shikitohno

There's also just completely failing to account for callouts in planning, which I saw a lot of when I was a manufacturing supervisor. Upper management breathes down operations' neck to only have people doing the most high cost function they're being paid for as much of the time as possible. If someone has been trained to run a line, they don't want to see them doing 5S upkeep or sweeping, they want them running that line the whole shift. Unfortunately, this extends from the most senior positions down to the new hires, so they schedule the fewest people for each role they possibly could safely operate with when they come up with their production plan. Quite predictably, with humans not being robots, this throws the whole thing into chaos the moment one person calls out. Upper management gets into a tizzy about schedule attainment numbers while demanding to know how this could possibly happen, only to sit down with planning and pull the same bullshit with the following week's schedule.

If you have a couple of redundancies in your scheduling, you can just postpone lower priority tasks and roll with it. If everyone shows up, you can have people work on stuff like training, preventative maintenance, house keeping, and a million other things.

For reasons apparently only getting an MBA will lower your IQ enough to seem reasonable, upper management in manufacturing loves doing those skeleton crews where a single absence means mandatory OT and 6-7 dry work weeks to try and salvage what can be of the production schedule, while demanding to know why we struggle to get and maintain staff for these roles.

For some reason people don’t want Mozilla to make money or perhaps they assume browser development is lucrative.

By their own account, it's not meant to be lucrative.

"Corporation. Foundation. Not-for-profit.

Mozilla puts people over profit in everything we say, build and do. In fact, there’s a non-profit Foundation at the heart of our enterprise."

Straight from Mozilla's About Us page for you. Maybe they ought to live up to their words and start focusing on making a solid browser that respects users' privacy with the majority of their time, funding and energy, rather than squandering these assets on current tech hype nonsense that people don't actually want.

On the other hand, that's a pretty rough looking 27 year old. He looks like a 60s something bro who never stopped lifting.

Time to go take the Browns to the Super Bowl.

• SMT III Nocturne
• SMT Strange Journey Redux
• Grandia I

The Shin Megami Tensei games have some replayability between multiple routes, NG+ and coming up with the perfect team. Grandia is just one of the first jrpgs I really got in to, and I still love the characters today.

They mostly seem to think something like "I'm not intolerant, I'm just stating uncomfortable facts that the liberals/socialists/etc are afraid to acknowledge!" I think @[email protected] is right in that certain topics being off-limits for acceptable discussion in liberal circles just serves to drive them towards the right. This, combined with right-wing dominance of media in the US and poor communications operations from the Democrats just serves to legitimize and invigorate the far-right here.

Just look at something like the discussion on crime and quality of life. Democratic leaders will point to statistics and uncritically say, "Crime is down, I don't know what you're talking about, things are fine." Statistics require context to interpret successfully, and they also obey the rule of garbage in, garbage out. It would not invalidate the statistics at all if, for example, overall crime were down, but more crimes were being perpetrated out in the open where people could see them than occurred previously. They also only capture the crimes that are successfully reported. Sexual assault is pretty famously under-reported, owing to a variety of factors. Having lived in the hood for a long time, I've also experienced it first hand that cops just flat out refuse to take a report sometimes.

Whatever the case may be, if the topic of crime and safety comes up these days and you post something like, "I get the stats say its down generally, but my neighborhood/commute/city has deteriorated significantly over the last few years and I no longer feel as safe as I used to," you'll get a bunch of replies mocking you with a few canned responses like "The plural of anecdote isn't data," or calling you a Republican plant or something, and not one that actually tries to engage with it. You should be able to look at the Republican platform and realize this isn't something that should cause one to overlook all the terrible things the GOP advocates, but many people will do just that when they feel that the Democrats have been ignoring them and their concerns for long enough.

If enough of your electoral base are voicing concerns that run contrary to your data, you really need to look into why that is and how to address it, or you run the risk of the opposition siphoning voters away when they acknowledge those concerns and validate them, even if you know for a fact they aren't actually going to address them.

If capitalism is decaying, how will it continue to work as intended for capitalists?

I don't think it necessarily will in their eyes, but as I see it, they view it in two ways that aren't mutually exclusive. Firstly, as capitalism decays, it could give rise to a system that allows them to exploit others even more mercilessly than they already do, and they're eager to reap the benefit of this development. Secondly, they think that their riches will allow them to escape the negative impacts of capitalism, regardless of what happens. Look at the billionaires buying up islands or building remote doomsday bunkers to escape to in the event things really go south. They fully expect that in the worst case scenario of extensive warfare, environmental crises and societal collapse, they'll be able to retreat into their castles, pull up the draw bridge over the moats, and live out the rest of their days in comfort while the rest of us suffer and perish.

Even cash breaks down pretty quickly in a hypothetical situation where you have something similar occur that lasts for an extended period. When banks' systems are impacted, how do I get more cash from my account with them when whatever amount I had when the system went down runs out? I haven't had a physical passbook for an account in a good 20 years.

