xyzelement

A few days ago I recall you taking the position that Israel should not exist and that anyone who disagree is a Zionist (correct definition) that you would not associate with.

The implication of your idea is what? The desire for a destruction of a state of 10 million people and another exhile of the Jews? That's the stance you deem moral - or am inferring unfairly (I hope I am actually)

If I am following correctly - you left Microsoft because it doesn't share this genocidal desire? I guess that's consistent and I admire that part, but the underlying perspective is horrifying when you just casually drop it in like that

Either the vote doesn't matter and don't have it, or it matters and you vote for your people.

Having great parents who overcame a lot and taught you how is the privilege

If it doesn't matter why did Africa make such a push for this projection?

As the article says, all protections have some distortions and it's just a matter of which ones you chose.

It's totally reasonable and rational for the African association of cartographer to push for this change - it makes their continent look bigger. At the margin, their children can look at the map and feel more significant.

On the flip side, this particular map makes Europe look smaller. So it means that at the margin, European children will look at the map and feel less significant.

It doesn't shock me that the US voted against it. I am surprised that others voted for it, and diminished themselves.

Not the person you are replying to, but I was greatly influenced by my grandparents who were themselves greatly influenced by how they were raised and their life experience.

That seems very common and normal. Of you weren't influenced by your grandparents that is a reflection of something too.

It's also New York legal which is rare for a semiauto that comes in 5.56. Ruger nailed it with guns that don't look scary. Don't have the mini-14 but do have the 10/22 and their PCC - both of which have all the functionality but none of the scary features.

// Honestly - and I don't mean that as an insult - I hope for you to experience (just once) the loss of dignity that not being able to visit the restroom on your own decision will give you. Might make you realize the hell this kind of thinking leads to.

I am not insulated and I think my post was received stronger than I intended, with my point being simply that there are jobs where physical presence at a given moment is more significant than in knowledge work for example (say whatever you want, bus drivers and others defacto hold it in if possible to avoid disruptions at least here in NYC)

And to be frank even at my job which is very removed from bus driving or warehouse work there are moments where I would feel self-pressure to hold it in short of a dire emergency.

(Eg, I am on stage at a speaker panel or something like that where my absence would be visible and disruptive)

Thank you for this informative comment.

Correct. In however long I've taken transit in NYC, I have never experienced a bus driver stepping out to pee, nor had a subway train held up for that reason. I am sure it happens, and I just read up on the rules around that - but the defacto is that this causes disruptions to passengers and the system and the employees do their best to hold it in and pee at the terminus.

I am glad that the rules allow bathroom breaks when emergent but the fact that people try to minimize it tells you something as well.

Sounds right. On the flip side there are jobs where random bathroom breaks don't really work.

EG: bus driver.

So I am actually not sure how that works for a pregnat bus driver. Letting her randomly stop the bus at rush hour to pee doesn't seem fair to the commuters. Probably in practice pregnant bus drivers get assigned to a short route or something like that.

I don't know the nature of Amazon warehouse work. It's possible that unscheduled bathroom breaks affect multiple people (eg, I am peeing and you are idle because you depend on me to do your task) - that's the only condition where this feels at all conscionable.

Yes but is it healthy.

If a kid graduated with comp sci degree in 2000, joined decent companies as a w2 employee, does he become "repugnant" and "deserves to be shunned if not punished" the moment his net worth crosses 1m, which may happen within a few years of graduation?

Or does he need to "marinade" a few years as a millionaire before we roll out the guillotine?

If he joined a worse company (or slacked and didn't get promoted) and hadn't become a millionaire, does he avoid the repugnancy and punishment?

What if he did make the money but blew on stupidity, does that also avoid that classification?

That's why I wrote "depending on where you are"

Do you think there's any good decision making and hard work involved too, or just pure dumb luck?

Depending on where you live most cars you see on the road are in the ballpark. It costs about 40k to change the roof on a house around here.

So 75k is both objectively massive, and not.

I won't argue "privilege" but it seems like both people in the couple have been working for a long time and took equity bets that paid off.

Another way to look at it, in many tech jobs 75k could be a bonus (additional to salary an equity)