r_smart

|the possibility that our language has been constructed to give people like you more ammunition against others?

The idea that the language was constructed is pretty silly. It's such a twisted hodge-podge of borrowed ideas. Besides, other languages with far different heritages will hold very similar words and terms as ours. As for the idea of having more ammunition, You'd have to actually provide some evidence for the idea that there's more plentiful / harsh language available to 'people like me'. Particularly when I've seen both of the words you cite used plentifully towards a broad swathe of people.

|That we should all aspire to be unaffected by the words of others.

Yes.

|And if someone is negatively affected by words it is their failure, not the failure of the speaker or the failure of the group they are in together.

Not exactly, no. A person being an asshole is an asshole. Your reaction to it doesn't absolve them of that behavior, even if you responded positively for some reason. However, letting some random asshole ruin your day by saying something you don't like is just setting you up for constant failure, as you are so easily driven into a negative emotional state. I'm suggesting a coping strategy, one among many, to guide a person in navigating a world full of adversity.

'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.'

Granted, it's aspirational.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said 'gibberish' but rather random words / lies.

Just don't answer the questions basically.

The number of times I screw up there/their or hear/here is infuriating. I know the goddamn difference, but these idiot fingers keep getting it wrong!

You should be giving gibberish answers to those anyway. They're probably stored as plaintext, but on the off chance they're not, treat them as a backup password and don't answer the question honestly.

Driving through airport terminals is possibly one of the most chaotic possible environments, with people almost suicidally throwing themselves in front of you, not to even speak of the cabs, double lane parking, security guards telling you to move and other things. It's probably one of the harder environments to automate for outside of inclement weather.

As I understand the term 'neo-liberal' it's kind of a hybrid ideology that strides the two US political parties. Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are both neo-liberals, though ostensibly, opposed to each other. It's basically the worst of the political philosophies espoused by the two parties. Basically it means more authoritarian control and the prosecution of wars all over the planet for the sake of establishing a new world order.

People do that all the time when everything Apple gets attributed to Steve Jobs.

Rather than apply the brakes, barring the person jumping in front of you and braking, it could just stop applying the accelerator. Nice easy slowdown to create the gap without brake-jobbing somebody behind you.

|no one would chime in and say "No way, murder is perfectly fine, you just did it last night!"

No, but they might say: "Why should we listen to you!? MURDERER!" Then proceed to stone you to death, and see who dares get up on the podium to make an announcement about stoning.

Right, but if they gun you down, there's not much that's likely to happen. They might have to get a job in a different city.

*Edit: Also, not every city has stand your ground laws. And there's nothing stopping them from shooting back and killing you. They're expecting a fight anyway. The lawyer might get a settlement for your family, but you'll still be dead. And your dog too; they love shooting dogs.

|It's like an idiot going to jail for "SWATing" someone but where the SWAT team can still bust down doors and kill based on random tips.

Or getting the wrong house. Remember kids: Limited Immunity means complete immunity!

|By which you mean, there's been a movement by employers towards the right to work for less.

Unions can keep people out of professions in a lot of places in the US. Right to work makes it so union membership isn't mandatory. Surely if the union is so awesome, voluntary membership would work just fine.

|What's bullshit is that non-union employees get the same benefits that a union fought for, without having to do any work to get them.

Take it up with the union leadership, not me pal. They're the ones agitating for this stuff.

Yes, they're different things. They're also the two basic tools in the union toolkit for driving up wages.

It's artificially lowered because the Federal Reserve is manipulating interest rates, rather than allowing them to fluctuate based on the conditions in the market.

Interest is basically the adjustment made to value having money now vs having money in the future (how much would I have to pay you next year in order for you to not ask me to pay you now). An interest rate of 0% means $100 now vs some arbitrary point in the future are of equal use to you, which is irrational. Obviously getting $100 now is better than getting $100 in 5 years.

In fairness, interest rates aren't that low. I'm not sure if interest rates equal to inflation would be the same thing as interest of 0% in a 0 inflation world. I'm not an economist.

Not taking isn't the same as giving.

If you oppose something, it's a good idea to demonstrate you understand what you're against, otherwise you risk looking stupid.

The one where interest rates aren't being artificially lowered.

I guess you could say it's not a union, but it's pretty much the same thing. At least, it's pulling the same levers to get desired outcomes.

|Unions improve compensation by increasing the share of the profits pie given (or returned, rather) to labor

Revenue pie, not profits pie. A union will negotiate better terms for itself if the leadership thinks it's appropriate, regardless of the health of the company.

Fair enough. I'm used to union arrangements where membership is required for the given profession, which is pretty common in the US.

There's been a movement to right to work, but even then, the non-union employees are forced to abide by the union negotiated contract, which is bullshit.

|Unionisation may help

By restricting the supply of talent, thus artificially driving up wages, but at the same time keeping a lot of people from being able to pursue their dream.

In my defense, the one person I accused of being a communist on this board, turned out to actually be one :)

Less flippantly, you're spot on. I'd go further, and say overuse of these words erodes their meaning, and makes it possible for actual facists or bigots (or commies!) to hide among groups of people who have been tarred with the same brush but don't hold the same views.

I bought my Honda Fit for $16.5k. It's one of the more expensive cars in it's class, but me, I was willing to pay a little more for the luxury :)

The productivity gains from SO awesome. That site has provided me with more value than maybe anything else on the web. To me it represents some of the best of what the internet has to offer: Not only are you not alone with your problems, but there's help available.

I would call those good questions from someone experienced or savvy. The guy I'm talking about didn't even care to know what we make.

It's not like we were Facebook or something where he'd already know.

He didn't even want to know what we make. He had no idea. And no interest. Hopefully he was just showing up for practice or something and not actually expecting a good outcome.

Being inexperienced can excuse a lot, but not a total lack of basic curiosity. And I'd say it's useful to know what a company is producing so you can know if you have any interest in helping produce it.

|I just don't really get this attitude.

Hopefully you just weren't understanding just how bad this was. If not, then try harder I guess?

At my last employer, I sat in on an interview for a co-op with my boss. After asking the interviewee some questions the conversation went basically like this:

Boss: Do you have any questions for me?

Co-op: No

Boss: Would you like to know about the company? What we do?

Co-op: No

I couldn't help myself from laughing. I know he's just a student, but he's still a 20 something adult. No interest at all, just looking to check another box on his list of credentials. At least fake it!

I think you missed the point my post. I'm not one of the people on this board that like to decry success as just being a principle of luck, like it's some kind of lottery.

We're specifically talking about the wealthiest people in the world. The people who got that 1% advantage. I apparently made a mistake in describing those people as lucky (just meaning that there are only a handful of people that will sit at the top, so being one of those people is lucky; it's against the odds).

My whole argument is you can't just take their shit because you want it, and them having a lot of shit isn't a sign that they've done something wrong that allows you to trample on their rights. I think people concerned about inequality have lost the plot. Instead of helping people pull themselves up, they focus on taking from those at the top. Granted, we'll all be more equal financially, but it's hardly a utopian outcome, and no one's lot will be improved, only worsened.

Right. The Pareto principle is the observation that large amounts of resources tend to consolidate in a few 'hands'. It's observed in natural systems as well as human created ones.

|other factors = intelligence, hard work, lack of bad luck like disasters, unexpected medical bills, etc

How many of those can you attribute to luck? Winning the genetic lottery is one of the best things you can hope for. You have no control over it, and it greatly influences your outcomes. Born stupid and ugly? Tough luck, maybe in another life.