qjkxbmwvz

We live in a high CoL area, and in our experience the only financial line items from having a kid that matter are housing and childcare: we pay more on daycare than we did on rent before kid when we lived in a studio. Baby food is only used for a little while, and if you prefer, most of it is easy to make yourself.

And private daycare (or nanny) should be expensive, because caregivers should be making a living wage.

The only options I see to bring down costs are to exploit caregivers more than they already are (this is very wrong), to rely on grandparents for childcare, or to implement publicly funded daycare across the board.

Some false premises in this thread

corporations are not required to maximize profits. Even if maximizing profit was mandatory, this is a pretty subjective topic

is short term profit while pissing off your customers "maximizing profit," or is sacrificing short term gains for long term customer loyalty "maximizing profit"? It's not a rhetorical question, and I think you can find examples of both.

Corporations are also not all pursuing endless growth; in addition to "growth stocks" there are "dividend stocks." Some companies aren't aggressively pursuing growth, but are making profit, and the stock reflects this. It feels almost antiquated in the "to the moon" era, but these companies do exist.

Yeah, I guess it's a matter of what the analogy is to "page." I would say my computer is the book, and the pages are the software. If some developer wants to make a piece of shit ad ridden software, well, great

but I won't install it :)

Yeah I think we're in violent agreement to an extent

as I said in my last graf, if it's effectively changing the user agreement, absolutely not ok. But if it's a shitty product to begin with, then I'm just not going to buy it in the first place.

So yeah, Windows doing shitty things for users who have already paid for the product is definitely not cool. But for all users going forward to have a shitty experience? That's... shitty, yeah, but I personally don't think it should be illegal?

I think it could be that this is a legal distinction

as in, they are victims not just in a colloquial sense but also "victims" in this sense:

The migrants applied for U nonimmigrant status (or a U visa), described by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as a visa "set aside for victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity."

But yeah, it reads a bit funny.

I think it could be that this is a legal distinction

as in, they are victims not just in a colloquial sense but also "victims" in this sense:

The migrants applied for U nonimmigrant status (or a U visa), described by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as a visa "set aside for victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity."

But yeah, it reads a bit funny.

I don't think that's true at all. I'm ok with systemd, but I don't really like it, and find much of the criticism valid. At this point the reason I use it, and am more-or-less fine with it, is that it has become the de facto standard and is very well supported.

Which is also one of the reasons I dislike it

it is such an integral part of modern Linux systems that it can be hard to change, which reduces a lot of the appeal of Linux

flexibility and freedom.

I think War Pigs/Luke's Wall is one of the best anti-war songs. While so many of the era were very hopeful/happy (Youngbloods, Buffalo Springfield...), Sabbath's take on the war song genre was a giant middle finger to the military industrial complex, saying "you are literally doing Satan's bidding." It's awesome.

Fortunate Son, Gimme Shelter, and I'm gonna say Rooster round out my favorite Vietnam songs.

even though the bank technically owns this shit

Nah, they just have a substantial lien against the property :)

In the US, I think you would be entitled by law to know the reason why you were rejected ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act ).

Does the UK have something similar?

We tried personally evaluating people for loans on their individual merits, and shocker, there was rampant racism and sexism. Having strict metrics, instead of relying on the whims of a dickwad loan agent, is a good thing.

The new system isn't perfect, and yeah, it completely favors people who have parents who know how the system works. But at least it's not explicitly racist or sexist (again, there are of course systemic issues that feed into it).

I get that it's frustrating to, for example, need to have debt in order to qualify for more debt. But in other contexts this is pretty standard

it's essentially "financial experience."

But yeah. It sucks that you should pay expenses with a credit card rather than debit in the USA. Personally it doesn't matter to me (I pay them off every month), but it sucks for merchants who get stuck with the credit card transaction fees.