It's funny that Ford set up the best pot laws in the country. "You're allowed to smoke if you're allowed to smoke"
It's really funny that you're absolutely right. chatgpt was down for a couple hours and I was like "oh, I'll use google's ai....uh.... I don't remember what it's called"
Oh great, it's this fuckin guy.
It seems like both sides of the political spectrum have had plenty of time to remember that this guy's a fuckin piece of shit, but everyone seems to just keep on forgetting and handing him jobs that aren't just jail cell attendant.
It seems like both sides of the political spectrum have had plenty of time to remember that this guy's a fuckin piece of shit, but everyone seems to just keep on forgetting and handing him jobs that aren't just jail cell attendant.
I was like "final fantasy is ok" but Then I realized the last good one was 10 games ago
Unemployed people with military grade weapons who are trained to use them. Works every time.
Sort of by definition, yes.
Like I said, different geographical areas tend to misrepresent different types of jobs as engineering jobs for various reasons (you can often pay someone in prestige for example), and some engineers suck at engineering so they should be doing a thing but aren't, but at least in principle that's how things should be.
Like I said, different geographical areas tend to misrepresent different types of jobs as engineering jobs for various reasons (you can often pay someone in prestige for example), and some engineers suck at engineering so they should be doing a thing but aren't, but at least in principle that's how things should be.
I'd tend to disagree with that.
Other fields have people who do things in different ways, and I can see direct parallels.
A good electrician can often build most of the things an electrical engineer can using experience and practical knowledge, but they are not doing the same thing. A good electrical engineer will apply engineering concepts and practices to the design of a thing whereas an electrician will apply skilled trades concepts and practices to the design of a thing, and they are different things.
A good carpenter can build most of the things a structural engineer can using experience and practical knowledge, but they are not dong the same either.
Same goes for a good industrial mechanic vs. a mechanical engineer.
The words are typically misused in much the same way the term "engineer" is massively overused so people doing other types of work feel better, but people who know, know.
In my view, a software engineer will be using engineering concepts and practices to design software where a software developer will be using experience and practical knowledge. I'd expect there to be mutually exclusive realms that make sense for both -- software engineers would create novel algorithms or architectures using rigorous methods, software developers would use existing algorithms with practiced efficiency.
I guess keep in mind I live in a region where the word "engineer" is protected harder than any other place on the planet, so my point of view is tempered by that.
Other fields have people who do things in different ways, and I can see direct parallels.
A good electrician can often build most of the things an electrical engineer can using experience and practical knowledge, but they are not doing the same thing. A good electrical engineer will apply engineering concepts and practices to the design of a thing whereas an electrician will apply skilled trades concepts and practices to the design of a thing, and they are different things.
A good carpenter can build most of the things a structural engineer can using experience and practical knowledge, but they are not dong the same either.
Same goes for a good industrial mechanic vs. a mechanical engineer.
The words are typically misused in much the same way the term "engineer" is massively overused so people doing other types of work feel better, but people who know, know.
In my view, a software engineer will be using engineering concepts and practices to design software where a software developer will be using experience and practical knowledge. I'd expect there to be mutually exclusive realms that make sense for both -- software engineers would create novel algorithms or architectures using rigorous methods, software developers would use existing algorithms with practiced efficiency.
I guess keep in mind I live in a region where the word "engineer" is protected harder than any other place on the planet, so my point of view is tempered by that.
One thing I'd say is you need to be really careful about is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Yeah, a bunch of these boomers are totally wrong on the math of owning a home. I had it happen to me just yesterday where a coworker was going off on how everyone needs to buy a house no matter what because it can only go up and it can only be good for your financial situation. When you're looking at an average house price of $850,000 as we were in Canada for a little while (and it's still pretty high, and in the 2 most populous cities it's still in the million plus range) and mortgage rates are at 7%, the amount you pay for interest alone is as much as a decent full-time job before you even touch the principal. Handing $60,000 to the bank is not good financial sense and anyone with a brain ought to know this isn't good financial sense.
On the other hand, other parts of the advice are good. You should create a budget. You should watch your expenses. You should try to set aside some amount of money for long-term savings & investment. Deferring gratification has been a key strategy forever and that hasn't changed. What's changed is that the boomer million dollar house isn't the investment that it was when it was a ten thousand dollar house.
To give the devil his due, the boomers had some tailwinds, but they've also had some really bad headwinds. They came of age into an era of massive inflation and constant recessions, which means that while their houses might have gotten more expensive, many of them lost their jobs or even their careers. We're choking on 7% mortgages, they had up to 30% mortgages which means the principal on their homes may have been massively smaller but their payments were often similar in size even without accounting for inflation. The rust belt was hollowed out, factories shut down, and they had to figure out how to survive. During the entirety of the boomers lifetime, wages as a % share of GDP have been dropping.
