TheDoozer

I feel like if he left Dr. Biden's name out of it and just quoted that and said something to the effect of "The most powerful politician in the United States has some of the best medical care available in the world. If this cancer is at this point, now, they must have known through his presidency. The American People deserve to know if their President is terminally ill!" it would have made some sense.

I mean, it would still be wrong, but it wouldn't be idiotically wrong.

Or better yet:

"It's 1234. If that doesn't work, press C then 1234."

I seriously did not realize Purolator was still around. My dad worked for them 40 odd years ago, and quit on the spot, with kids and a wife at home, because of how awful they were (called and checked with my mom first, who was supportive).

A good use I've seen for AI (or particularly ChatGPT) is employee reviews and awards (military). A lot of my coworkers (and subordinates) have used it, and it's generally a good way to fluff up the wording for people who don't write fluffy things for a living (we work on helicopters, our writing is very technical, specific, and generally with a pre-established template).

I prefer reading the specifics and can fill out the fluff myself, but higher-ups tend to want "how it benefitted the service" and fitting in the terminology from the rubric.

I don't use it because I'm good at writing that stuff. Not because it's my job, but because I've always been into writing. I don't expect every mechanic to do the same, though, so having things like ChatGPT can make an otherwise onerous (albeit necessary) task more palatable.

I mean, yeah, I can very competently clean out a shithouse as well as I can competently fix a helicopter. I probably won't be exceptional at either one (though I absolutely kill it on written tests, I guess).

You and others try desperately to bend and twist history to be something different than it was. It's pretty simple: the Civil War started because the South seceded, and the North said "No."

So the question is only why the South seceded. And I guess we can never know for certain, because it's not like we can get a prioritized list of reasons for secession from each state that seceded OH WAIT YES WE CAN.

Each state listed their causes for secession, and primary amongst their concerns was slavery, whether is was concern for Northerners eventually getting rid of slavery, or upset that slaves escaping to the North were not being returned, or even that some Northern states were abolishing slavery within their states.

Yes, some Northern states still benefitted from slavery at the time, and yes, Lincoln was prepared to grant slavery in perpetuity to the slave-holding states, so it's clear that the Northern states were not fighting to end slavery. However, that doesn't change the main two things that led to the Civil War:

1. The Southern states seceded to preserve slavery.

2. The Northern states said "No."

It's similar with the ASVAB (multisection test for determing qualification for military service). I scored the highest score available, a 99, because it seemed in each section they moved on once they established competence.

The few people who saw my score (I don't go around telling people) have asked if I was super smart or something (the recruiter called me "professor" and asked if I had a Masters), and I said no, I am just competent at anything I could do in the military. I'm honestly not excellent at any particular thing, and in any given task I'm unlikely to be the best one there for it. But I'm capable of doing any task adequately. As my old trombone instructor used to say, I'm a "jack of all trades, master of none."

But the test doesn't care if you're amazing at anything. It just wants to see if you're capable of doing anything.

I'm just an internet rando, but on your end I don't think you are awful for what you said and should forever feel the weight of it hanging over you.

On the other hand, we don't know her, and hearing the transmission and the intent is not the same as knowing the receiver and how it is received. The fact that you were behaving badly when drunk could have been the issue in itself. If you know someone a certain way, and they seem to become a different person when they're drunk (especially if you have some experience with that situation), hearing someone say "I'm sorry I said that, I was just really drunk" may be like saying you're sorry, and it could happen again anytime you drink. Maybe she thinks sober you is lovely, but drunk you is not someone she would like to spend any time with, and rather than try to make it so you only hang out in sober settings she just cut you out. Or maybe not, maybe she is just really bothered you took that argument to a sexual place. Or something else, who knows?

But the point is, the "broken plate" thing could be that to her, you became the type of person who could make a comment like that, where she didn't think you were. She can't make you into the person she thought you were again. What you said isn't egregious or anything. But maybe that changed her perception of you, and it's not about forgiveness, it's about not being able to go back.

Or maybe she's extremely sensitive, or a drama-magnet. Who knows? Again, just a guy on the internet that's a couple drinks deep.

Why those quotes though? Why do you want to hurt us?

Tank is the best.

Okay, 3... 2... 1... let's jam.

I've had this discussion quite a bit, and it's tough to break the 77 cents on the dollar and whatnot rhetoric, because those people are convinced that a man and a woman doing the same job with equal experience, the woman just automatically makes on average 23% less than a man. And it's easy to prove that wrong, and entirely misses the point.

Two of the biggest factors in fixing the "gender pay gap" is longer maternity leave, similar lengths of paternity leave, and low-cost or free daycare. And then obviously, a cultural change for stay-at-home dads (though not exactly something you can legislate). I also read a study (I believe from Farleigh Dickinson University, in 2002, though I have had trouble finding it since) that the vast majority of men, after having a child, wanted to go back to full time work, and the majority (though not as large) if women wanted to either work part-time or stay at home. Now, I imagine a lot has changed in 23 years, so maybe that mentality has changed, but if all else is fixed and there is a "pay gap" based on choice like that... that's not a problem that needs to be solved.

So to recap, we need to stop talking about cents on the dollar and start talking about making rejoining the workforce more available and appealing after having babies, and giving dads more time with their kids to let their wives work.

ETA: To be clear, there is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed regarding women in the workforce, it's just not the "gender pay gap" as people try to describe it.

The primary responsibility for any employer Is to make sure its employees have “enough” wage.

I disagree, and I think it works in exactly the same way as the initial question. The primary reaponsibility of the employer is the success of the company. The success of the company is at least partially dependent on keeping good employees with good wage, benefits, and culture. You can get short-term profits out of shorting those things (just like an employee can scrape by temporarily with shit wages, poor benefits, and bad work culture), but in the long term that hurts everyone involved.