Because it's just as beneficial to society to say "we're doing the same work with fewer workers" as "we're doing the same work with fewer trucks" or "we're doing the same work with fewer barrels of oil".
But it would be ever better to say "We're doing more work, and therefore making even more money, with the same people/trucks."
And people who don't have jobs are a drain on society, unlike trucks. So we're left hoping those people find jobs quickly. And the impact on those individuals isn't great - they either lose or have to pay massively more OOP for health coverage, the stress has physical impacts, etc.
Based on his ranking of MP (mood/productivity), he concluded that it helped for the first three weeks and then got worse because he was overdosing on the magnesium. So not much there is going to apply to the general case.
This is irresponsible for people who don't get it, takes away confirmation for people who do get it, and makes me block/blacklist any liar who does it.
So by "I made the same thing months ago" you didn't mean "an article about the great pigeon census" (your link is created May 6) or "an encyclopedia of hallucinations" like the OP, but just "an encyclopedia with some articles AI wrote". What's the point?
I took your point to be "hirers would rather that job seekers contact them directly than look through resumes", but then your example is one where no one contacted you and you hired without looking through many resumes anyway. That doesn't really prove your point, and makes it sound like advice for people who don't much care who they hire.
Anyway, if people start to follow the advice of reaching out directly, that channel will become exactly as clogged as the job postings.
Even more optimal would be to pick an age, say, 60, and commit to moving to Canada for MAID at that time. This means you don't need to compound nearly as long, because you don't need to insure against a long life unable to work. Then you can start not selling your labor while you're still young enough to enjoy it.
I'm not sure what you think the MAID program is, but (leaving aside your ineligibility for health care in canada until e.g. you gain permanent resident status) if you're not suffering from a grievous and irremediable health condition, you're not eligible for MAID.
Has it been shown that screaming drugged out homeless riders avoid the presence of crowds? Is there any physical mechanism where having more people on the trains leads to Daniel-Penny-like suppression of drugged out homeless riders? Or does "getting more people onto the trains" just mean removing their options until they are forced to ignore the drugged out homeless riders?
As a solution, "get MORE people onto the trains" seems less optimal than "get fewer drugged out homeless riders onto the trains".
Why are you advocating people murder mentally ill people? Daniel Penny is a murderer and violent criminal piece of shit. Why are you advocating for violence? You are a sick person. Please stop commenting.
> As a solution, "get MORE people onto the trains" seems less optimal than "get fewer drugged out homeless riders onto the trains".
You dont have to do one thing. It’s not an either or. You’re statements are coming off as mentally ill and illogical. Should we send Daniel Penny after you?
I'm saying it _is_ and _was_ an issue during the day and heavy commute hours, those were the only hours I rode it! Other places in the world with nice train systems do not burden their riders with "safety in numbers", the places are just plain safer, period. And a great place to start is Don't let people smoke fentanyl on the train :) (And make sure everyone has affordable housing and healthcare, ofc)
There absolutely are serious issues at all times, regardless of how busy the trains are. I'm sorry, but as someone who actually lives in Portland I'm telling you that mentally ill drug users do not give a crap about how many people there are in the train car. After the third time I had to move my kids to different cars or even exit the train entirely due to open drug use and dangerous behavior, I swore off public transit for good.
That's what I was asking -- why do you believe this? What is your mechanism for safety in numbers? If it's "criminals fear being observed", that doesn't hold now that catch-and-release is standard practice. If it's "criminals fear being outnumbered", that doesn't hold when the crowd will be prosecuted if they attack. The only mechanism left for safety in numbers is hoping that criminals feel shy.
This seems intuitive to me because I would never risk fighting someone in the street over some crime, so I don't see why having me around would deter them at all. The same goes for maybe 90% of the people I know. We're weak and docile, even in numbers.
That's a better title, as "Tesla discloses $2B AI hardware company acquisition buried" could also mean "Tesla disclosed that it buried an acquisition" or "Tesla disclosed that a hardware company buried an acquisition".
reply