domain:aerosociety.com
hydroacetylene
19m ago
Average American worker earns $1000/week for forty hours work, or $25/hr, which makes a restaurant meal for four priced out at average American wages under your numbers ~$90. Equivalent to raising the price of chilis to a steakhouse price.
hydroacetylene
24m ago
I don't think SF nerds are thrilled about:
an overweight, chain-smoking phlebotomy school dropout
hydroacetylene
26m ago
Women tend to take after their male partners; if you're dating a marriageable woman and the two of you know you're compatible then don't worry about divorce, just pop the question, because she'll copy your 'just make it work, no matter the cost' mentality.
phailyoor
27m ago
She directed me to the corporate number.
She's probably been explicitly told by corporate not to comment on the matter.
4bpp
After January 20th, all orange flairs are considered political
28m ago
Well, that's how much the supervisor takes home - what are salary overheads in the UK like? Continental European countries tend to have between 1.5x and 2.5x.
hydroacetylene
29m ago
Have you considered that she may have simply not wanted to talk about it, or known much about it, and been leaning on approved phrasing from corporate to avoid having to talk about something she didn't want to?
Gaashk
30m ago
I worked at a large corporate coffee chain for a while, and the entire charm of the job was a series of short, easy, straightforward interactions. Someone wanted a mediocre but predictable latte and a smile. I would smile and make them a latte. It was positive and predictable for all concerned. Everyone was happiest during the rush phase of the day, when these small positive interactions happened in quick succession. Everyone was least happy during the slow part, when we had to engage in daily cleaning tasks like restrooms, mopping, drains, and sometimes odd customers who would try to chat about my ethnic background or something.
The interaction described above sounds quite unpleasant from the perspective of the worker, more than remaking a coffee. But, yeah, mostly it's because he isn't actually a customer.
hydroacetylene
31m ago
I was happy to buy a coffee and buy one for the employee, or one of her colleagues, for their candid take on current events.
But... you didn't?
hydroacetylene
32m ago
Your "just for fun" is her job, and for a working class person can be very precarious. Retail workers are not dancing monkeys, especially when you weren't even going to buy anything or tip her!
In this economy? She can get a new, equivalent job tomorrow. Not a great job, but she already didn't have that.
There is simply a shortage of customer service workers compared to people wanting customer service. Yes, this means standards for friendliness to customers have declined. I'm personally ok with that and would rather the 'all business' model of customer service become standard(I have requested new waiters for being overly personal with the friendliness before), but lots of Americans aren't used to that.
hydroacetylene
39m ago
Starbucks is not a business I frequent- I'm a tea drinker and also can't bring myself to pay $3 for a drink and also just don't care for big globs of sugar that have some coffee added to them, maybe with a healthy dose of artificial colors and flavors. But they are, literally, everywhere. I can't avoid seeing starbuckses. And it seems like it varies- some of them have cute young women working there being friendly to customers, some of them have trannies being curt.
I am, however, very surprised that you expected much comment from a counter employee about something political involving the company. There's a decent chance she could be disciplined for speaking about it to a customer. There's also a good chance she'd been being bothered for months about it and thought the whole thing was stupid and was sick of hearing about it.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
46m ago
I'll wager that if we're still here in 3-5 years, you'll be saying the same thing about underestimating the Chinese capacity for self-sabotage.
I have never underestimated their capacity for self-sabotage.
Your complaints about GWOT are motivated reasoning, GWOT was quite successful for Israel at least.
The US has been able to grow its economy extremely rapidly through Chinese industrialization, without that your, as marxists say, Internal Contradictions would have likely brought about a protracted recession already. Don't forget that in 2008, it was China that bailed you out. Those aren't so much major errors as conflicts of priority between sectors of American elite.
where's the golden era in American foreign and domestic policy mediated by these people?
1970s-2023, I'd say. Your safe and prosperous world is a product of an overall competent policy. Just continuing and improving on Biden's program could have been enough. See the success of CHIPS act, for example.
Like what, the financial system that proved utterly incapable of regime change in Iran or hindering Russia's ability to wage war?
Like owning the biggest consumer market in the world, most of the world's most prized IP, having military presence in all corners of the world. It's not the UN, it's the ability to spit at UN decisions and opinion of all UN members individually when needed, and not suffer economic consequences like Russia.
You bring up Russia and Ukraine - in March 2022, was there anyone (including what we can guess the US state department thought at the time!) who confidently predicted the outcome would be >= 3 year grinding war with little movement on the front, dominated by drone warfare?
