bisby

Axios's target demo is the employers, not the affected young people.

This is an article about "if you don't care about other people, stop and think about how it affects your bottom line." It's meant to be a way to attempt to instill some pseudo-empathy into the sociopath business types.

When you are trying to talk sense to dense people, sometimes you have to say things that don't tone well with reality in order to reach them.

That is his entire resume though. It's not a "back in college" thing when you are fresh out of college.

It doesn't make sense. It's barely even a dog whistle, it's just a real whistle but stupid.

She's a TERF (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist). She is basing her argument on "I'm a Feminist, I fight for women's rights!" so that she sounds progressive and righteous if you aren't paying enough attention. (Thus the "dog whistle" part)

The "sex-based" bit is the trans exclusionary part though. She has decided that she gets to decide what is a "real" "woman" and she has decided that "women" are only those people born with a vagina (thus the "reducing women to their genitals" comment).

I never signed a contract to be born, or to die of old age. We don't always get to approve of the circumstances of life.

I'm using a 9950x3d and have never had to intervene with anything

I'm so impressed by what the jellyfin roku team has come up with over the years.

According to Debian users, "stable" means "unchanging" and not "doesn't crash or have bugs" ... If you still ship 100% of the changes but just delay them by 2 weeks, you have the same number of changes. So by the Debian definition of "stable", no, it is the exact same as arch.

By the everyone else definition where "stable" means "doesn't crash or have bugs", then also no. Shipping buggy code 2 weeks later doesn't reduce bugs. And if you use the AUR at all, then things get worse, I've found, as the AUR pkgbuilds expect dependencies to match current up to date Arch repos.

tl;dr - no

To help you better understand, the way I see it, every time I do something that financially benefits , I assume I am giving money to the executives/owners/etc.

For example, if I spend $30 on a Harry Potter book, I assume JK Rowling gets $0.10 of that (i dont know how it works, but lets assume), and she spends a substantial portion of her income on anti-trans rights. If we assume anywhere near 10%, then me giving her 10 cents is the same as donating 1 cent to anti-trans rights. Is Harry Potter a good enough book that I am willing to donate money to hate groups to obtain it? Personally no. Other people may look at it and say "It's only $0.01, and I really like the story!" and think it is worth it. That's up to you where your threshold is for when the good outweighs the bad.

Contributing legitimacy to something can financially benefit it. Even if I never spend any money on Firefox (for example), user metrics allow them to make bargains with Google to get more money in exchange for default search status. So me using Firefox gets money for Mozilla. And if Mozilla was spending that money on hate groups, I wouldn't want to be involved in that.

Yes, I am aware that basically every company out there is super shitty. And giving money or support to almost any major corporation is basically funding hate groups in some way. But when the CEO is loudly outspoken about these things, I'd very much rather just swap to a brand that at least isn't outwardly proud of it's stupidity. Unless the other options are just as bad and I need a thing: if my local ISP was run by murderers, I still need internet. That's not something I'm willing to compromise on. But I do have other choices in browsers and Brave doesn't have any features I can't live without.

So to answer your question: it does not reflect on the product quality, but it does impact how much quality I demand from a product.

Brave might be a fine browser, but the CEO is infamously anti-LGBTQ and was anti-mask during the pandemic. And the whole crypto-coin association and injecting affiliate links into search results... Everything about Brave makes me want to avoid Brave. Is there anything magical about it that make it any different than other chromium browsers that makes it worth supporting right wing crypto bros?

Tarkov is a live service game. Which has its own ups and downs. Tarkov has benefits of having some things progress while you are offline. Things happen at the server level while you're gone.

Not every game needs to be a live service game though or try to use live service features in a single player offline game.

Unless there is a very specific reason in the game mechanics why in game time is 1:1 with real time, it doesn't make a lot of sense except to be divisive and a discussion point.

It's far more complicated than I have made it sound. it's not just "once every year apple go up". You'd need to be following as much public information about a company as possible, and be keeping track of trends. Keeping track of those things is a full time job. Especially since you need to keep track of many companies. And then that will still often only get you a slight edge.

In theory, if you are following a company's public financials very closely and keeping track of things, not all of the stock market is completely unpredictable.

Some companies do certain things on predictable cadences. Every year at WWDC, apple announces a new iphone, and every year the stock price goes up a bit as a result. You're not going to triple your money in a week, but if you can get 5% in a week, you're already doing as good as most banks offer for a whole year.

Knowing too much information is illegal. That's "insider trading", at which point it is completely not gambling because you already know if the stock is going to go up or down, and that's just cheating.