|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
For some jobs in some industries. But it is notoriously difficult to outsource cleaning staff, nurse's assistants, auto repair, lawn care, road maintenance, deli clerks, waitstaff, caddies, lineman, police, firefighting, et cetera. If we had strong labor in this country these job would be much better off. If we had strong labor, it would also be MUCH more difficult to outsource manufacturing jobs.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Yeah, except for Lockheed Martin, Bell Helicopter, American Airlines, Carswell Air Force Base, BNSF, the Barnett Shale, The Kimbell and Amon Carter Museums, TCU, the water gardens, botanic gardens, Japanese gardens, Bass Hall, Texas Motor Speedway, Bureau of Engraving and Printing Mint, Sundance Square, Levitt Pavilion, UT Arlington, and 30% of all the best TexMex in Texas. So you know, whatever. ;)
I follow your point, but what I'm trying to say is that *knowing* where it is on a map, and *knowing* that it is in Asia / Has a land-border with China; are two different things. I think that 80%+ of people in the US could tell you that second bit of info. And likewise, I imagine a similar percentage of draftees could have told you the same information about Vietnam. It is the political information gap that is important to recognize, not the geographic one.
It probably was unfair, to an extent. The good people of Arlington may beg to disagree with you however.
Well, I know where North Korea is, but Iowa would be a stab in the dark. Colour me ignorant.
Even more pointedly, humans do a bad job in general of deciding what geographic regions are important to know where they are.
For example, I bet you could show me exactly where Luxembourg is on a map, but would be virtually impossible for you to use just a map to show me where Tarrant County is. But, Tarrant County has about the same land area as Luxembourg as well as 3 times the population and 3 times the economic output.
So, really, "show me that on a map" is just a geography snob way to be a jerk to people, and should be ignored as such.
...AND Trump has officially drawn from the Paris Accords
Yeah, it's unfortunate. But, it won't have any real impact. The targets were non-binding, and it will take almost 3.5 years to back out of the agreement unless he can get the Senate to also back out of the governing treaty we signed in the 90's.
Yeah, he is a flagrant bombastic a!&*#$+. But that isn't new. That's what got him elected. Let's reserve the criticism for when his substance is the root problem, not the style. The fact that Merkel is talking about taking some of their own responsibility is an indication that his approach actually worked in this case. Europeans all-of-a-sudden feel like their safety is their own responsibility, are assessing the reality of what that means, and have found themselves lacking. They have been relying on the US too heavily, and Trump has given them the little shock they needed to get their collective acts together.
Strong Agree with you that a combined European military service would be a great boon for the Continent.
In all fairness to Trump (I literally just spit up in my mouth a little, but intellectual honesty is important if we [US] are going to get through this) NATO member states have been violating the treaty terms with blatant disregard for their obligation for decades. 2% of GDP is required military spending for each member. If NATO members wish to feel secure in it's promised protections, they should feel obligated to meet it's requirements. That is a completely reasonable position for the POTUS to take.
But in all actual reality in the real world for real; if Russian landing craft rolled up on the beaches of Greece or Turkey or rolled tanks into Latvia or Croatia, the US would provide more military assets in terms of hardware, technology, and manpower than the rest of Europe combined.
Because for as idiotic as The Dumpster Fire in Chief is, he still will succumb to US political pressure. Particularly from his base who are ever itching to send America's young brown population to die in a foreign country for "our" freedom. The idea that the US would not meet our NATO article 5 obligation is frankly laughable. Getting worked up about it is allowing yourself to be manipulated by a (bad) salesperson. He is appeasing his supporters because he told them he would make NATO members "pay their fair share." So he is using a very old sales technique called "the takeaway." On a salesroom floor you put a product in a person's hand and build an image of their life with the object. Then you take it out of their hands and put it behind the counter. In this version he is putting the "idea," of article 5 behind the counter because he wants Europe to spend more for their own defense.
Lo and behold, Merkel advocates for exactly that position.
This is a choice the airlines make though. When was the last time you saw amenities advertised from an air carrier? The consumer "chooses" the cheapest flight even when United increased their seat pitch, because the consumer assumed the airlines are all in a race to the bottom to screw passengers and beat them with prods into vertical gurneys with restraint straps. So, if you want to really see if making a more pleasant experience ACTUALLY affects passenger's willingness break an extra $50 out of their wallet, then you have to advertise and commit to informing your consumers AND your employees that there is a brand-related expectation of improved experience on your airline. United clearly didn't do this. And, their CEO knows that. He is a freaking wind-up cymbal monkey who is afraid to invest in long-term improvement if it means the capital outlay could affect his quarterly-report.
