drphungky

Hear hear! The government should completely get out of marriage and leave it to religion, or completely go in on encouraging marriage (actually domestic partnerships) between whoever if we think it’s going to be good for communities. Before Obergefell I would’ve said marriage is old, let religions have it. Encouraging people to take part in their community, have close ties with benefits like hospital visitation, tax breaks, etc should all be domestic partnership based, and we should’ve made everyone get domestic partnered - marriage should have conferred no civic benefits. As is, we have a weird hybrid religious and civic thing called marriage but at least everyone has access now.

But yeah as far as encouraging families we should do the same incentive wise with having kids and immigration to help with our birth rate problems, and continue trying to make home ownership more affordable (and more varied - looking at you missing middle housing) and encouraging it to again, incentivize investing in local communities. Civic policy like this stuff gets jumbled and we should be more clear about what we want to incentivize and why.

I am shocked I had to scroll this far to find someone saying this stuff exists. Literally look around on Lemmy, check the comment section of the Washington Post, like half of TikTok, a huge portion of twitter, etc. All of it full of angry radical liberals, actual communists, people crying for guillotines, deriding uneducated hicks and rednecks. Mocking all christians instead of just the fundamentalists, constantly deriding white men for existing, even just dumb infantile names (e.g. Repug-licans). Literally last night at my local college, some portion of protestors started calling for lynching college administrators. Now I’m not saying pro-palestinian protests are full of those people, just like the average liberal would be pretty ok with universal healthcare but miiiight not favor seizing the means of production or banning landlords. But even though these people are a minority, they’re just like the crazy right wingers - they are loud, and paint with the same wide brush that hardcore conservatives do, just using a different color.

And I want to be clear, this isn’t some enlightened centrism bullshit where I’m saying “both sides suck.” I am actually very, very left wing (though on Lemmy sometimes it seems like that makes me a moderate because I’m not calling for guillotining the rich, but I digress), and I probably agree with 90% of the angry people’s actual policy views. But at least anger and vitriol wise, and even a tiny portion of radical policy-wise, the fringe of “both sides” do kind of suck. Not everyone who is angry fits that profile (certainly I get angry thinking about climate change, but I’m not out there telling everyone who drives a truck they’re evil). But many people like that absolutely exist, and OP not seeing them likely is a result of our fractured echo chamber world, certainly not because they aren’t there and angry.

SAS so I could get more work. Plus it’s crazy fast and great for statistics and economics, which is my field. It’s also easier to learn for non programmers than Python. It’s a great language, and its only real fault is terrible naming constraints. It sucks to be the guy pushing for more C# and Python because no one knows SAS, but at this point the cost is just prohibitive.

This but FreeCAD!

That’s a pretty unfair characterization. He called out multiple times how it’s fine for the other guy if that’s what he wants, but that it’s not his own specific wants. And his central thesis is fine: coasting is fine as long as you’re going to be ok with where you coast to. If you want to be somewhere else then coasting is not fine - but it’s up to you where you want to go.

In my experience, at first managing is always harder than doing it yourself, because you’re usually put in charge of managing people who do what you used to do.

Have you ever been in a situation where you’ve had to do something at work, but you were hamstrung by your tools or timelines? Like, oh man this would be way easier in Python but you are only approved for MS office, so you have to struggle through some VBA. Or man, I could whip this together super fast in Ruby but for some reason this has to be in plain JavaScript. Or maybe you could make this really well, but not in the two day turnaround they need. All that is frustrating, but you usually find a way to perform given these imperfect scenarios.

Now, imagine VBA has feelings. You can’t even really complain about VBA, because it’s not malicious. It’s just bad at its job. So now instead of quickly coding a workaround in a new language (but you learn fast so not the end of the world), you have to help someone get there and do it on their own. And you can’t just do it for them because you have 4 VBAs. Oh, and by the way, JavaScript is malicious. It’s actively trying to avoid work, or maybe trying to make VBA look bad. So now you have to convince JavaScript that it’s in its best interest to work. Sometimes its a carrot, sometimes a stick, but you’re responsible for getting functionality out, and it’s more functionality than you could possibly create on your own.

