Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Hezzilreen the Cunning

BigDTBone's page

4,716 posts (4,761 including aliases). No reviews. 2 lists. 2 wishlists. 7 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 4,716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like pulling punches in the first few encounters of a campaign is completely fine. You are looking for the power curve of the group vs the power curve of your NPC's. As long as you learned from it and can plan accordingly it is completely fine.


Sissyl wrote:
I.e. Service jobs, no?

And construction, maintence, or anything that requires being done in a place rather than shipped to a place.


thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Orfamay: If what you say is true, the solution is simple enough: Everyone who wants a well-paid, skilled, stable job without a degree needs to start their own company/hire themselves out as a consultant/etc.

Not in the slightest. If you're a sole proprietorship, that doesn't actually adjust the negotiation disequilibrium at all. Look at how Wal*Mart treats its (corporate) suppliers -- they're notorious for offering you a supply contract for next year at a lower price than you got this year; if you don't want it, they'll simply contract to someone else. Wal*Mart is essentially a cartel unto itself (the formal term is monospony).

And the way to counter a monospony is not to create a corporate wrapper, but to create a cartel of your own.

Everyone who wants a well-paid, skilled, stable job without a degree needs to get together with everyone else who wants a well-paid, skilled, and stable job without a degree and agree that until the company in question is willing to pay 600 ducats an hour, no one will work for them at 300 ducats. Basically, what unions used to do if management tried to squeeze workers' wages to line their own pockets.

Today capital is managing to line its own pockets because they can approach every worker individually and say "we don't think what you do is worth 600 ducats, but we will let you stay on for 300," relying on the fact that there are, in fact, enough people willing to work for 300 that they don't need to pay more. Fire the ones who aren't desperate enough to accept poverty wages, and rely on the fact that you can always make more desperate people if you need to (for example, by cutting the social safety net).

And if you do stick together and demand 600 ducats, very often they can go off to some other country and get workers for 20 ducats - enough to save even with the lower efficiency and shipping costs and all.

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:
And 30% of the best Tex-Mex? Idk man, San Antonio and Austin may take the cake on that.

I left them 70%...


Captain Battletoad wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
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.

As someone who's lived in Tarrant County, unless you like the Rangers, Cowboys, or Six Flags, there's not much reason to know where Tarrant County is. Hell even when the Super Bowl was here, everyone referred to it as Dallas.

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. ;)


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
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.

To some extent. When it comes to weird little countries or regions, it's just a geography quiz.

When it comes to something like North Korea, which has been in the news recently as a potential nuclear flashpoint, it might be a little more reasonable.

Mind you, this isn't a new thing either. There are stories from back in the day of kids drafted to go to Vietnam not knowing where it was.

And for the record: I know roughly where Luxembourg is, but couldn't even have told you what country Tarrant County was in. ** spoiler omitted **

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.

Spoiler:
It probably was unfair, to an extent. The good people of Arlington may beg to disagree with you however.


Sissyl wrote:
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.


MMCJawa wrote:
...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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

Stripped of Trump's actual rhetoric and approach, sure. It's in fact the position taken by Obama and most of the NATO states have been moving towards meeting those commitments over the last years, even without the bluster and threats.

Sometimes it isn't the basic stance that's the problem, but the tactics used to reach it.

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.


WormysQueue wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
But in all actual reality in the real world for real; if Russian landing craft rolled up on the beaches of Greece or Turkey, the US would provide more military assets in terms of hardware, technology, and manpower than the rest of Europe combined.

On the other hand, the european countries combined spend more money on their military than the U.S. which would be another excellent argument for a better collaboration, because that would probably lead to more effective military structures by costing less money simultaneously.. Still, you're right as far as the 2% are concerned, and I totally agree that the european countries should feel obligated to meet the requirements of the NATO treaties. Especially the rich ones. like Germany.

But here's the thing: IF Russia would do something like this, we actually can't rely on the U.S. to do anything about it. So we (the europeans) need to be able to protect ourselves and if Donald Trump helps that our leaders finally realize that we can't hide any longer behind the american back, then I'd have finally found something positive about Trump to say.

Strong Agree with you that a combined European military service would be a great boon for the Continent.


Sissyl wrote:

Trump did state during his campaign that he wouldn't honour article 5. He has not gone back on that statement. How exactly are the other NATO countries supposed to assume he will not refuse to help when the time comes? In what way is the US trustworthy in military matters?

Let's be clear here: The entire point of a military alliance is that you can count on having allies that will stand with you WITHOUT HAVING TO DEAL FOR IT IN AN ACUTE SITUATION. It may be that Trump and various Americans believe that what Trump is doing is pressuring the other NATO members to pay more. What he really is doing is taking away the idea that the US will help in case of invasion. At least not without having to make a deal when their backs are against the wall.

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.


