throwaway7312

[flagged]

Our business was on MailChimp years ago.

We were on a paid tier. In 2012 we decided to try sending our own email via arpReach + SES. Once we set this up we asked MailChimp how to pause our paid account. We wanted to stop sending email and return to a free account until we needed MailChimp again.

Their response was that there was no way to do that... I recall it being something like "we do not like" or "do not allow" customers to return to free accounts. You could either keep paying, or delete your account and everything in it.

We'd already moved our MailChimp-collected emails over to arpReach (on our own server). At that point, I just opted to delete our MailChimp account.

Everything was fine while we used them. But that strange incident left a really bad taste in my mouth; it was one I never forgot.

My experience hiring women for our company has been 1.) they often don't want the job, 2.) when they get the job, they often balk at how demanding it is, then 3.) if they do stick around, regardless how much training we give them we end up having to let them go. This is not all female hires; we have women in customer service roles, for example, who outperformed our male hires; the females kept the job, the males did not. But for more technical roles, they have consistently either balked at the workload or underperformed and been quickly fired (we fire male workers who underperform just as quickly).

I would love to hire female employees who are every bit as driven, thorough, methodical, and accountable as our best male employees (the ones we don't fire), who are also cheaper. But they do not seem to exist.

The rare female prospective hires who are available and seem good are often priced so high I assume their rates are the result of Fortune 500 companies competing over them to have an effective female on the team. Good for them, but until effective females become cheaper than effective males it doesn't make sense for us to hire them from a value perspective (we don't need the social signaling points).

"I have no sympathy for people who want to make a living by making things who then rent space in existing channels to tell users said things are for sale. At this point I'm rooting for anyone making bootstrapping and entrepreneurship less viable."

It's that, + "middle class going broke after being conned by Trump University & the gig economy."

Ever notice how Republican presidents are always portrayed by partisan liberals as blithering idiots (Bush II as a religious fundamentalist warmonger dunce; Trump as an narcissistic ADD loose cannon dunce)?

And how Democrat presidents are always portrayed by partisan conservatives as morally corrupt degenerates (Clinton as a murdering, philandering drug kingpin; Obama as a Kenyan-born Muslim homosexual on globalist puppet strings)?

Usually I just assume this is confirmation bias + partisans being partisan.

But sometimes I like to wonder, "What if it's all true?"

It sounds more like anti-natalism is your personal philosophy, and you make the same assumption the holders of most philosophical, ideological, and religious positions make: sooner or later, everyone else will realize to be true what I realize is true.

The history of man suggests otherwise. The more our civilization progresses, and the more the population swells, the broader the array of philosophical positions those within the civilization tend to hold. We have no evidence for everyone eventually coalescing around one 'right' belief set.

History is also littered with non-reproductive sects, like the Essenes, aesthetics, or, today's answer to these, anti-natalists and child-free individuals. These groups don't tend to be very good at passing their belief systems on to new generations however, as one might expect, and they don't tend to last particularly long once they've emerged on the civilization scene.