See, to me, there’s two philosophies that battle here, with me. I can treat employers as companies, as logic machines, that calculate what revenues they can make and every other business decision. With that framework, I agree, whatever I do in my off hours is my business, they shouldn’t (but do) have the right to meddle with me in that way. Deny the corporate machine access to that info.

But the other framework, where your employee is a person managing a business, I don’t agree. If I am a human business owner, trying to run a good company with standards and practices as guidelines, get told by a potential customer I’ve lost the sale because of the actions of someone I employ, if I see that as a recurring pattern, I gotta weigh if they’re worth keeping.

Now, for me, these two frameworks aren’t exclusive, neither is right or wrong, they just show up in different places. Corporate McDonalds firing a minimum wage employee, that gets the company-as-a-machine model. Small business with like 5 employees? Company-as-a-person. Firing a C-Suite of a large company? Company-as-a-person.

This is company-as-a-person to me because they’re a face of the company. C-suite people get hired because of who they are, whereas minimum wage in a company get hired because of the skills they have.

And good for the credit union, they did.

Now she’s unemployed.

That’s still the difference. I also feel spent and use the battery analogy in my day to day life. My “capacity” is pretty decent, I can afford things, but I have to manage it, and yeah, so much is a cost, even things you’d never expect.

If we say a party costs 50 and your battery is at 20, that sucks. That relative I mentioned has been suicidal over this, and its entirely possible that their inability to manage that battery is directly caused by their mental health struggles, too. I’m not claiming they’re a bad person, when I say they’re a bad friend. I’m saying they aren’t going to be there for those that call them “friend”. It has absolutely been a lifelong struggle for them, and that sucks, but they cannot do it. I cannot power a laptop with a standard phone charger, even if they’re both USB-C, and this person I know isn’t a good friend outside of a very small group they have.

I don’t mean to sound like a dick when I say that, everyone’s different and we have different struggles, different things take a different amount of battery or take more or less spoons.

The issue of “how do you tell if someone’s running on empty or just not willing to put energy into it?” is a whole separate issue than “this costs more battery than I have when fully charged”. The solution to the first, is managing your charge. The answer to the second, I dunno. To me, that feels like the mental health equivalent of asking if this mole looks cancery online, and if I was in that situation, I’d be seeing a therapist or a med manager about it. Not saying you haven’t tried or anything, I’m just saying I don’t know the answer to that, and I have the feeling the answer is way deeper than someone on the internet will be able to go. I sincerely hope things go well for you, though.

The difference is what you do around it.

Friend’s birthday is coming up next week, and they care about you and you wanna show you care about them? Well the day before (or whatever timeline you need), you don’t do anything that drains your batteries, or do things to recharge them, so that when it’s time to go to the party, the battery is full.

If we’re gonna treat social as a limited resource, then being a good friend means spending that resource on them. If we give it a number, then let’s say a birthday gift costs 50. It doesn’t matter if your battery holds 100 or 100, save 50 for the party.

I have a relative who does the battery thing, and the key thing that puts them in the “doesn’t care” category despite a mental disorder that absolutely qualifies them for the battery analogy, is they just don’t spend their battery unless it’s a benefit to them. They won’t spend it on one of their friends unless it’s one of like, 2 specific people, so it’s an excuse.

They both offer that, though.

Haven’t day traded but I have speed ran games, you get a similar awesome feeling when you’ve accomplished the goal, and similar feelings when your runs that day are just worse than yesterdays.

You can’t separate your mood and results. At least I couldn’t. Most days this was fine, I could focus on “I got this trick down, just need to integrate it into the run better” or “wow, that was a perfect 2 minutes” (of an hour-long run). The days where there wasn’t a silver lining, those days were a mess. Spend hours, all fucking day, accomplishing nothing? Killed me. I stopped speedrunning. Mostly stopped gaming, but I still like doing factory games or doing things like making a living dex in Pokémon, and still play games with others.

If you’re shutting down on those bad days, you have it worse than me, which makes sense, since you’re spending money to do this. My advice is to look at what money you’ve actually made. Is it more than what a normal job would make for the time you’ve put in? If not, then stop doing it, its not profitable. If it IS making you more money, then you need to put a value on your happiness, since its costing you that. Spoiler, most people want money to live well and get happiness. Even if you’re making more, think of it like “was the extra hundred I made worth the crashes I’ve been having?”.

Gambling isn’t sustainable, anyway. Day trading is a short term thing, at best, and it sounds like you’ve tapped that out, at least as far as you can without sacrificing your health.

Military behind lines can be pretty important because of delays in them receiving notices and their ability to do anything about it. Pretty much every legal notice gets a timeframe before things occur. Usually something like a month is sufficient, but for someone in military service, who have arguably the best excuse to not be able to do regular things for a whole month, the usual polite way to go about things is to wait for them to return home, and historically, courts have thrown out cases for people who didn’t do that, because it wasn’t a reasonable amount of notice.

No idea about the legalities of this particular case, but it is extra rude, getting a court date and losing by default for not showing up when you didn’t show up because another part of government mandated you be on a battlefield.