CBDunkerson wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
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.

The President of the United States has repeatedly suggested that he might not honor Article 5 of the NATO alliance. When directly pressed on the issue he refused to say that he would. Merkel then said that Europe can't rely on 'others' and must stand on its own.

Where exactly is the 'stretch' in interpreting that as Europe not being able to rely on the US to honor military alliances? Trump had just gone out of his way to make it clear that they can't.

Merkel didn't overreact. The media didn't stretch.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

He's not wrong though. Customers pick the cheapest flights then complain about the amenities.

Seat pitch directly affects the number of seats on the plane, which ties directly to ticket price.

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.


feytharn wrote:
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:

USS Nimitz to join the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Carl Vinson in the western Pacific region. 28th May 2017

Latest DPRK ballistic missile test? 6 p.m. ET 28th May 2017

Germany says they can no longer rely on the UK and US as allies, that they and Europe must stand on their own. 28th May 2017

Russia reaffirms willingness to use tactical nuclear weapons if U.S. or U.N. troops enter Crimea or the eastern Ukraine. 2:35 ET weekend of 27th May 2017

Venezuela's slide into anarchy continues. 24th May 2017

The Germany headline made me LOL. Like... really? Overreact much?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Grey_Mage wrote:

On the original topic

On 8 May Comey testified that the investigation was not pressured in any way.

HIRONO: So if the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation, can they halt that FBI investigation?
COMEY: In theory yes.
HIRONO: Has it happened?
COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that -- without an appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It's not happened in my experience.

CNN Transcript

Since the memo about the Trump-Comey meeting was in January there seems to be difficulty in making the jump that Trump ordered the investigation closed and serves as further evidence that an informal (and legal) request was more likely.

... or that Comey was lying to avoid embarrassing his boss. That seems to be SOP in the Trump administration, until people wise up that, first, it doesn't actually protect them, and, second, Trump is likely to undercut them for no apparent reason (just to keep everyone off-balance?)

Also that Trump isn't a senior official at the DOJ.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

We really could ditch the first two years of college. You had 12 years of "enrichement" and "general education" in k-12.

You go to college to learn SOMETHING. Not anything

Courses I didn't need to take again but had to pay for in college

phys ed (archery and tennis)

English: 101 readin
English: 102writin

social studies (magic and religion)
american history

Not to reopen the debate about the value of "liberal arts classes" - I know your opinion on the subject, but in many disciplines it's just not possible to start out by taking a full semester's load of core material. You need the general foundation classes before you can build on them. You can't get through Calc I, Calc II and Diff Eq in one semester - each builds on the others.

By your later years, you've got enough foundation you can take multiple specialized classes. So you get your liberal arts requirements out of the way in your first years.

Also, nearly everyone can use more writing courses, especially the sciencey/engineering types.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

We really could ditch the first two years of college. You had 12 years of "enrichement" and "general education" in k-12.

You go to college to learn SOMETHING. Not anything

Courses I didn't need to take again but had to pay for in college

phys ed (archery and tennis)

English: 101 readin
English: 102writin

social studies (magic and religion)
american history

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Niles wrote:

So, just to throw a few numbers at you (very rough budgetary numbers) my school's total population is around 500. The state budgets around 8k for each student (it's actually different in different LEAs but like I said, rough) So, my total school's operational budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 million a year. I get about 130k in Title 1, with a low ses population of 78% of the school. That's roughly 3% of the budget.

Title 1 is very very very overrated for what it actually does. (Which isn't much)

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It's a 4 trillion dollar federal budget. I really don't care if he's skimming .000000001 percent of it off the top
I care.
As do I, when he and Republicans are constantly lying about "balancing the budget" as an excuse for ways to gut the ACA, gut public education funding, and deny needed funds to Hurricane Matthew victims in NC (just for starters).

The problem there is the hypocrisy and not getting those things done, not the skimming itself.

How about we let them skim if they get the job done?

Also, he has skimmed far more than $4,000.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I apologize for not making an exhaustive list of Obama's worst actions.

That said, I'm never going to bother making that list, because someone will always complain that something was left off. If you want to be annoyed in the future, I will bookmark this post and link it for you.

Yeah, but murdering US citizens with an army of robots that roam the skies seems like a pretty big one to miss.
please go here for apology.

I mean, you could have just linked me back to my own post, which would have been funnier actually.


Irontruth wrote:

I apologize for not making an exhaustive list of Obama's worst actions.

That said, I'm never going to bother making that list, because someone will always complain that something was left off. If you want to be annoyed in the future, I will bookmark this post and link it for you.