She actually didn't say anything about UK and US being unreliable, that was extrapolation by the press - she did say that the EU needed to rely on each other and not on other countries, mostly.
This seems like a far more reasonable position. The idea that Europe should work towards its own goals and the idea that US/UK military alliances with Europe aren't trustworthy is a rather large chasm for even a US news headline to stretch. But I guess I wouldn't put it past them these days. And, as I said, it was the headline itself that made me LOL.
The Mad Comrade wrote:
The Germany headline made me LOL. Like... really? Overreact much?
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Also that Trump isn't a senior official at the DOJ.
To take your example however, for most practical applications you don't have to understand how to do special (trigonometric, logarithmic) integrations, you just need to know "what" integrals and differentials are. Calculus 1+2 could easily be condensed into "application based calculus" and be perfectly adequate for 75%+ of engineers. (If you really felt it was super important you could squeeze in sums and series into "application based diff eq" for engineers or "discrete math" for programmers.) Teach them to use the tools rather than the theory. If a TI 89 can do it why do they need to be able to do it by hand?
Not really arguing with you, just saying I think there *is* some room to condense coursework. Also, strong agree on the writing courses.
What you are really saying is that we should encourage and promote an Associate of Engineering degree, and then call engineers tradespeople. Which I'm totally cool with. The problem is in the US we publicly take a dump all over tradespeople. Parents are disappointed when their kids go into a trade instead of getting a "real" degree. I don't think the engineers of the US are going to be keen on losing that status, and I don't think we are going to solve the plight of tradespeople either. So, until one or the other budges, you are left with the bachelor's degree which means an expectation of a rounded rather than targeted education.
GM Niles wrote:
It's nice that you have a relatively large population school to look after. Where school choice really kicks public schools in the gonads are 1A districts who also have a special needs population. Where you could pare down, that school becomes dangerously close to insolvency.
What is truly unfair is that charter schools can choose to not accept students based on basically whatever criteria they choose, including academic strength, handicap, religion, or gender. If you want public funding you should not be permitted selective admissions beyond zip code. And even that should be as wide as every square foot of each public school district their area intercepts.
Also, he has skimmed far more than $4,000.
I mean, you could have just linked me back to my own post, which would have been funnier actually.
Yeah, but murdering US citizens with an army of robots that roam the skies seems like a pretty big one to miss.
Student debt is skyrocketing, yet colleges are paying professors to do research rather than teach day in and day out. Why shouldn't we socialize higher education as well?
Actually, tenured positions are quickly disappearing across the US. The only faculty who are able to do research are those who are operating in a system with an endowment or are bringing in their own grant money. Adjunct faculty are taking on double-full course loads and dying on the vine. The problem in higher ed is administration costs, not research.
Also, we SHOULD socialize higher education.
The odds of rolling two 20's in-a-row before the first die is thrown is 1 in 400. The odds of rolling a second 20 after already rolling a 20 are 1 in 20.
Rolling any two called numbers in order on a d20 will always be 1 in 400. But we just never take note of the "specialness" of rolling a 7 and a 5 in order.
Yes, your strawman does indeed sound dubious.
I don't know that the system itself is terribly out-of-whack, just our application of it. What instead of just arbitrarily deciding how many representatives there should be we had a defined number. Like the number of representatives in the US house should equal (no of states) x 10 + 1. So, you would have 501 members in the US house divided up evenly by state population. This would diminish the voting power of states with only one or two representatives. There would be 604 electoral votes with 303 needed for victory. In the unlikely event that the electoral vote splits 302/302 let the popular vote call it.
Basically, I get the need for the protections the electoral college is meant to provide, I think they are useful, but at present time over-leveraged.
Edit: it looks like I may have replied to the wrong post, but I'm too lazy to go back and fix it.
Edit edit: yeah, I meant to reply to the post two above the one I actually did. :p
Sadly, that is due in large parts to very successful branding by republicans and aided in large parts by Sanders. It's patently false, but they are quite good at getting large groups to believe patently false ideas.Which brings us back around to a comment I made on the third page of this thread.
The problem is that Democrats suck at sales.
On the radio yesterday I heard an interview with a French "political scientist," who said that there was no possible way that a populist movement could really take hold in France, and how people weren't stupid enough to let a shooting on the Champs-Élysées change their mind about a politician.
It was then that I knew Le Pen would win. Really no question at this point.
