crispyflagstones
In this case, the baby is part of a global group of babies (the baby-ouisie?) that persuaded many of the governments of the world to pass free-candy-for-babies laws so they could save money in their candy budgets and deliver higher return to their shareholders, so in this case, i'll 100% blame the baby
i mean, the employers in your industry are the ones deciding where to source talent. The engineers in these remote markets are just picking up jobs that are likely paying above-average for their locale. Which opportunities only exist because employers extend them...
They excerpted Trump on the PBS Newshour yesterday at one of his latest campaign rallies. Apparently his stance on this is that Biden should have done the EV tarriff four years ago. Now, four years ago today, Donald Trump was President, but let's not let that get in the way of a good speech, right?
Yeah, with sufficient unthoughtfulness, refusing to do research, and with poor enough planning, you can fuck up literally anything? I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't say it was suitable for everybody, or that it magically cannot fail, or that it will always be worth it in all circumstances (if your soil's contaminated, yes, you will want to be careful about how you garden and your costs will likely be higher), or that gardening, unlike anything else, is a good fit for everybody's brain and that every single person can do it effectively.
I just think it's kinda dumb to go after home gardening as somehow not useful or valuable just because it's not a complete, viable replacement for industrial agriculture. It's a completely stupid false dichotomy.
Basically you need to think about how to do it cost-effectively and sanely. Just like anything else you do (you do think about that, right?)
Counterpoint: if you, personally, can save some dollars so you're mainly spending on the things you can't grow, that's hardly a bad thing. Also, working with soil is known to be good for you. Exposes you to soil bacteria that are known to boost mood.
And it sounds corny as fuck and I didn't really take it seriously until I did it, but homegrown produce can be so incredibly much better than what you get off an industrial farm.
Just let people participate in feeding themselves and be happy, fuck.
EDIT -- to make a pedant happy
Considering how expensive fresh produce is getting, it doesn't have to change the direction of inflation to be worth it.
Apparently, in the very clear minds of Republicans, if you got busted drinking at a college party at any point after Oct 7 2023, that's sUpPoRtInG hAmAs nOw and you deserve to be deported to Gaza.
...Guess RFK's not the only politician with brain worms
...That's why people don't like the service fees, etc. It's difficult to know, as a consumer, how much you're actually being asked to spend. If you're rich, haha who cares? Everybody else has to do this thing called "budgeting."
I usually do, when the other person in the conversation doesn't seem like an insincere ass and I'm not looking up an open and shut factual question I already know the answer to, like "is the majority of AWS's business from cops and the NSA?"
And I was off by like half a percent because I skimmed, and that half a percent doesn't actually make your point for you. We're not arguing because you have no arguments
Yeah, you were trying to argue AWS is basically for the NSA and cops. That hilariously false claim is what I've been consistently rebutting this entire time. You're moving the goalposts and continuously have this entire conversation, which is why this is a dull and bad conversation. You didn't start out arguing that 1% is "substantial." You made a rather different argument. I never disputed that a contract amounting to 1% of a company's annual revenues is significant, I disputed that that 1% means AWS is just a cop shop. Because that's not how anything works.
You were wrong, and you were making shit up, and you're moving the goalposts to avoid having to admit being wrong.
If you do the numbers out on that, the volume doubles to 1% of gross revenues over that time period. Not really bolstering the point you were trying to make here, but you did catch me merely skimming the article because of how dull and bad this conversation is. This conversation is pointless because at the end of the day, AI is literally just a potentially very useful tool, which is why everybody's freaking out about it. Being against AI as such just because bad people are also using it is kind of pointless.