That’s really interesting and a great way to do that, honestly. A singular fingerprint also makes more sense than needing handwriting analysis to detect a forgery, too. Kinda feel that should be the norm everywhere, honestly, a signing and a print next to it to verify against if the need arises.

I was still speaking historically, so I meant before easy checks like your ID were in place. Its definitely harder to do that, nowadays. But of course they can go after you for it, that’s my point. You’ve agreed to a contract by the act of signing anything. If I forge a name of a nonexistent person, they can still go after me as if I’d signed it normally, because the act of signing at all is what binds me, not what I actually sign. I held the pen, I agreed to the contract. It would be ridiculous to escape legal consequences by doing things like signing differently, and in this area of law, at least in the US, common sense prevailed and I’ll be liable for whatever I willingly signed, whether that’s my name, an X, a fingerprint, a fake name, or anything else.

Signatures have never required cursive. Historically, people who couldn’t read or write would just put an X in the signature spot and that was valid. Yeah, there is a marginal benefit to physically signing something in cursive, but the purpose of signing it has always been more of a final agreement step.

If handwriting and spelling and how I signed it actually mattered at all legally, then I could sign a different name when I buy a car, get keys, drive away, and later in court, say “well I never agreed to pay for this car, look at my signature, it says Frank Sinatra”. Same goes for a true forgery. The evidence I didn’t sign it myself is my statement in court saying “I didn’t sign this”, and whatever signs there are that I didn’t benefit from this.

You don’t need to start with references, it’s fine. The let’s reads are fine, you can do those, or you can just read it yourself at homestuck.com, nothing wrong with either. At one point it was mspaintadventures.com, but now it just redirects to homestuck.com, since it moved. Same experience, though.

So at this point you know what it is, you know how to avoid being scammed, and you are aware that the most optimal way to deal with these people is to just block them and move on.

With all these things known, you can waste their time by pretending to have trouble depositing the check, saying the deposit went through while doing nothing, saying it worked and then playing hard to get with their “overpayment return” (usually they play on good Samaritan/pay it forward kind of guilt, so just pretend to be an asshole), and fucking with them every step of the way.

Atomic Shrimp on YouTube has done a bunch of these, if you’d rather live vicariously rather than expose yourself.

I would too, unfortunately, but it’s not you, its them.

It’s fine. All this really means is together you have generated multiple posts worthy of this sub with a single photo. Very efficient of you, I appreciate it.

Yeah. Any Co2/other climate change regressions that the US makes affect everyone globally, and while water use is local, its also as-needed, so post-collapse you have to use up all your water anyway.

AI could use solely graywater/non-water cooling and renewable energies, and that’s the answer, just takes slowing down, building specific and rigorous facilities, . Letting the US speed along just hurts everyone due to climate change.

That and every major company economically depends on each other, and disconnecting from the US in a way that doesn’t cause backlash also takes time.

Fuck america but don’t let them drill holes in the boat we’re all riding.

Then you’ve killed the man you told and the court will have a terribly difficult time producing him, but if they manage it, you’ll have to marry him to apply any kind of privilege.

A lawyer is considered an extension of your (legal) self. The reason is that if your lawyer can be compelled to talk about your private communications, then a client won’t actually get a fair trial, as they needed that lawyer aware of everything to defend them properly, but if prosecution could just call your lawyer to the stand and go “did they do it?”, no one would tell lawyers anything incriminating.

Your spouse is also considered to be part of you, legally. You have a right to confide in them, they are part of your life.

Same for a priest, many religions require confessions and have religious consequences for not confessing or a priest telling what they heard. The right for them protects them from being forced to break religious rules, although notably this one doesn’t exist everywhere.

Nurses and doctors are covered in the same way, actually. Revealing your medical information improperly is a HIPAA violation.

Aside from spousal privilege, all of these relate to their job. Your lawyer defends you, your priest hears your confessions, your doctors and nurses treat you. If you tell your priest about your heart condition and your lawyer about your blaspheming against god and your doctor about that time you murdered a man back in '03, then no privilege protects you at all.

Did they lose their positions? I haven’t read anything indicating that, just that they weren’t allowed back into the conference.

No.

That’s true for people. Corporations don’t learn from mistakes and cannot improve over time, they’re legally obligated to seek shareholder value.

Expecting a corporation to do things for the right reasons is like expecting AI to do things for the right reason.

If we must interact with either, we must simply be glad when the answer is correct. If we want corporations to act more like people and be able to have real values, we need to bake a corporation’s values into law in some way.

Private businesses can still have morals and can learn and all that good stuff where the method matters, but public ones will always dehumanize.

So I’m happy they hit the right result. I’m also happy they’re talking about it like this even though this talk is also just a publicity response, because other companies might see this and also do the right thing for the wrong (purely financial) reason.

But this is also why corporations shouldn’t be people and should be barred from everything involving government and all that, if not abolished altogether.

Reading the article, it sounds more like a comment on advertising as a whole and not their AI ads specifically. Polished videos vs relatively unpolished hand filming it.

Either way, they got to the correct answer.