fuqmachine

I think the marketing works because it gives you just one option that everyone automatically uses. I just downloaded a 5th messaging app from the Play Store because everyone uses something different. It is exhausting. This is one case I hate having "choices" among 100s of mediocre apps.

Cars don't come with a guarantee that it will last until you're 80 though. You go over a certain mileage, you're counting down the life of your car.

On the other hand, marriage is touted as this perfect "till death do us apart" deal.

Should weddings be sold like cars? With "your mileage may vary" and "you will have many marriages throughout your life?" Maybe then I'd agree with your logic.

There is absolutely nothing socialistic about any of the campaigns in the running. You're just creating a straw man.

Accruing capital almost never has anything to do with hard work or laziness. It's a lot of luck. What family you were born into, what area of the world, if you had parents growing up etc. You could be the laziest POS and have more money than you could spend in a lifetime.

Tax-funded education and healthcare is necessary to offset some of the insane luck a trust fund kid has vs kid with a single mother with debt and no inheritance in sight. So everyone can have a fair shot at participating in capitalism. Nothing remotely socialistic about it.

According to multiple reports, the vote counts entered into app and sent were not what was received by HQ. How do we know that the company wasn't paid to change the numbers on the backend? How would the numbers change by themselves? I'll be called a tinfoil-hatter for assuming malice.

We don't know that they were fine. Until Sanders campaign urged them to make a change in transparency, only the final delegate count was reported. So it could've been a dumpster fire every other time and they just obscured the discrepancies with "final delegate count"

He will never in a billion years run as independent. You're patently wrong. He hates Trump more than his supporters do.

I'm only telling you that they exist. 34% of Sanders voters "may not" vote for another blue candidate. 10% voted for Trump. This isn't my opinion. This is just data.

Bottom line is that the quality of the app used in an election that could decide the president for the next 8 years was left up to high school level coding from an untested, uncontested company, with "software developers" with little to no credentials.

Again, I claimed no explicit corruption. I said that these events favor Pete and he had his hands in making these events occur. Why is evidence regarded as baseless?

He called in and pulled the poll that was released in a timely manner for 76 years. His adviser is married to the company's founder, and he bought 42k$ worth of "service" from them before. When app crashed, he claims victory like a rat and all of media announces his speech to the public.

Again I'm not claiming Iowa Dem party actively helped him. I'm claiming that he was allowed to help himself in multiple ways and noone stopped him, which is unfair to every other candidate.

> conspiratorially, meaning speculatively

I'm only claiming that it is a convenient coincidence and I tend not to believe in those. I'm not talking absolute corruption. But I believe there is a buddy-buddy effect at the very least

Google forms, not open-source but way more competent than the crony hires. I mean wouldn't Whatsapp's E2E work here?

What if you're an independent caucusing for one Democrat and don't care about the others? There are many on Sanders' side doing just that and it's unfair to tell them that they're bad for being skeptical of the cancellation of the most important poll and delaying the results of an election that would've gave Sanders tremendous media coverage and a bump in the polls

You're just peddling the probable media narrative. It's undoubtedly the worst for Bernie. He didn't get to tout his "first count" win, which would've given him a boost going into second alignment. And he would've given a victory speech which is historically equal to at least a +5 bump in the polls.

100k is a lot more for that software compared to what Biden paid.

Still better than no testing at all. They weren't securing any of their SQL queries. I made a more secure app in high school!

I think it looks sleeker, but I don't see anything else too different from my first look.

Couldn't that have been a coincidence? or good research by the specific recruiter? or a recruiter that is cheating at his/her job?

It's not always the money you're currently making that matters. The potential to make money is also subconsciously considered in dating.

> However, many of the folks that have gone through similar transformations don't come from "easy" backgrounds.

You just basically said - Folks that go from A to B come from A. Of course!

You act as if your situation is the worst possible situation. For example, imagine having to take care of a sick parent and 2 kids and a wife. Imagine being addicted to drugs. Imagine having a criminal or drug-dealing record. Imagine having a disability. Imagine being suicidal.

Even if you went through all the terrible things I listed, imagine not having any mental fortitude. Mental fortitude doesn't come easily or at all to a lot of people. This pull yourself up by your bootstraps is a nothing but a shiny pokemon.

I came from poverty and I have everything I wanted now. But I also recognize that 99% of the people that were in poverty with me didn't make it out.

I know this might be a tangent, but separate houses has caused HUGE housing problems. Wealthy homeowners refuse to give up their single family homes near large cities where that space should house 30 families.

> Psychologists find that kids born after 1995 are just as likely as their predecessors to believe that other people experiencing difficulty should be helped—but they feel less personal responsibility to take action themselves.

Awful lot of assumptions derived from this vague line by the author. You say they're unlikely to donate to charity. Try asking why. I have a theory: they want to donate, but literally can't because they have no money! I'd change my mind if I see an opposing study with money as a control between generations.

Why do you assume cross country is the only way to drive? Most driving occurs to and from cities for commute and within cities. You can have cars for "cross country" driving and also eliminate the vastly inefficient "driving" in cities by improving our virtually non existent public transportation(compared to other first world countries) options.

> reconfigured from streetcars and buses and trolleys and trains in cities

Why look at Singapore, a tiny country akin to San Francisco and try to apply it to all of US, which is infinitely larger and more rural. Why not look at Sweden, UK, France etc. like the Dem. nominees are correctly doing?

You see a couple of rich trust fund kids enjoying dad-given amenities and ignore all the poorer students not doing any of the things that you listed. I shared an attic with someone and slept on the floor because there was no room for a bed. And I went to a rich private school.

Also how many unis are there in the US? You work for all of them and know what "most" students live like?

Most importantly, even if what you said is true, what's an extra $5k a year to eat out and drink on top of your $150k tuition loans? The screwing has already been done.