I would argue the main benefits are to teach people how to effectively switch registers as the context demands, and to expose them to a range of language they likely wouldn't ordinarily encounter in their daily lives. English teachers could do to lose the judgmental aspect of "This is the one true way to speak English, the way you talk amongst yourselves is wrong and you need do stop," but there's a definite value in teaching students, "This is a way to write/speak clearly and effectively that will be understood by quite nearly every other educated English speaker you might encounter."

As far as exposure to a broader range of language than one normally encounters in their life, I saw the importance of this first hand with many of my coworkers who were heritage speakers of Spanish. It's not my native language, but it was my primary work language for a good 5 years, and I wound up getting put on interpretation duties for our safety meetings over a native speaker with pretty limited formal education in Spanish. For topics to do with daily life, family, friends, etc, this guy would be able to speak much more naturally than I could. I might not say something that was exactly wrong, but perhaps I would be too formal or make odd word choices he wouldn't. The problem was, he completely lacked any technical and professional vocabulary, and had no concept of what words/phrases were unique to his own country and what alternatives might be more widely understood.

We would have safety meetings once a night, and they would have topics like, "When a forklift has its forks in the air, don't walk beneath it, as hydraulic failure could lead to injury or death.". He translated that one night as "Cuando la vaina del pasillo tiene esa vaina de en frente en el aire, no pasen por debajo de la vaina. Es peligroso." Basically "When the thing in the hall has the thing in front in the air, don't walk under the thing. It's dangerous." Best case, he might say "El forlift," but he would never land on "el montacargas," or even think to look it up. Some of his wilder attempts at interpretation didn't work for anyone, and the ones where he just used a Spanglish version of technical terms only worked for other coworkers who already knew at least a bit of English, and probably didn't really need the translation that much to begin with. Unfortunately, we had a fair number of employees who were monolingual Spanish speakers that he found himself just completely unable to communicate with effectively.

Granted, not everyone takes full advantage of it, but English classes do (or at least should) expose you to a broad range of the language, as it's used in various contexts and forms, while also furnishing students with the ability to expand upon that and adapt to new contexts on their own in the future. Failure to do so leaves students with stunted linguistic and communicative abilities.

Everyone I've come across from NZ says it like igg, so there's that one, too. Aussies have a weird vowel to it that I hear at times, too.

You can't have it both ways. You're arguing the Democrats simultaneously don't care about leftist voters because they don't show up and vote and aren't a significant enough chunk of the electorate to be worth catering to, yet claiming that this same group not showing up resulted in Hillary's loss against Trump. Which is it? Are we the deciding factor in US electoral politics, or a bunch of rabble-rousers not worth concerning yourself with?

The reality is that Clinton lost the election due to extremely narrow margins in a handful of flyover states not known for being bastions of leftism. Leftists of Lemmy in LA or NYC could have all gone for voter fraud and voted for her multiple times, and she still would not have received any more votes in the electoral college from California or New York, because she already got them all! Conversely, she wouldn't have gotten any fewer votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, which were the decisive states at the level of the Electoral College because of leftists in other states.

tl;dr: Get lost with your ahistorical, left punching bullshit.

Sure, but many people seem to suffer when it comes to distinguishing facts from opinion and interpretation.

For example, it's a fact that Biden had a very poor performance in the debate. No one is really disputing that, though there have been various justifications offered for it. All good up to this point, but it falls apart when it comes to interpreting what that means for the Democratic campaign. Some are of the view that it's too late to change the candidate and have Biden stand down, and that to do so would tank our chances of beating Trump. Others, myself included, feel like the hit he has taken is likely terminal, and that our best chance is to have him bow out and spin up a new campaign as soon as possible, in order to have the best shot at viability. Personally, I think the longer the delay on doing so, the more it becomes a situation of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Either way, absent someone with a functional crystal ball or some time travelers that can give us a definitive answer, both stances are subjective and fallible interpretations of what the best course of action would be, based on facts. Yet, in the couple of hours I browsed Lemmy after my post-work nap today, I easily saw a dozen people accusing posters who stated Biden should step down of being trolls, Russian agents, useful idiots, and/or arguing in bad faith for merely stating an opinion. I've seen people who think Biden is the best shot get called stupid for holding that view, but it rarely seems to have the same power to kill a conversation dead in its tracks as, "You disagree with me, ergo you must be a Russian shill."

To deny these disinformation campaigns, both foreign and domestic, are real is to be deluded, yet so is dismissing any and all criticism of the party or views that don't hew to the party orthodoxy as being pure propaganda. Heck, even for people who have fallen wholeheartedly for such propaganda, you ignore them and dismiss them at your peril. If you don't successfully reengage with them and manage to bring those individuals back into the fold, they could quite easily make up the margin that ultimately could swing the election. According to this NPR article, the last two elections were essentially decided by less than 80,000 votes each in a few swing states. Unless Democratic strategists have a surefire method that's guaranteed to juice their votes by millions in those states, they really can't afford to be leaving anything on the table if they want to win.