That’s what managing people is like. A deep desire to do it yourself because it will be better and faster, but you don’t have time, and also you need these people to be better. So you have to learn to teach instead of do, and support emotionally and intellectually and motivate instead of just bitching to your manager when someone else isn’t getting their work done and it’s affecting your work - now you’re responsible for getting their work to be good. It’s really hard, and some people who were amazing achievers and doers can’t hack it when they have to help other people achieve and do. It’s why you have so many bad manager stories. The skillsets are nearly completely different.

The nice part though is when you get good enough at managing that you start managing people that do things you can’t do, or do things better than you ever could. Suddenly there’s some whiz kid straight out of college who knows more about data science from their degree than you did your whole career actuallydoing it, and all they really need help with is applying it. Then you start helping with vision and the “why” of things. “Yes, you could do it that way, but remember our actual end goal is X, so that’s all we really care about.” Or you help people work together to make a cohesive whole. That’s when managing gets really rewarding. It can still be harder than doing, or it might be easier if you’re a big picture thinker, but it gets different eventually.

You should because that’s how tipping works. No one likes tipping (as a customer anyway, plenty of servers and owners do), but until servers are provided with a living wage that’s how it works. You’re not changing the system by tipping less - you’re just being a dick.

And not for nothing, but there is a slight difference between soda service and a simple pour service. Actual liquor service usually comes with someone asking how you like it (e.g. on the rocks vs straight vs three drops of water) whereas a soda is just a soda. Sitting at a bar, no one is gonna get pissy if you’re not tipping 15-20% on opening beers or straight pours, but that’s just how table service works.

You have clearly never worked in the service industry. They make the same sub minimum wage as every server unless there’s a local ordinance otherwise.

It’s a question of opportunity cost. In order to be really attentive they work fewer tables, so they need to have higher margins to make up for lack of volume. If you can’t afford a 15% tip, or 20% for good service, you shouldn’t be eating at an expensive restaurant to begin with. That’s the social compact in America, that’s how it works. Until servers start being paid a living wage, you’re not the arbiter of what constitutes paying “enough”, you’re just rejecting cultural norms and hurting servers so you can save a few bucks.

I hope you’re not capping your sit down restaurant tips in America. Most more expensive places have waiters working far fewer tables so they can be more attentive, and they’re also usually the cream of the crop waiter wise. The higher total tips but still a normal percentage are definitely what they need/deserve to make the longer meals and fewer tables make sense financially (assuming the service actually was good of course).

Note I’m not advocating for any of this “20% is the new baseline” bullshit, but you definitely shouldn’t be capping your tips. Same goes for capping your bar tips unless you’re talking about only pouring wine/drafts or opening beers, and then I’d still advocate a per drink cap of like a buck per - definitely not a total cap.

Well that’s just false. Many people don’t tip for takeout (I don’t), but the customary amount in the US is 10% if you’re going to. I worked in the service industry almost 20 years ago and that amount was supposed to go to bartenders and hostesses who handled the takeout, and it was a nice supplement since takeout and busy bar times didnt normally overlap. It didn’t use to be expected (unlike post covid where tipping is out of control), but if they bring the food out to you or if you have any special orders it’s definitely common. I still bristle at the idea and did back then too, but it’s a far cry from “nobody in their right mind”.

Yeah, based on OP saying low WAF, I’m guessing maybe he didn’t set up the content server? Ours is great, and I can read on my phone or 2-in-1.

Definitely same.

For our northern cousins, an illustrative story. I was attacked by a dog and with my arm and leg bleeding everywhere my first call was to my wife to get her to come pick me up because I knew an ambulance would be insanely expensive, and my second call was to insurance to find out if I could go to the hospital instead of urgent care. They sent me to urgent care, where they told me it was the worst attack they’d ever seen that wasn’t on the face.

The kicker is that I even have GOOD insurance, but that’s the reality of not knowing if it’s gonna bankrupt you or be covered or not: hesitation. That’s the reality of having years of habit-forming second-guessing when you had bad insurance, or when with good insurance and a tight budget. Imagine what is like for people with bad or no insurance.

