabloids that often appeal to my political sympathies, but tabloids nonetheless. We shouldn’t treat them like real journalism. If I had my way they’d be banned and/or ignored on Lemmy.
Public school teachers shouldn’t have to pay income tax
Same. I use Kagi because search is an essential function of my job and I can’t extract decent results from Google anymore, but if there were another engine with equally good results and a better ethical track record I’d switch.
(There isn’t. I’ve tried Qwant, Ecosia, DuckDuckGo and a handful of others. Was not impressed.)
The year of Linux on the gas stop
Though my sample size is small, these stories fit my thesis that the real AI jobs crisis is that the drumbeat, marketing, and pop culture of "powerful AI” encourages and permits management to replace or degrade jobs they might not otherwise have. More important than the technological change, perhaps, is the change in a social permission structure.
Agreed. If a company says “we’ve automated this job and it’s now done by AI,” they mean “we’ve decided to take advantage of media trends by dramatically lowering the quality and reliability of our processes, consistent with our policy of doing things as cheaply as our customers will tolerate.”
No. The number of users who have a real email with no TLD is far less than the number of users who will accidentally type an email with no TLD if you don’t validate on the front end.
I’m here to help 99.9% of users sign up correctly, not to be completely spec-compliant for the 0.1% who think they’re special.
Let us recite the email validator’s oath:
If it has something before the
@, something between the@and the., and something after the., it’s valid enough.
Clearly LLMs are useful to software engineers.
Citation needed. I don’t use one. If my coworkers do, they’re very quiet about it. More than half the posts I see promoting them, even as “just a tool,” are from people with obvious conflicts of interest. What’s “clear” to me is that the Overton window has been dragged kicking and screaming to the extreme end of the scale by five years of constant press releases masquerading as news and billions of dollars of market speculation.
I’m not going to delegate the easiest part of my job to something that’s undeniably worse at it. I’m not going to pass up opportunities to understand a system better in hopes of getting 30-minute tasks done in 10. And I’m definitely not going to pay for the privilege.
Most days I receive zero packages. Two is so extravagant as to almost not be dull.
The box never clarifies what the difference between “floating” and “flying” is, but surely he doesn’t need both.
Even so, the unicorn charm might be the weak link of the bunch. The world is already colorful. Get a job, unicorn.
You’re just trying to be intellectually honest here, by recognizing that in theory subsidies are supposed to bring jobs and economic benefits to a region, whereas public transit is seen as a cost center. And I think you’ve been sufficiently rebuked on that point.
Anyway, upvoted because I appreciate the attempt to engage conservative fiscal policy on its own terms. It’s easy to frame it as “rich people good, poor people bad,” but occasionally we need to debate the internal logic of it so we can properly pull back the curtain and see it for what it really is, which is in fact “rich people good, poor people bad.” You started that debate, and as a result the consensus here feels more like a good-faith rebuttal and less like a sarcastic shot from the hip (which my original post definitely was).