He's just on the exact opposite end of the "women aren't people, they are just for men's uses" camp. He just avoids women because he may be seen as improper if he had even a professional relationship. He is incapable of picturing a woman as his chief of staff, for example. So he isn't any better than Trump in the war on women, he is just different.
a well respected doctor
Unfortunately, this may not be true. Which is totally beside the point. His respectability and his profession should not be a consideration here. Though, as thejeff points out, it likely will be. His past will probably completely overwhelm the story and United will tiptoe out the back of the room during the mud slinging.
At this point, I think that chartering a plane for their employees (or booking them on a competitor) would have been cheaper than the ensuing fallout. In particular their Chinese market sales are looking to take a big hit.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Well, your previous post WAS directed at me, and talked about "narrative," then your very next post was, "of course, actual facts don't matter."
So if you meant to separate those two statements you went out of your way to link them.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
This does not follow. I said that the statement "9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation," is bogus. All other claims I made were directly related to that assertion.
Assigning me positions or motivations is neither probative nor helpful. But have fun with your strawman or whatever.
(1) Jobs that never existed cannot be lost.
(2) Increased production also increases jobs in the supply chain.
If you pretend that (1) is false, and ignore (2), then you aren't making an honest assessment of the situation at hand.
I'm not saying that automation is blameless in job loss, I'm saying that 9/10 production jobs in the IS have been lost to automation is bogus.
For someone who complains about people replying to them and changing the subject I am surprised you would respond in this manner.
I was talking about the 9/10 statistic you cited specifically. What do you have to back that up?
So basically "what-if" combined with a failure to count job expansion due to the increased production product.
Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
So anybody from Georgia's 6th district? Looks like the repubs are spending top dollar on ads against the democrat candidate Jon Ossoff . Gotta admit I love their font at the end of the ad lol
OMG! That guy went to college at one point! And had some particularly nerdy interests and hobbies! TO SHAME!!!
Adding to CBD's point, Kennedy is still the tie-breaker on SCOTUS. Trump is just putting the court back in the state it was in before Scalia died. The court is effectively a toss up even after the new appointment.
If (Desna help us) RBG dies in the next 3.5 years (or 7.5 Weeping) then we will have a serious problem.
It is equally fair to say the party abandoned them and screwed us all by putting the republicans in charge.
I really hope the Democratic party can get its stuff together better than this thread. I really hope that they can find it in themselves to agree on some stuff, even if it's just broad strokes, and move in some direction. Rather than just be at each others' throats blaming different things for their failure and just picking out the flaws in each others' reasonings.
Sadly, this thread probably has far more coherent ideas for the future of the party than the democratic leadership does. And half of this thread thinks the party should die...
So much this. Maybe you didn't steal them, but your BFF put them in your pocket.
I'll start off by stipulating that I could be grossly underestimating the importance of the 3rd base coach; in which case I have read your statement incorrectly.
I think this is closer to "people don't know how powerful / influential party bosses are," rather than, "no one has heard of this particular party boss nor can they tell me what they actually do; therefore they are not very powerful."
The second option there is a complete non-sequitur, and it is very close to your analogy.
If I may offer a different analogy. It is more like the Lt. Governor of the state of Texas. Most people in Texas couldn't tell you who that guy is or pick him out of a line. Even less could describe his job and scope of power. But he is arguably the most powerful person in the State of Texas, even beyond the Governor. The Governor gets to appoint state positions, and declare emergencies, and sign laws, but the Lt Governor gets to write law and preside over the Texas Senate. That means he sets the agenda and creates the content. He is in a position to pull all the strings.
That is much closer to the party boss. No one can tell you who they are or what they do, but when it comes to brass tacks; that person has ALL the power.
This is a hugely important point since processes and outcomes are not the same. Intimidation, dissent-quelling, and silencing can be achieved through process regardless of outcomes. Kairos is a thing.
Actually, my original claim in September was that we should consider the possibility that there is a polling bias in favor of Clinton.
I never said wood chippers don't work, I said they were being used poorly in this case.
As for anti-vaxxers, There is a notable exception that I made a claim based on my own observation about the past which then proved to be correct in the future. Anti-vaxxers don't have evidence to demonstrate their claims. I do.
You are the one without evidence to the contrary. You are the one having difficulty coming to terms with reality. It sounds like you are actually the anti-vaxxer.
As soon as you are ready to strike an actual claim based of evidence rather than, "LALALA DONT BELIEVE YOU LALALALA," I have a significant amount of substantiating data and a one-way ANOVA to show you. But until then I am happy to stay with, "I don't have to know why a thing is to know that a thing is."
Edit: since no one else seems interested in this topic; if you want to continue, let's take it to PM.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.