For some things I get this. Restaurants? Yes. But other things? Landscaping? Electricians? Plumbers? I’d much rather speak on the phone with someone who is going to come on my property and do work. I could care less if they have a website because that’s just marketing for them. I source almost 100% of these types of workers via referral from friends/family.
> Yes. But other things? Landscaping? Electricians? Plumbers?
Plumbers and electricians: Maybe not. But lots of other house repairs stuff: Yes.
Things I want to see:
Geographical coverage area: Some are across town and are not willing to come to my property. Others are.
Services rendered: There job title may be very generic, but it often turns out they do only certain types of work.
Minimum fees: Some only do jobs that cost, say, $1000 or more. If my work is small, I shouldn't bother calling them.
> I’d much rather speak on the phone with someone who is going to come on my property and do work
I do so as well, but they rarely pick up the phone. You call them, leave a voicemail, and pray they'll call you back at a time you can pick up. About 50% of them never call back. So every time I need some repairs/work done on the house, I have to get 10 "leads", and call them, leave a voicemail, and a few days later repeat the process because they either didn't call back, or called and said they don't do that type of work.
If I can pre-filter those out based on basic stuff on their website, it'd be great.
I used to work in construction in a previous life and always said I could judge how good a tradesman is simply by their appearance.
The same goes for their website. If they have pride in their work it will show; if they do just about enough to get paid it will also show.
Interesting. I'd personally rather them be great at what their job actually is and not waste time on a website. I think the best tradesmen don't need a website because their work (and their happy customers!) speaks for itself.
I agree. If we knew the mechanism for how life started we'd probably be doing the experiments to prove it. There are theories and experiments that suggest some life-like processes can happen with inorganic compounds, but they require a lot of squinting and a bit of imagination to connect with our own origins. And there's a big difference between experiment and nature. On the one hand, we have people trying to make it happen, while on the other hand, it apparently already happened once, without anyone even needing to be around.
Which is underplaying what "trying" means in this context: we live on a planet with a lot of life - life which by definition was a superior competitor to the much simpler life it supplanted. The world, even enzymes from our skin, are unimaginably hostile to most candidates for simpler primordial lifeforms.
The reason showing abiogenesis is hard is because (1) everything in the biosphere would kill and eat the result and (2) the one thing it had going for it was time - millions of years of random diffusion with nothing else busy executing a grey goo type attack on all the available resources.
Frankly if someone gets abiogenesis to work in a lab environment within a single human lifetime, it wouldn't just be evidence for how it might've happened in Earth's past it would more or less set the parameters for how much life there must be in the universe everywhere because a mere 50 to 100 years to kickstart anything would be insane.
I realize you're just replying in kind to the GP, who wasn't very nice himself. I also think it's not necessary to feed such trolls in a way that insults all the religious folks who do enjoy this site and don't try to push our faith on others.
It's okay. I appreciate the cover, but it's important to let this oppressed, hunted, hated and endangered group have their say.
There is, after all, a war on Christmas, Christians and Christianity.
Christian enclaves are being attacked and Christians are being murdered in the thousands every week, just for being Christian.
Hundreds of decent, god-fearing Christian women are being raped daily by strong, manly Muslim men. Their strong muscles rippling under their tight clothes, stirring up strong, lustful feelings among the faithful Christian men.
It's no wonder that folks are kind of touchy. If you risked being shot, blown up, cuckolded or otherwise made dead or humiliated every time you went to a church, made the sign of the cross or put a "Jesus is my Co-pilot" bumper sticker on your vehicle, you'd be concerned wouldn't you?
And that happens every day because people hate them for their knowledge of the truth. It's all there in the literal word of god that's in the Holy Bible. Anything else is heresy. And we know what to do with heretics, don't we?
Well, there's a little two-step here where pronatalists will insist “it's not political” with one side of their mouth, and then invite Jack Posobeic to be the opening night headline speaker at NatalCon with the other.
Oh, and how do you propose politics is even able to have an impact? Force people to have sex with each other?
