So what you’re saying is that the country collectively decided Trump was more promising than Harris?
And you’ve found it’s someone else’s fault, so now you don’t have to do anything but sit in the mess?
Good for you.
Now, pardon us as we try to do something about it.
The conventional answer is that there would be much less incentive to fund new ones.
Some things need a large investment to start: power plants, cities, factories, space stations, etc. Sometimes more money than the people involved can afford, and you need to ask someone to front the money, they typically get paid with a share of the profits.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Then you’re lacking in imagination.
Similar data have outed people’s pregnancies, relationships and locations, which has been used to let people be stalked and even murdered.
Car data can be sold and amalgamated to create a very precise profile of you, available to be purchased by anyone. Anyone with about $100 can purchase access to your daily/weekly schedule, including physical locations, and can easily steal your identity, if not rob or murder you.
Also, foreign propaganda can similarly profile you and hyper target influence campaigns.
And I’m showing you, with sources, that you are wrong on both your points.
It can be reliably and reproducibly measured that diversity is more profitable. It’s as “always” as tylenol helps against headaches, trains for travel, google for searches, gravity for keeping you on the ground. Yes, there technically are times these don’t work, but it works more often than not, and typically there’s other factors when it doesn’t.
And similarly, yes you might not always pick the best candidate, but applying robustly provable best practices will lead you to doing it more often.
Do you go through anything else in life in this manner? That if you can’t do it perfectly, you’d rather not try? I’d wager not, as trying gets you closer to your goals, even when not meeting them immediately.
It seems evident you’re not giving an informed opinion.
The Trump administration has deemed presentations of employed women and poc as part of DEI.
I find it hard to see that describing your employee diversity is discriminatory. And the law is quite settled on this not being discriminatory. Changes are being forced by executive order, many of which have been illegal under the current administration.
Diversity has repeatedly been shown to be more profitable than homogeneity, in both academic and gray literature. Besides being good for societal cohesion, fairness, stability, happiness, and moral virtue.
The best candidate is indeed best, but there are too narrow and outdated ideas on how to identify the best candidate, and humans have a bias to choose/hire for safety and similarity over actually relevant criteria, which is why we have the problem in the first place.
Please provide proof that this is in use at the PSF.
Quotas for minorities are a very outdated practice and were used to break the most entrenched norms (women in C-suites).
More modern practices include preferring diversity between equally qualified candidates, ad retargeting and messaging efforts, and inclusive norms at workplaces.
Also, diversity is profitable, it increases both innovativeness and productivity. It seems uniquely stupid to kneecap the economy to benefit your cronies. Then again, maybe that’s the whole point of the GOPedo platform: rob the commons.
deleted by creator
Try pipepipe, haven’t had it blocked ever for the couple years I’ve used it
Good thing he got replaced, the next one would never do that right?
Oh, he did as well? Well, at least you voted him out when you found out.
Wait, you elected him back? Despite him having done so before just last time, and openly promising to do so again? And the alternative not having done so, nor promising to?
How much could you really care if you’re repeatedly and knowingly going against it?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Having large debt matters for how expensive access to cash is. No matter how “fake” it is, the financial system puts a premium on how long it takes to get their lent money back. The longer it’s stuck, the worse the reputation of getting it back, or simply the higher the demand — the higher the premium.
And as you need cash to make payments for goods and services (as opposed to tax rebates) that has the effect that US tax dollars and investments have lower rate of return as sufficient cash gets more expensive.
Another part is that the debt will be taken out in some form, e.g. foreign currency, making that currency more available for cash transactions (while at the same time making yours’ less available due to being locked into what you needed it for). This shifts trade away from USD, which makes it much harder to influence/control what it’s used for, how much it’s worth, and harder to make people care how much of it there is.
As the world trades in something besides USD and/or avoids investing in the US due to high costs/volatility, the US gets less relevant/influential in global policy, diplomacy, business, investments and even domestic policy.
Well put.
I guess this is also why sympathies from wronged friends and allies are running dry.
Unfortunately, I’m of the sort who doesn’t believe that flipping the table will be to the gain to anyone but those with the preparation and resources to grab what they may (which is what they’re doing)
The divide is too deep, and those people too greedy to do anything but provide for their own. The downtrodden won’t come out better from this, either we stop them, or we wait for the next revolution where people will be even more desperate.
The latter leads to more suffering, more death and more blood, if history is any guide.