ObjectivityIncarnate

I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.

You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.

The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.

So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.

you just get loans against your static wealth at incredibly favorable interest rates.

It’s more than that, because the wealth of those who utilize loans this way typically isn’t static. It’s not about just getting a good rate, it’s that the assets they use as collateral appreciate in value at a rate higher than inflation and the interest rate combined, so in practice, the interest rate is literally negative. The price of having access to these loans is that their net worth just grows a bit more slowly as a result.

Of course, this only works as long as said assets continue to appreciate at that rate.

This would be funnier if it wasn’t so aggravatingly accurate, lol.

Am I the only one who always subconsciously mentally replaces “baby” in song titles/lyrics with “infant” to see how funny the result is?

power wasting lights.

To be fair, it’s all LEDs now, which consume very little power.

That’s not the number of people using Amazon, that’s the number of people paying for a premium subscription service on top of their Amazon usage. No one, whether they buy things on Amazon or not, needs Prime.

That is the point they’re making.

Yeah, that’s not definitely not on YouTube, the final ‘star score’ was effectively indicative only of the ratio of the 5-stars to the 1-stars. The infinitesimal minority that would actually thoughtfully rate 2, 3, or 4 stars made no difference at all.

Is there another more ‘generic’ German term that would fit when talking about this period of time in retrospect? So you could have one line that says the German equivalent of ‘he was the leader in Germany during this time period, commonly referred to by the title Fuhrer’, and then no need to keep using “Fuhrer” anymore in the rest of the article.

Combine that with some rape cases that get swept under the rug with phrases like, “boys will be boys,” “she was asking for it,” or even something as outright cruel as “it’s the only way she’d get laid anyways,” and yeah, where OP is coming from isn’t too hard to understand.

And yet, cases of male victims of female rapists get “swept under the rug” basically 100% of the time, but the outrage toward that is non-existent, even though the also-swept-under-the-rug fact is that women rape men just as often as men rape women:

And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

The whole reason a woman raping a man isn’t simply called “rape” in these statistics is because of successful explicitly anti-male lobbying by feminists like Mary Koss, and NOW, who don’t think it “counts” as rape when the man is the victim of a woman.

As one of these male victims of a female rapist, it’s always extremely frustrating to see women complaining to men about things like under-reporting, or men who get away with it, when it’s so much worse for men and boys, that the average person believes that a female raping a male is something that is literally impossible.

A boy got molested by his female teacher, and she won child support from him! Could you in a million years imagine a male rapist achieving such a legal judgment from a girl he molested?

If the document was completely logical & self-supporting, then there’d be no need to cherry pick as anything said would be consistent with the whole.

You’re assuming that the entire document has a single message, which is absolutely not a given. Simple hypothetical:

If the Bible said nothing more than these things:

• Abortion is bad
• You should tithe 10% of your income to the church
• The earth is 6000 years old

And you were someone who was on board with the first two but not the third, it’d be cherry-picking to call yourself an adherent of the Bible while citing your belief/agreement in/with the first two while ignoring the third, even though none of the three things above contradict each other.

The problem is the abundance of assholes using selected parts of the Bible to manipulate others while conveniently ignoring other parts of the Bible that contradict them.

This has absolutely nothing to do with contradictions or lack thereof, though. You can just as easily cherry-pick something that has no contradictions.

That’s non-sequitur.

Yeah, no way an omnipotent God could do anything about the lack of Y chromosomes. He can create a new life in the womb of a virgin woman, but put a Y in the kid? Nope, His hands are tied, apparently.

Come on, lol.

It’s not “capitalism alone”, but it’s clear that capitalism was a massive catalyst in accelerating that success, hence my emphasis on “how far we came in such a short period of time”.

In 1820, 94% of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty. By 1910, this figure had fallen to 82%, and by 1950 the rate had dropped yet further, to 72%. However, the largest and fastest decline occurred between 1981 (44.3%) and 2015 (9.6%).

Greed isn’t just wanting good for yourself, it’s wanting more than what is reasonable.

“What is reasonable” is the furthest thing from an objective measure, no matter how much you believe your definition of it is the definition of it.

You’re the one believing a myth—world history already contains plenty of information to back up what I just wrote. Check global poverty rates a century ago, compared to today, for one. It’s almost miraculous just how far we came in such a short period of time! And no, it wasn’t just because of China.

1. Corruption makes it possible for greed to be rewarded in any system.
2. Greed is not necessarily a net negative—one’s personal avarice can be ‘addressed’ by creating and selling a product that the public is happy to pay (an amount that creates profit for them) for. That sort of ambition should be encouraged, because the result is a better outcome for everyone.

I think we can do better than that

Maybe we can. But of everything that’s been tried so far, capitalism has by far worked the best.

So if there is a better way, it’s got to be a brand-new idea.

There is no other system immune to the potential negatives within capitalism, while no other system has shown to have as many positives as capitalism has had, over its history.

Don’t be surprised if those negatives magically persist within a different system. The grass is always greener—you’re better off addressing the negatives directly (e.g. sensible legal regulations within the system), instead of naively assuming that changing the system will magically eliminate or even lessen them.

I’ve got a worthless degree i deeply regret

Meanwhile, not far from this comment is someone claiming no one regrets getting their degree, lol.