It may be an ideology but I don’t think this is a red/blue topic and certainly not a legislative one imo. It is more of a geographical issue and a byproduct of industrialism that isn’t really reversible, you just hope the ride down is more of a slope and not a cliff.
If I knew how to solve the problem, I'd have proposed it. Yet, this is certainly a political issue. As populations decline, the smaller and smaller generations will be asked to support older generations, keep government services afloat, and so on. If nothing is done, at some point, the advanced, post industrial societies will become poor agrarian societies, infrastructure will decay, and governments will collapse. Then, people will begin having large families again because they will have no choice. Farms need hands.
Banning birth control and reversing efforts to enable women's equality in the work force are big ones. But we also see it in policies like the Trump Accounts and various proposals to pay people who have larger families. And you can see it but up against immigration policy too, where people who hate immigrants seek to replace the economic benefits of immigration with policies that promote a larger white population in the next generation.
It isn’t exactly a red/blue issue is what I should have said. I thought given the parent I was replying to that was the implication anyway. You can make anything political, of course.
It’s more that the US is more like a collection of 50 little countries, and it’s supposed to be hard to accomplish much at a federal level. That separation has eroded a bit in the last 50 years but it’s still very much a part of our political ideology.
While it may seem directly related, it's just not. These things are worked on regardless of how cheap or expensive RAM is, because optimizing memory footprint pretty much always leads to fewer machines leased, which is a worthwhile goal even for smaller shops.
This reads like it was written by a person who has never seriously trained at distance running. The vast majority of such training happens in Z1/2 and is some of the healthiest motion you can put your body through. People die doing lots of things, and many other sports besides running, usually because they had another condition or disorder.
And besides, I'd much rather have a stroke and drop dead at like 70 or 75 having enjoyed an active life than deal with all the health risks and low quality of living associated with being sedentary.
Putting aside this is sort of a knee-jerk reaction, if this was actually implemented you’d just see the role of the CEO change to basically be a highly-paid fall-guy. People in those positions today would vacate them for quieter roles behind the scenes, and corporations would put greater effort forth to hide their decision making processes. I don’t think it would be a better system.
In what instance is a CEO not liable for their own crimes? At least in the US, they are still criminally liable for anything they do. If anything is at issue here, I think it's whether it can be proven a crime was committed and who can be proven guilty of it. I think often civil penalties end up being the answer because they're just easier to make stick (AIUI the burden of proof is lower in those cases).
Sure, and we can deal with that problem when it comes to it. For now, there are people at these companies that are clearly responsible and can be held accountable.
Why would anyone sign up to be the fall guy? Perhaps because the payoff is worth the the punishment. So make the punishment algorithmically outweigh the payoff, for example by seizing everything they were paid to be the fall guy plus jail time. Doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve if politicians were actually interested in holding CEOs and corporations accountable, the problem is the politicians themselves are bought and paid for.
This already happens with professional athletes, so we have a model to look at. Look, I don't disagree that all people should be held accountable for their actions, but sometimes the solutions people fire off half-cocked (throw a CEO in jail until they de-anonymize their platform, for example) are not going to be used in such a naive way.
I believe we should do away with limited liability as a concept. Companies would get lot less investments and lot more scrutiny if every stock holder was criminally held liable as a class for any crimes they commit. Lot of people would simply choose not to invest in such ventures or only select those where they can have sufficient oversight.
AFAIK limited liability is more about financial liability, not criminal. People are still responsible for actual crimes they commit, we just may need to classify more things as crimes.
I think discouraging investment is the opposite of what leads to a prosperous society. We'll just have a bunch of rich landlord sitting on piles of cash, afraid to give it to anyone because the risk of any jail time at all is probably too high for most.
And that doesn't even account for non-institutional investors. Can you imagine putting people in jail because of the meme stock they bought on Robin Hood?
I really don’t like people bashing my state, especially when they’re repeating made-up bullshit. Do you just believe anything negative you read as long as it fits your views?