Yeah, a bunch of these boomers are totally wrong on the math of owning a home. I had it happen to me just yesterday where a coworker was going off on how everyone needs to buy a house no matter what because it can only go up and it can only be good for your financial situation. When you're looking at an average house price of $850,000 as we were in Canada for a little while (and it's still pretty high, and in the 2 most populous cities it's still in the million plus range) and mortgage rates are at 7%, the amount you pay for interest alone is as much as a decent full-time job before you even touch the principal. Handing $60,000 to the bank is not good financial sense and anyone with a brain ought to know this isn't good financial sense.
On the other hand, other parts of the advice are good. You should create a budget. You should watch your expenses. You should try to set aside some amount of money for long-term savings & investment. Deferring gratification has been a key strategy forever and that hasn't changed. What's changed is that the boomer million dollar house isn't the investment that it was when it was a ten thousand dollar house.
To give the devil his due, the boomers had some tailwinds, but they've also had some really bad headwinds. They came of age into an era of massive inflation and constant recessions, which means that while their houses might have gotten more expensive, many of them lost their jobs or even their careers. We're choking on 7% mortgages, they had up to 30% mortgages which means the principal on their homes may have been massively smaller but their payments were often similar in size even without accounting for inflation. The rust belt was hollowed out, factories shut down, and they had to figure out how to survive. During the entirety of the boomers lifetime, wages as a % share of GDP have been dropping.
The Romans don't take over Europe again -- it's the barbarians who stayed close to the earth, kept their feet nailed to the ground who inherited the continent.
After the fall of the Roman empire, even the eastern Roman empire only for a short time retakes Rome before being batted back by the new civilization that forms. The Eastern roman empire is almost a new civilization in how differently it developed from the western roman empire. The art and architecture are different (and iconoclasm unfortunately destroyed many examples of that). The philosophy was fundamentally different, deeply diving into Christianity and using it as a lodestone to find its way out of the decadence of the Western Roman empire, while also facing new threats since it was so much closer to Asia and constantly faced existential threats keeping it vigilant much longer. I think that's why scholars give it a different name than Rome, because the Byzantine empire was a new thing in a different region that never was quite the same thing as its predecessor.
When looking back through the 20th century and 21st century, I consider there to be two distinct eras. After the enlightenment period came the modern period (you can consider the French Revolution to be the beginning of the modern period for the purposes I'm talking about), which culminated in the horrors of the world wars. The world wars took a world that was vibrant and confident and excited about the future (All the bloody napoleonic wars came about because men were excited to go out and die for their country because they believed in their country) and broke it, leading to the postmodern period we live in today whose defining factor is the destruction of everything that came before. The world wars proved that we are just as barbaric as we ever were and the so-called modern man was a myth. Thus a period of destruction followed because people were tearing everything due to the PTSD of the horrors we created. As a result, the postmodern period has been about the destruction of values and replacing them with either nothing or with a minimally thought out emotional replacement that has no practical use. I expect the postmodern period to end with the pending global population collapse that's already started but will get really bad in the next 30 years or so.
The population collapse I'm talking about isn't something caused by a lack of resources or anything dramatic, it's a further manifestation of the suicidal impulse of postmodern society. The greatest generation came home from the world wars and procreated like mad. Their kids went out and procreated quite a lot creating the millennials which have been called the "echo boom". The millennials largely chose not to have kids and so the largest generation in history, the boomers, are starting to die off and they aren't being replaced by anything like the same amount of people, which will has created a virtually inescapable demographic cliff in most countries on earth. We won't be talking about the risks of overpopulation in the future, we're going to be facing the single largest population contraction in the history of planet earth.
In my view, there's no reason to be too concerned with the fall of postmodern civilization, that's inevitable as the moment the world wars ended and postmodernism started to become the modern paradigm, the failure of this civilization in its current form was inevitable. What we should be concerned with is protecting ourselves as best as we can from the wrath of the empire as it falls, and making sure we stay true to ourselves and stay grounded and anchored to reality.
One very positive thing is that whereas we've seen the greatest drop in the power of the non-elite individual ever in the past 50 years, as would be predicted by secular cycle theory, what comes afterwards is a golden age because the shrinking population gives individuals more bargaining power and individuals are better able to negotiate for their time and effort. We could even see entire dynasties replaced in many parts of the world, and there's no saying for sure what that looks like or what we replace the current order with.
Unfortunately, it is indeed true that just because there is upheaval it won't necessarily be good. Some secular cycles saw massive improvements in the lot of the people such as in 9th century europe where we saw many of the foundations laid for constitutional monarchies, but we saw the french revolution just became a bloody massacre that had everyone walking on eggshells for a long time and was so bad that some Frenchmen (the ones that were left after the purges) were actually considering putting the aristocracy back in charge (and did until they remembered that the aristocrats were decadent and parasitic)
The way to stay grounded in reality is to remember something important: Failure is an option. You CAN die, you CAN fail to procreate, and the spark of life that you represent that goes all the way back to the first single celled organism will be snuffed out. There are stakes, the physical world exists and you are not God, reality has the final say over what happens. Also, you need to find meaning in life. It's so easy once you see it, the world is beautiful and terrible and there's so many things besides the current moment in culture we can soak in to become something different than just the water we were born in.
