@fmac's banner p

fmac

Ask me about bike lanes

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2024 December 26 01:43:24 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 3415

fmac

Ask me about bike lanes

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2024 December 26 01:43:24 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3415

Verified Email

I've been there

Charge inaccurate hours to make sure you don't come off as inefficient or underutilised? Well the number is all fake anyway, so why track hours in the first place? Timekeeping ends up being a pointless part of the job, a metric that can be optimised for greatest manager and partner satisfaction, but provides zero actual value

Just do this. Just make your boss happy. The best part about timesheets being fake is you don't even need to worry about it. Every Friday just do a vibes based analysis of your work that week, ensuring that 1) you hit utilization and 2) you weight your hours towards the biggest files so no one gets mad about going over budget

So many things in large bureaucratic organizations are stupid wastes of time. So just play the game, fly under the radar, and the second you make senior or manager retire to industry.

Also warning, tax departments at large dinosaur(ish) corporations like telecoms are incredibly burnt. You won't have much to do and you'll be bored out of your mind. Great if you want kids though.

Brother, I saw the words "emotional damage" in your initial post and combined with the fact you haven't even had sex?

This isn't worth it, this isn't worth it at all. Run, run run run and put your energy (and newly learned lessons) into someone who you can actually see/smell/touch, also also hopefully who generates less emotional damage

I mean yes? I'm not sure what that has to do with this but it's true

Great point re: average age of first marriage, never considered that

I like this analysis and I agree with your commentary

My point was embracing "Tell them not to have premarital sex." is a method that won't work, and thus, is silly to endorse

I mean okay?

Any proposed policy or solution that requires massive (edit: and unpopular) social change to work isn't a very useful proposal, but it's a nice dream I guess

My claim is that anyone who says "we should simply tell them to not have sex" as a method of preventing unwanted babies is being willfully ignorant of the fact it's been conclusively demonstrated not to work

That does seem plausible, although a bit too narrow

But also humans like to have sex so if you tell them "don't have sex, that is all" then they won't listen to you and won't use birth control they're unaware exists

I tried skimming a few papers but figuring out which states the data came from was a pain in the ass so I gave up, happy to both walk away feeling like we're right

given this place has always been more disaffected liberals than anything else

I think I probably fall into that bucket but it's funny because I've been turbo posting here for a week due to an injury keeping me indoors and I absolutely feel like my political/etc views are a minority

Maybe this is a recent development, but this place strikes me as rather* right wing with a strong pro-natalist/Christian lean

I agree

Putting everything else aside, flexing your upvote count on someone is profoundly cringe

Especially as this site has a pretty strong ideological bias, and like literally every website with voting, voting is 100% indicative of in-group/out-group agreement/disagreement and is largely unrelated to comment quality

Ohhhh, gotcha

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters

They have, continuing a trend that started over a year ago

Don't totally follow you here

I would like to present one of ChatGPTs greatest works, it's also like chatGPT 3 or 3.5, so it's basically an archeological text at this point.

Shooty shooty pew pew pew!

Let’s all learn what guns can do!

Liberals in the USA

Love to nod their heads and say,

“You bought your guns from a store!

You can’t fight a civil war!

Fight the army, you will lose!

They have jets and tanks to use!”

That’s not where the story ends!

They have homes, and kids, and friends!

Tyrants threaten you with bombs?

Just remember: they have moms!

You can’t live inside your jet!

Can we find you? Yes, you bet!

You’d send soldiers and marines

Up against AR-15s?

They’re outnumbered ten to one.

That is why I need a gun.

Don’t forget, because it’s true:

Government is scared of you.

Have competent technocrats in positions of power? And then have them do competent things publicly

The Canadian liberals just did this pivot, although we'll see if they can follow through

I think his point here is that repeatedly having sex, if left to run it's natural course, will result in a baby.

So repeatedly having sex and always using birth control means you've deviated from the natural course in a way that prevents a baby from growing up

don't have premarital sex

How is convincing western populations not to do this going?

Follow up question, does abstinence only sex education show any efficacy in preventing pregnancies?

Because 1 clearly doesn't work?

Remember all the abstinence only culture war stuff in the late 2000s / early 2010s?

Pretty sure abstinence only sex ed resulted in the highest rates of teenage pregnancy

To be fair, it's not exactly a stellar screenshot lol

No, it shows PP with 4% odds, when he had 1% moments before, and the newspapers had all called the election against him.

This screenshot was sent in a group chat as we talked shit about the election, not saved to specifically document the timeline of odds.

You don't have to believe me if you don't want to.

You could even probably dig into the comment section of the market and find all the people saying "hold the line" if you were so inclined.

Yeah I went and looked too and couldn't find it, I just remembered I have a screenshot.

https://imgur.com/a/oiQI0wg

It's the resolution of the graph, can't see it.

The Trump vs Kamala odds stayed irrational for a significant chunk of election day. A guy in my office worked out an arbitrage play between one of the sites and Kalshi that worked on the math. Unfortunately he couldn't execute because one of them required you to be a US citizen.

Trumps odds were also inflated vs the polling for a while, driven I think theoretically by a French millionaire (if I remember correctly) who was dumping large sums into Trump bets.

Edited my comment to be more clear.

This was ~30 mins around midnight after the voting stations closed and after every major news organization had called the election against him.

Like the election was over, he had lost. His odds were <1% because every major newspaper had come out and said "we are calling it, Carney has won". But then the boys rallied and moved the needle for a bit.

As so often, attack precedes defense.

I actually think drones have been a bigger win for Ukraine than Russia.

The longer a Russian attack takes and the further into Ukrainian lines they get, more and more drones get vectored onto their attacking troops. And it's hard to suppress them, so every Russian attack inevitably gets bogged down. They cannot for the life of them generate a breakthrough.

Otherwise, spot on analysis.

According to Polymarket Eric Adams has a slim but present chance of holding his seat.

While in general I think betting markets are a useful(ish) signal. They are ludicrously irrational when it comes to political odds.

I am not a gambler by nature, so I haven't dabbled, but both the Trump v Kamala and the recent Canadian Election had essentially free money bets available during the election hysteria.

At one point very briefly, Pierre Poilievre's odds of winning went from <1% to 5% for ~30 mins around midnight after the voting stations closed and after every major news organization had called the election against him. The reason? "Poilievre bros" were "rallying" and "holding the line against the lib-tards". They were literally throwing money away, I regretted not having an account in that moment.