I recall I did predict a long grinding war after like a week of it. Failure of the brazen paratrooper operation at Hostomel suggested that no quick resolution is likely; Ukrainians recognize it was a pivotal point, and if better executed (and less competently opposed), would have likely allowed Russia to settle the war on preferred terms. There have been a few others who thought likewise. I did miss drones, and predicted more WWII style mass mobilization with heavy artillery and aviation use and millions dead. We got some WWII features but not that. What did you say at the time?
If Americans were truly hegemonic and held that as their goal, the world would look very different.
Sorry, this sounds very much like Russian “we haven't even started yet” narrative to me.
Jiro
53m ago
Or are you perhaps confusing the Dean quoted by Pasha here to be referring to me, the user who goes by Dean
You did say this in response to Pasha saying that ethics courses are in his experience useless:
If you ever get a chance, do a self-driven review a compare / contrast of ethic courses and frameworks for different professional groups with different stakes in human harm. Even if it's just regulators who enforce safety standards, medical policymakers that shape the standards, and state prosecutors who's job it is to give the people who violated the standards a bad day in court, the overlaps and distinctions in what they base their professional-ethic frameworks upon can be enlightening.
This sounds like you were saying "no, ethics courses aren't useless, go research them yourself to find out".
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
56m ago
I think to be honest most Americans are, to borrow a phrase from the Chinese, unserious as a people. Their need for an easy life and for getting exactly what they want exactly how and when they want it. It’s the mentality of a child. And I think this harms dating and marriage because being in a relationship with another living person requires work and compromise and commitment that more often than not people are less willing to accept.
hydroacetylene
56m ago
I mean, to start with the obvious, the things that past generations would have considered important are just present at a lower rate. Stable full time employment is down among men(and this is the rough equivalent of 'access to farmland' that would have been very important in ~1850, don't @ me about how way back when jobs weren't important because they weren't really a thing). Women are fatter, more mentally ill, less religious, worse at home ec, and, yes, higher body count(not as high as redpillbros and incels seem to believe, but higher than in 1950). Pot in the fifties was fairly rare, and regardless of your opinions on its effects for the median user, it does seem to turn at least a substantial minority into giant losers when they weren't previously. Gambling addicts back in the day before draftkings were obvious. And it was just understood that if you were seeing a girl you proposed in a matter of weeks, maybe months on the high end(I'm not exaggerating the timeframe), making commitment up front more of a thing on offer from the average guy.
Now some of that is feminism(let's not kid ourselves about first wave-second wave-third wave- it all bears some responsibility, even with delayed impacts). Some of it is new technology(vape pens, gambling websites, gig work). Some of it is other societal trends, such as lengthy education and glorifying mental illness. Feminism definitely bears the blame for societal unwillingness to even talk about the problem; most people actually want a relationship in accord with fairly conventional gender roles and feminism at every stage has invested itself in abolishing gender roles, even in little stuff(women wearing pants may not, at the end of the day, matter very much, but it was a controversy in its day).
Gender roles are important, at the end of the day, this just basic set of expectations that each spouse has their job which comes before anything else. But at the end of the day, a 'just get rid of x' solution is almost always woefully insufficient. At a guess if we just threw feminism out we'd be wanting it back- probably because Andrew Tate would be the replacement. The structures which made a nonfeminist society- the strong gender roles- have to come back first.
the_others
1hr ago
My (admittedly clumsily made) point was more that rich women's male peers, including their matches on the apps, are almost universally employed and non-criminal, so such verification would be mostly useless. The distinction would be more useful for underclass women, for whom the verification system would reveal actual information about their potential male partners.
BinaryHobo
hauling up the data on the Xerox line
1hr ago
The entire law itself, or are we trying to throw out the precedent that was set with the clever argument? I suppose that's a little more important in common law countries.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
1hr ago
I am... less surprised at the pushback you have received than you are, but that's because I work in a retail adjacent industry I think. And I post more. Anyway I sympathise with your perspective, although I think it's a little outdated. Everyone is calling you rude and entitled, but from my perspective you have what seems to me the default attitude to retail of everyone gen x and older (and the occasional millenial and zoomer) - in any transaction there is a buyer and the seller - the buyer is there to buy something, the seller is there to sell something. Therefore, if the seller wants to sell their product, it is up to them to get the buyer to buy it. Whether they are angry, calm, crying, raging, male, female, black, white, gay, straight, trans, cis - if you want their money you have to convince them to give it to you. The buyer on the other hand, has one responsibility - to hand over the money required to purchase the good. That's it. They could talk entirely in profanity if they liked - as long as they pay, they get service.
