accountyaccount

There's still a lot of fear with the federal government still seeing it as illegal. Jeff Sessions could destroy your investment overnight.

Going to chime in with a nitpicky female voice here: abortion isn't really a reoccurring long-term form of birth control that should be lumped in with the pill or IUDs.

It's kind of like calling a fighter jet's eject sequence a landing option.

Not picking on you specifically, I just know a lot of men who toss around abortion pretty lightly. Even if you're pro-choice it can often weigh on you.

Sure, but if you get a ticket for doing 100 in a 50 you might be out a few hundred bucks. If you hit someone while doing 100 in a 50 you'll be in jail. Outcomes still matter.

[2009]

Wait wait wait, he committed fraud... but everyone he defrauded actually ended up getting a 3X return on their investment because he just took money from another one of his ventures?

I mean, illegal sure, but seems like he still held up his end of the bargain.

story of my life

A lot has changed since they started, I imagine it's a nice "if you had to start all over again how would you do it differently" moment. A lot of companies don't really get that chance, hence: cool.

Now, maybe it's completely wrong for them and they shouldn't be — that's a totally fair assessment. I honestly don't know.

Most major redesigns end up being a mistake. It's cool that they're re-writing, but they should change things for users in an iterative way or they're going to get extreme backlash. People do not respond well to drastic change to the point where even quantifiable positive change is often met with complaints.

It could very well be superior, but the moment someone says "like Facebook" about any sort of newsfeed the response will essentially be "BURN THE WITCH"

A manager could then point to the salary of someone in the same position and say

"Jane gets paid $X in the same position, it would be unfair to give you a raise and not her"

I don't work somewhere with transparent salaries and I already get that excuse — I've more than once heard "you're kind of already at the top of our range for X position" and "if we pay you anymore you'll be making more than me!"

Why is the assumption that when a political party hates something, it's because the opposing party did something wrong?

I know a lot of over-zealous liberals who have definitely misrepresented facts, but honestly I don't think I've seen anyone ever do anything that made me think "oh ok, science must be fake"

It's just willful ignorance.

It's kind of sad that you think accuracy is the reason conservatives hate liberal ideas (sad because I know you're trying your best to help here).

You're talking about a political base that is currently thriving almost entirely on spite and a total absence of fact. They don't give a shit how accurate your x-axis is labeled, they're at the point where in some circles they discredit science as a concept.

College Football on the other hand...

I realize, you know, just being a jerk on the internet.

There are even chemicals in our brains!

I feel like it boils down to options a bit.

If I don't take the opportunity to work in Australian mines, will I have a reasonable opportunity to find work and provide a comfortable living for my family?

If that answer would change whether or not I'd work in a mine, I'd consider that the work may be exploitative of a regional work shortage. At that point someone might feel as though sacrificing their health is their only option, and an informed decision is much harder to make.

Like many ethical questions, it warrants discussion even though there may not be a "right" answer either way.