Yeah, but murdering US citizens with an army of robots that roam the skies seems like a pretty big one to miss.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we get the Clinton-Assassin-Conspiracy-Theorists to weigh in on Roger Ailes dying less than 24 hours after an independent prosecutor was named to oversee the Trump-Russia investigation?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grey_Mage wrote:
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


Irontruth wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Actually we can easily suggest it. Trump's entire campaign was centered around the concept of returning to some sort of previous greatness. It was a core theme of many of his promises. So, it's quite easy to suggest it.

In fact, we aren't the only people who think this.

I get that people can think it. The point is those people are wrong.
I don't find your rebuttal convincing.

I'm sorry but its not a surprise that lots of racists and sexists are going to vote republican. Its a surprise (to some) that he beat clinton. You cant emphasize the narrow margins of his victories and then chalk it up to the same racists and sexists when trump wins via fewer people than Romney lost by. You think maybe there weren't 80k people out there who got stiffed in the clinton economy and aren't willing to vote for someone with that last name ever?

I can tell you i grew up in a PNW dying timber town that FIRMLY held the hate for that president over the spotted owl.

So you're suggesting that Clinton lost Oregon and Washington because of the spotted owl?

That seems like a dubious claim.

Yes, your strawman does indeed sound dubious.


thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Because you can reduce middle-class wages, and then easily make up the difference and then some by massively increasing the wages of the highest earners.
One might even note that this is the big issue behind that pesky wealth disparity everyone's complaining about. The Dow looks good, per worker productivity is high(despite the buying power of their wages being stagnant or falling), people who can afford to own a lot of stocks are making money (which means yay economy! as far as most media/politicians are concerned), unemployment goes down (Because people who lost full time decent waged positions finally had to take a part time minimum wage service job to pay bills).

Well yes, to some extent. Though it has nothing to do with the kind of statistics obfuscation Kirth was talking about, since that wasn't actually using the mean.

The median actually shows pretty well how the general population is doing. There aren't a lot of tricks you can play with it. It does hide income inequality though, in the sense that it doesn't tell you how far up the higher incomes go. You have to look at other measures for that.

As for your other points: Look at U6 as well as U3 to see a better measure of underemployment. Also if unemployment is dropping because people are taking part time minimum wage jobs in place of their good jobs, you'll see that in the median wage data - more low wage jobs, median wage drops.
Normally, that's not the pattern we see. Not in the downturn, since we then see unemployment rising and wages fall. In hard times, even the lousy jobs are hard to come by. Maybe in the very beginnings of recovery, but generally wages start to rise as unemployment falls. This was finally starting to happen over the last year or so.

It's certainly true that productivity has been steadily rising without an increase in real wages and that profits have been rising with that.

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


Squeakmaan wrote:
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.
BigDTBone wrote:
The problem is that Democrats suck at sales.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
What would you say is the base of the democratic party?

90's republicans


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

Looks like a fair amount of the youth are going for Le Pen.

Still not feeling confident about this.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Trump is incompetent and unhinged. Pence is competent, but also unhinged. It's probably futile to predict which would end up being worse in practice; there are just too many variables.

There are not, to my knowledge, recordings of Pence bragging about committing sexual assault. So there's that...

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.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.


thejeff wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

They bumped four paying passengers for four United employees who needed to get to Louisville... which is apparently only a ~5 hour drive away. Why the f!ck didn't someone from United rent a damn car and drive the employees there?! How is that United employee more important than the doctor whose patients needed to be seen the next day and cwouldn't have time/be able to reschedule?!

Boycotting isn't enough. People from United and the CPD to be disciplined at a minimum, if not fired. And as for the CPD involved, they need to be investigated and their conduct written into their records; they absolutely should not be allowed to quit, so the investigation can be dropped, leaving their record clean to be re-hired at some other PD.

Well, if those employees needed to be in Louisville for a flight in 4 hours and not making it would lead to hundreds of other passengers being delayed ...

Perhaps they shouldn't overbook like that in the first place.

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:
BigDTBone wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Of course, actual facts don't matter. Just look at how many people blame Hillary Clinton for George Bush's trade deal.
This is a full-tilt strawman train running off the rails. Jesus.
Not every post is directed at you. There is a reason that was a stand alone post.

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:
Of course, actual facts don't matter. Just look at how many people blame Hillary Clinton for George Bush's trade deal.

This is a full-tilt strawman train running off the rails. Jesus.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Do you have some reason to think it's being ignored?
Doesn't fit his narrative of "Dey Took Er Jobs!"
Basically the same narrative that has people hating NAFTA.

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.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Do you have some reason to think it's being ignored?
Doesn't fit his narrative of "Dey Took Er Jobs!"

... ?


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!

I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.

Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.

Near as I can tell, it's probably based on this report. I haven't dug through the whole thing, but it looks like it's based on the last ~15 years and the basic argument is that manufacturing output has increased, but employment has shrunk. The difference between the workers that would have been needed at the old productivity rates and the actual numbers employed is what they're looking at.
So basically "what-if" combined with a failure to count job expansion due to the increased production product.

