jamestnz
Joined 14 years ago
Joined 14 years ago
https://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescriptio...
[1] wording and attribution varies
If there are 10 births, where 9 of the children die in infancy but 1 lives to be 100 years old, their average life expectancy would be about 10.
In my country the unions are fairly well-established and tend to sit across an entire sector, covering all businesses operating in it (workers individually choose whether or not to join, but the company isn't allowed to discriminate either way). Like there will be a Nurses union, a Teachers union, a Public Sector union, a Warehousing and Logistics union, a Port & Dockworkers union, a Retail Workers union... the list goes on. One US example I've heard of like this is in trucking (Teamsters union?), but I know little about the history of US labour relations generally. Could there be an Amazon Workers union that covers an entire state?
Employers of a certain size here are also obliged to provide registered unions with access to business premises, ability to hold certain (non-mandatory) union meetings during work hours, etc. Some industries have upwards of 20-30% of all employees joined to the union, a few even higher.
Also, I keep seeing this claim repeated during the last week or so... what gives?
I wonder if this is all based solely on a rather breathless (and now deleted) reddit post from 9 days ago? https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/yhftqo/ysk_m...
People in a different subreddit were less convinced:
https://www.reddit.com/r/macsysadmin/comments/yho0cf/ysk_mac...
And also low-margin businesses. If you tax a business on its total sales rather than profits, a low-margin and high-volume operation cannot survive as easily.
Example. A supermarket chain makes many sales, collecting average 5% margins on a sale. A seller of high-end automobiles moves fewer units, but can take a 15% margin. Assume both businesses make the same $1m sales in a year.
If you're taxing profits at 20% the supermarket pays $10k on $50k profit while the car dealer pays $30k on $150k profit, for a total tax take of $40k.
If you're instead taxing total sales at 2%, each will pay $20k on their $1m sales. The same total taxes were raised, but the tax burden (at least in terms of retained earnings that are now available for reinvestment) has fallen differently. The supermarket is paying 40% of their profits in taxes, the car dealer is paying 13.3% of their profits in taxes.
And if a business makes only 1% average margin on their sales, they are underwater by this scheme. ($1m sales, $10k profit, $20k tax).
Within hours of the planes hitting the towers on 9/11, before any information was in, Rumsfeld's aides were drawing up plans for striking Iraq, despite zero evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. The number one priority for the White House, above finding out who the real culprits were, was to figure out how to use it as a rationale to invade Iraq. This is not really a controversial viewpoint, it is documented fact [1].
When the 9/11 rationale for invading Iraq became untenable, it was replaced by the idea that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, that he'd definitely been procuring uranium from Niger. Except these were lies too (and the WH knew it, because they'd sent Joe Wilson to investigate and he'd reported back as such). When Wilson heard them saying it despite knowing it was false, he contradicted them in public [2]. In an act of retribution, the WH leaked his wife's position as a CIA agent, burning valuable contacts and networks, and endangering friendly lives.
Then they moved onto the argument that regardless of WMDs, the Iraqi people actually wanted the invasion anyway, US forces would be welcomed as liberators by gift-bearing citizens, etc. When that didn't pan out either, a final argument became that Saddam was a tyrant and that fact alone provided sufficient moral and legal justification for preemptive war (i.e. The Bush Doctrine) [3].
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/plans-for-iraq-attack-began-on-...
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49856792
[3] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/
I could fill up my cart, but had to come back later to do my purchase.
Come now, let's not be obtuse. People naturally behave differently in different social contexts, a thing that is totally normal and expected.
For instance, consider how you'd behave in a professional situation, vs when drinking with your friends, vs when catching up with your grandmother.
Having different standards in different online communities seems no different.
For an example of HRV, let's say you're showing a heart rate of exactly 95 BPM for a one minute period, which means an average of one beat every 0.6316 second. If the actual beats were very close to occurring exactly once every 0.6316 sec like clockwork, then you have a low HRV.
At some later time, you also measure 95 BPM during a one minute period, but this time you find the period between beats is much more variable. Sometimes it is 0.627 seconds, and sometimes it is 0.641 seconds. The beats aren't falling like clockwork, they are all over the place.
The second example is a high HRV, both examples having the same heart rate.
Accurate beat-measuring equipment is required to calculate HRV (e.g. a heart-rate watch and an app).
"The Roman Mars Mazda Virus" https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/brh8jm
This may be an instance of the Waterbed Principle: in any sufficiently-complex system, suppressing or refactoring some undesirable characteristic in one area inevitably causes an undesirability to pop up somewhere else. Like there is some minimum amount of complexity/ugliness/etc that it is possible for the entire system to contain while still carrying out its essential functions, and it must leak out somewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbed_theory