After the fall of the Roman empire, even the eastern Roman empire only for a short time retakes Rome before being batted back by the new civilization that forms. The Eastern roman empire is almost a new civilization in how differently it developed from the western roman empire. The art and architecture are different (and iconoclasm unfortunately destroyed many examples of that). The philosophy was fundamentally different, deeply diving into Christianity and using it as a lodestone to find its way out of the decadence of the Western Roman empire, while also facing new threats since it was so much closer to Asia and constantly faced existential threats keeping it vigilant much longer. I think that's why scholars give it a different name than Rome, because the Byzantine empire was a new thing in a different region that never was quite the same thing as its predecessor.
When looking back through the 20th century and 21st century, I consider there to be two distinct eras. After the enlightenment period came the modern period (you can consider the French Revolution to be the beginning of the modern period for the purposes I'm talking about), which culminated in the horrors of the world wars. The world wars took a world that was vibrant and confident and excited about the future (All the bloody napoleonic wars came about because men were excited to go out and die for their country because they believed in their country) and broke it, leading to the postmodern period we live in today whose defining factor is the destruction of everything that came before. The world wars proved that we are just as barbaric as we ever were and the so-called modern man was a myth. Thus a period of destruction followed because people were tearing everything due to the PTSD of the horrors we created. As a result, the postmodern period has been about the destruction of values and replacing them with either nothing or with a minimally thought out emotional replacement that has no practical use. I expect the postmodern period to end with the pending global population collapse that's already started but will get really bad in the next 30 years or so.
The population collapse I'm talking about isn't something caused by a lack of resources or anything dramatic, it's a further manifestation of the suicidal impulse of postmodern society. The greatest generation came home from the world wars and procreated like mad. Their kids went out and procreated quite a lot creating the millennials which have been called the "echo boom". The millennials largely chose not to have kids and so the largest generation in history, the boomers, are starting to die off and they aren't being replaced by anything like the same amount of people, which will has created a virtually inescapable demographic cliff in most countries on earth. We won't be talking about the risks of overpopulation in the future, we're going to be facing the single largest population contraction in the history of planet earth.
In my view, there's no reason to be too concerned with the fall of postmodern civilization, that's inevitable as the moment the world wars ended and postmodernism started to become the modern paradigm, the failure of this civilization in its current form was inevitable. What we should be concerned with is protecting ourselves as best as we can from the wrath of the empire as it falls, and making sure we stay true to ourselves and stay grounded and anchored to reality.
One very positive thing is that whereas we've seen the greatest drop in the power of the non-elite individual ever in the past 50 years, as would be predicted by secular cycle theory, what comes afterwards is a golden age because the shrinking population gives individuals more bargaining power and individuals are better able to negotiate for their time and effort. We could even see entire dynasties replaced in many parts of the world, and there's no saying for sure what that looks like or what we replace the current order with.
Unfortunately, it is indeed true that just because there is upheaval it won't necessarily be good. Some secular cycles saw massive improvements in the lot of the people such as in 9th century europe where we saw many of the foundations laid for constitutional monarchies, but we saw the french revolution just became a bloody massacre that had everyone walking on eggshells for a long time and was so bad that some Frenchmen (the ones that were left after the purges) were actually considering putting the aristocracy back in charge (and did until they remembered that the aristocrats were decadent and parasitic)
The way to stay grounded in reality is to remember something important: Failure is an option. You CAN die, you CAN fail to procreate, and the spark of life that you represent that goes all the way back to the first single celled organism will be snuffed out. There are stakes, the physical world exists and you are not God, reality has the final say over what happens. Also, you need to find meaning in life. It's so easy once you see it, the world is beautiful and terrible and there's so many things besides the current moment in culture we can soak in to become something different than just the water we were born in.
In this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTDTVbourzU
I discovered something I never knew about the mouse utopia experiment: There were roaming gangs of violent mice who actively tried to attack anyone who was perpetuating positive behaviors in mouse society and had kids (who would need to exist for the mouse society to continue)
The more I learn about this experiment, the more I see the insane genocidal behaviors I see in our civilization. If the world were to be like the final result of the mouse utopia, it will be a successful genocide.
I discovered something I never knew about the mouse utopia experiment: There were roaming gangs of violent mice who actively tried to attack anyone who was perpetuating positive behaviors in mouse society and had kids (who would need to exist for the mouse society to continue)
The more I learn about this experiment, the more I see the insane genocidal behaviors I see in our civilization. If the world were to be like the final result of the mouse utopia, it will be a successful genocide.
Canadians are kinda retarded, so I wouldn't be surprised if they misunderstood the question or don't understand that suicide kills people.
I'm afraid Canada isn't nearly that based. At least not yet.
No, that's a few insane bureaucrats rolling a nat 1
No, that's a few insane bureaucrats rolling a nat 1