I don't even under stand what you mean. "What-if"? How do you even talk about losses due to automation if you don't consider what it would have taken without the increased automation?

We are manufacturing more now than we were 15 years ago and we're using a lot less people to do it. No idea what "job expansion" you're talking about.

(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.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!

I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.

Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.

Watch this video and predict the number of forklift operators Amazon employs.

They do still employ a couple, but the number in comparison to a typical warehouse 10 or 15 years ago is very small. They aren't the only company to be using this kind of technology either. You better believe that UPS, Fedex, Walmart and Target are using more and more automated warehouses.

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?


thejeff wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!

I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.

Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.

Near as I can tell, it's probably based on this report. I haven't dug through the whole thing, but it looks like it's based on the last ~15 years and the basic argument is that manufacturing output has increased, but employment has shrunk. The difference between the workers that would have been needed at the old productivity rates and the actual numbers employed is what they're looking at.

So basically "what-if" combined with a failure to count job expansion due to the increased production product.


Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!

I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.

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!!!


CBDunkerson wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Much of the reason for the relative "sanity" of the GWB years was that the Democrats were not the party that was as far out in the wilderness as they are now. They had control of the House of Representatives and were an effective counter. Now they are a minority in both houses, and Trump is about to appoint his tie breaker to the Supreme Court. Unlike GWB, Trump has a unified party in control of Congress and he'll likely be rubberstamping a lot of bills they're going to be passing his way.
The House, Senate, and Supreme Court were all under GOP control from 2003 thru 2007... during GWB's presidency.

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.


thejeff wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Just as an aside, I think the term "purity" for caring about economically-progressive policies is misleading. In fact, the people pushing for those policies want LESS "purity," in the sense that they want more than one issue to be tackled -- economy as well as civil rights. In that sense, they're actually pushing for 50% less purity.

I know it's not intended as any kind of Orwellian double-speak, but that's how it strikes me.

Well, "purity" isn't intended to mean "cares about economically-progressive politics", but "will abandon the Democratic party if they're not sufficiently economically progressive, screwing us all over by putting the Republicans back in charge".

It is equally fair to say the party abandoned them and screwed us all by putting the republicans in charge.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
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...


Samy wrote:
Quote:
If I lose my car keys, but I think you stole them, should you and I proceed based on what I think, or what is true?
I think you'll find most people who think you stole their car keys won't proceed anywhere until you give back their car keys, whether you stole them or not.

So much this. Maybe you didn't steal them, but your BFF put them in your pocket.


Irontruth wrote:

I bet if you asked most people who Debbie Wasserman-Schulz is/was and what responsibilities the DNC chair has, a lot of them wouldn't be able to tell you.

It's like arguing over the 3rd base coach of the Cleveland Indians and expecting that to significantly change the outcome of the World Series.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Other than the man who read a satirical poem criticizing erdogan who's been booked under the hate speech laws for insulting a foreign head of state and facing 3 months to 5 years in jail?
The case was dropped back in October. Prosecutors did not find sufficient evidence of crime to proceed.

being arrested for something you said is not cool either. I mean it's "only" armed people locking you up, strip searching you, throwing you in a cell with criminals, and threatening to send you to jail for a long time.

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Most of the undermining of unions has been done at the state level through republican held legislatures. Yes, Obama was president, but he doesn't get to decide what laws the Michigan state legislature passes.

Tell the Air Traffic Controllers that.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Or on a more interesting front; present some evidence that I am wrong. If observation isn't substantial enough, then make your case.

I think you have overlooked a very important aspect of this conversation. I haven't offered a solution. That is why I don't need to know why. If I had told you how I propose to fix the bias then I would need to know intricate information about the bias. I have only asserted that there was a bias.

To give a common (real, non-wood-chipper) example: Gregor Mendel didn't have to understand why heritable traits transferred from one generation of pea plant to the next in order to observe it, predict it, or manipulate it. Knowing why something is is simply not a prerequisite to knowing that something is.

I don't have to present evidence you're wrong. You've presented bad data, made assumptions based that bad data, then when confronted with the fact that you didn't have good data, claimed you were right all along anyways. I've already identified that your methodology at arriving at conclusions is sloppy and inaccurate. If your method of seeking answers provides a correct one, it is through luck or reliance on parroting things you've heard with no understanding.

To use your analogy, you don't actually know that the thing is a wood chipper. You've heard about wood chippers and think this might be one based on the vague description, but there's a chance it's a paper shredder too. You're also asserting that because you shouldn't put your hand in it, that the machine should be avoided at all costs and everyone should consider it useless. You're asserting that because there is a chance of danger, it is impossible for it to be useful.

In this instance, you are not Gregor Mendel. You are an anti-vaxxer.

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.

1 to 50 of 4,716 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

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.