Yeah but I don’t want to watch at 1080p with bad sound! It’s just annoying because they already let you download off your friends servers. You’d think it would be super easy to program as an option.

Except Plex insanely makes you stream it to each person, instead of letting people download and sync streaming. So good luck doing it with more than two people unless you’re watching a 1080p movie on a beast with an amazing Internet connection.

Well frankly I don’t think the original point was super well made, since folks are talking about entirely different points now, but I’d agree with soccer, and tennis and golf in particular really being comfortable with far more silence in broadcasting - but that’s true on both sides of the pond. But the idea that surface level analysis is unique to American sports coverage is pretty false in my experience. Every sport I know a lot about seems covered at surface level - every sport I don’t know a ton about seems covered great. But I’ll say despite knowing a ton about amfootball the broadcasting is still pretty impressive. The soccer analysis I’ve seen is pretty good too but I’ll admit my depth of knowledge is much shallower. But there is definitely a size of audience and sportscaster population issue as well, because small sports I know a lot about have much worse coverage.

I absolutely agree that US broadcast networks show more player centric fluff portions than English or Spanish broadcasts (the only other languages I’ve watched). But the original post was more about surface level analysis, and that’s more about audience size and quality of broadcasters IMHO. But yeah, fluff, particularly between plays/matches, is crazy annoying. I hate US Olympic coverage when I can juxtapose it with BBC.

This is hilariously false. It’s a major vs minor sport thing and having a population of talent to draw on. Top top top euro soccer announcers are just as amazing as top top top US basketball and football announcers, but as soon as you start watching a handball broadcast there is very little separating it from a rowing broadcast or a darts broadcast or whatever. Sometimes you get a good play by play announcer but color is almost always rough, because it’s insanely hard, not because Americans are bad at it lol.

I’ve done sports announcing, and come from a journalism family where my dad taught radio broadcasting.

Sports casting is hard. Like really, really hard. It is very easy to criticize the way someone does it, but it is incredibly difficult to fill hours of silence. I did live commentary for college wrestling, and I was a very knowledgeable high school wrestler, but frankly sometimes there just isn’t something exciting or even describable happening. Jockeying for control, positioning, or feeling out an opponent - sometimes the announcing is “they continue struggling!” Then you think of a sport that isn’t nonstop action like American football, or God forbid, baseball? Huge swaths of time where there is nothing to say. This is why professional sports casts on major networks have huge teams. They can pull up obscure stats that don’t really mean anything, instant replay analysis done nearly live, and a ton of graphics to keep things moving and exciting.

Then you have the issue others have talked about, where your audience may have almost no knowledge of what to you is a deeply technical sport. So every time you explain a wrestling move, or defensive pass coverage, you have to assume no knowledge. You have to explain why someone is doing something, but luckily that actually fills up a bit more time because God forbid you have dead air on a broadcast, so of course you do it. And the type of deep analysis a knowledgeable fan might want is actually really hard to not only come up with live, but while watching something live without the benefit of watching a replay or a better camera angle.

Anyway, my point is that you should try to do an entry level sports broadcasting exercise. Turn the sound off on a game, and try to cast it and record yourself. You will be absolutely shocked at how much silence there is, or how many asinine things you say. Even the “worst” broadcasters that you experience on any major network have such insanely deep knowledge and an ability to just keep spewing information and anecdotes out that I promise you would be so much more impressive if you heard an amateur, or better, tried to do it yourself.

It’s not actually junk prediction, though you might call it doom-bait journalism. WHO put climate change related deaths at like 150,000 people annually in the year 2000. Those numbers will obviously go up, which is why they’re backed in a lot of studies, but the real rub on reporting here is that they’re talking about “over the course of a century”. So it’s a completely reasonable estimate, it just ignores a lot of nuance like “some countries are having higher population growth so we’re not going to just lose 1 billion (though these deaths are theoretically preventable)” but also “the vast majority of these deaths will be concentrated in Southeast Asia and poorer countries.”