Which is to say that yes you were being entitled, but it was precisely as entitled as Starbucks wanted their customers to feel until recently. (It was also as entitled as Starbucks wanted every visitor to feel for a few years there, but that was always madness.) Starbucks didn't become a household name, land a store on every corner and redesign the coffee industry because they made good coffee, everyone is aware of that, but few people ask the follow up 'why were they successful then?' Starbucks' runaway success was in large part due to the way they treated their staff - and a large part of that was their profit sharing type program that gave even the baristas and other part timers stock options. Having a stake in the success of the company, the baristas worked extra hard to convert customers into sales - aka they smiled even when they didn't feel like it. That tied the reliability and success of a corporate operation to the atmosphere and staff behaviour of a mom and pop outfit, and consumers went nuts for it. People want to feel like their presence is wanted and they will drink poisonous tar to feel it.
And I understand the people who feel it's duplicitous to pretend to be nice to someone you loathe or pretend to be happy when you feel like shit, but a) that's society and b) that's what they're being paid for, most people don't care if they grind the beans a particular way, they just want a cute girl or guy to smile when they get their coffee. And yes, maybe it's selfish to not want to worry about tailoring your behaviour to not upset some barista you'll never see again, but I think it is eminently more selfish - and entitled - to expect strangers to treat you like you belong in their Dunbar's group. Especially when you are being paid to be there and the stranger is paying you.
Buy something next time though lol.
07mk
1hr ago
Given hypergamy, I wouldn't be surprised if a woman's wealth - or at least her earnings - are positively correlated with how important she considers her partner to be gainfully employed and to lack a criminal record (which might not lower status in all contexts, but which would provide greater risk in the man's ability to keep earning money).
the_others
1hr ago
That would be very ironic, since I imagine the kind of woman who would most value full time employment and the lack of a criminal record in a man would be unlikely to be described as "rich".
Korea and Vietnam were not wars of national defense for the US, USSR, and China. My point is that nukes are probably sufficient to deter other powers from launching major attacks on your own territory, not that they are sufficient to put an end to all forms of war.
Also, I phrased my comment poorly. I was not trying to say that NATO does not or will not use conscription. Clearly, some NATO members already use conscription right now. I was trying to say that NATO, insofar as it actually is a defensive alliance, does not actually need to use conscription. But to some extent it uses conscription anyway.
That said, maybe I'm wrong. I do not think that NATO would abandon, say, Finland or Poland to a Russian invasion out of fear of nuclear war - since this would mean the end of NATO as a viable alliance. But certainly a country would prefer to be able to fight off an invasion in the first place, rather than just relying on waiting for a NATO counterattack to liberate it at some point later.
Goodguy
2hr ago
You started to ask her political questions at 9 in the morning. I don't generally get into the mood of talking to anyone for longer than a couple of sentences until it's 10 am or so. Some people are not morning people. On top of that, as others have pointed out, the questions that you asked her may be risky for her to answer. You also judged her appearance. Only internally to your own mind, sure, but it's possible that the judgment energy radiated out from you to her just like her 'fuck you' energy radiated from her to you. Who knows which came first.
George_E_Hale
insufferable blowhard
2hr ago
I should update and add all the suggested revisions.
iprayiam3
3hr ago
Re: the not allowed to give out a cup of water, it’s likely related to some general ups and downs in their loitering policy drama over the past several years.
I don’t recall the ins and outs and may be getting timing wrong but basically around George Floyd, there was a lot of bad optics around not letting people loiter or use the bathroom without being paying customers. This was seen as racism and bad. But meanwhile there were a lot of people taking advantage of such open doors policies, and basically loitering junkies we’re driving away customers.
Not giving out free water is perfectly reasonable way to discourage freeloading loiterers who might disrupt the appeal of the space for paying customers.
If you let that policy happen via discretion you risk the cancel mob highlighting perceived inequity, and wage workers don’t want to get plastered on the internet for that shit.
Blanket ban is much safer for the establishment as well as the workers to have blanket policies like this.
15 years ago I worked at a fast food restaurant right next to a college bar and we had similar policy because otherwise drink college kids who spent no money filled up the place and interfered with the business
TIRM
3hr ago
I'm late to the party but for the sake of completion: Varg is Varg Vikernes. The notorious serial arsonist, convicted murderer, white supremacist, black metal musician and sometimes Twitter shitposter. Also made his own white supremacist pen and paper fantasy RPG. He's a theater kid gone mad.
If I recall correctly, Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine involves using a lot more tactical warheads to offset Indian conventional superiority in the event of an invasion, so their warheads are a lot more widespread and forward deployed. Which would make the possibility of accidentally striking warheads a lot more likely. 4Chan found evidence of US Department of Energy personnel getting flown into Pakistan shortly after the strike. The DoE build’s American nuclear weapons so they would be the type of people you would ask to get cleanup advice.
More options
Context Copy link