Just doesn’t feel right to carve up an Ottoman Empire for Thanksgiving.

I think their argument is that the tax revenue is still owed, whether it’s collected or not. So the IRS could absolutely get back on track post Trump and pursue these unpaid taxes.

Mysterious ways, I tells ya!

Y’know… I’d have found all this “coconuts floated from Asia to the Caribbean” stuff pretty far fetched…

But not two years ago I was fishing, and a goddamn coconut floated right down and bumped me in the leg.

In the Monongahela River.

In Pittsburgh.

Coffee snobs are the most hilarious variety of snob.

It’s the sincerity of the nonsense that really sets them apart.

I’m starting to think maybe the username isn’t just a username, and the account is literally for a wall panel to express its views.

Of the entire list, I guess I’d pick Grassley.

At least he’s from the old school of partisan bickering.

Remember when Obama wearing a tan suit was enough to keep the right frothing at the mouth for weeks?

Anyone who thinks tariffs will do anything at all positive for the American working class is absolutely clueless.

All they do is make prices jump for consumers. It doesn’t put domestic goods at an advantage because the domestic producers of those goods increase their prices artificially to achieve parity with import pricing.

So prices go up for the consumer with the extra money going to either:

1. For imported goods, to pay the tariff, a tax, to the government, which in this case wants to use that tax revenue to offset tax cuts for the wealthy.

or

2. For domestic goods, it’s pure straight profit for the unethical corporations who are price gouging their domestic customer base. They’re not giving the consumer a break on price and they’re not sharing the profits by giving employees raises. Hell, they’re not even taking advantage of the competitive advantage to ramp up production and create jobs. They’re just pocketing that extra cash for doing exactly what they’re always doing…passing it on to, you guessed it…the wealthy.

Uh…great story?

It wasn’t until I saw this pic that I realized that a platypus and a tardigrade look alike.

Generally I enjoy board games, but for whatever reason I absolutely can’t stand Ticket to Ride.

It’s a shame because several friends and family really like it, but for whatever reason, I just can’t put together the gameplay and strategy in my mind, and either because of that or in addition to that, I’ve never once had fun while playing it.

This and Farkle are two of the few that I just try to politely decline now. I’ll make everyone a snack or something and sit out.

Which is why we need an update to the tax system to add brackets to cover the entire range of income, then redefine them based on percentages off the median, with the highest bracket set at 95% or more for the highest 5% of earners.

I think you misunderstood them…

Said another way:

“There’s an unspoken lack of trust that comes with forcing people to come (back) into an office. Basically, it’s the employer telling their employees that they don’t trust them to do their work unless management can physically see them at their desks in the office.”

My god, I was just using a reference table on another sheet to drive a few columns of data in my first sheet (basically a color hex code in the main sheet that would match a code in the reference table and return the color name in one column and a part size in the next one) and for some unknown reason, 3 rows of the reference table were causing an N/A (value not found) error in the first sheet.

I checked every variable I could think of and nothing was solving the issue.

Finally tried literally retyping the same damn value in the cell and it instantly fixed the issue. There weren’t any extra spaces, format never changed…it just really needed me to retype it.

Can you give examples?

Both clock and auto?

Because other than time, I’m having a hard time seeing what else a clock is telling you by being analogue.

There’s a lot of flawed logic on all sides.

And that’s not even accounting for the inherently deeply complex and illogical stuff that goes along with dating too.

When I was actively pursuing online dating years ago, some of my best dates were the one and done dates where we both seemed to know early on that we probably weren’t interested in each other as long term partners but were mature enough to acknowledge that without taking it personally and enjoy a much more relaxed rest of the date. On one of those occasions, my date even suggested that while I wasn’t a good match for her, if I were interested, she’d give her roommate my number, thinking we’d be better.

In the end it never happened, but it just shows that just because one or both halves of a date may not want a second date, that’s not a failing of either one, necessarily.

I def agree about the level of happened that is going on here, but in defense of this fictional date: while it’s not always good to judge a book by its cover…if I’m being honest with myself, I’d have a certain image in mind and a certain reaction if I met someone at a party and just in conversation, not even a date, asked what they were into and the response was “anime and one specific video game”.

I mean, I wouldn’t stop talking to them, but I’d certainly have preconceived notions that I’d be very surprised if they were very inaccurate.

And it’s not so much that it’s wrong, as that it gives me insight into the type of person I’m talking to. And honestly, if I were looking to date, and this person matched my preferred gender, appearance, etc…well…an answer like that would certainly be a “yellow flag” and a clue that I may not be so compatible with this person, based on others I’ve met with similar interests.

Mind you, it certainly doesn’t justify any rudeness, but it’s a coffee date. She owes OP nothing. And while she could have been nicer, limiting conversation and politely excusing herself at her earliest convenience isn’t the worst thing she could’ve done.

I just first want to say kudos for having a well reasoned point that you’re defending with logic, patiently and consistently, with respect for all.

That’s rare on the Internet, and Lemmy in particular, which is severely prone to the group generally deciding on one “right” position and mercilessly punishing dissent.

All that said, I think I broadly agree with you, and further, think that all of this DEI stuff is essentially “affirmative action for a new generation”.

It’s so hard to nail it down and defend it because (it seems) proponents don’t like to explain so much of how it works (and how it works differently from not incorporating it), and rather tend to answer with what it accomplishes. In theory at least.

The problem, of course, being that this subtly shifts the criticism and defense from DEI itself to its goals.

You can say “DEI means that the company is better by getting the best employees and also helps historically disadvantaged demographics get better jobs” without at all describing how that happens, and suddenly disagreeing on the merits of DEI gets misconstrued as “companies should only hire white guys and maintain the status quo”, at which point they’re more easily targeted with ad hominem and lumped together with true bigots and racists.

Regarding the issue itself, from everything I’ve seen, DEI should be less “this is an initiative we’re doing and have a team on it and track it’s metrics” and more just, “We’ll hire the best person for the job.”

Because ultimately, anything other than “We’ll hire the best person for the job.” means, by definition, “We’ll pass on the best person based on their, or the other candidates’ race, gender, religion, etc.”

If that means an overwhelmingly white male workplace, that’s a social indicator, not a problem for the company to fix. Also, hypothetically, what’s the desired end goal in terms of workplace diversity? To match the local area as closely as possible? If so, what happens when the most qualified candidates happen to be overwhelmingly from a minority? Are they going to start hiring less qualified white guys to balance it out? They shouldn’t. But they also shouldn’t hire a less qualified woman just because they only have one other woman in the whole building.

Ultimately, the only extent I could see a DEI policy actually having merit and being worth talking about would be something sort of like the Rooney Rule. A company saying, “For any position we post, we’re committed to interviewing at least X candidates from historically underrepresented minority demographics. We may still end up hiring a white guy…but this will ensure that we don’t get so used to seeing nothing but white guys that we forget to look elsewhere.”

It’s also not their place to level the social playing field, yet here we are.