exasperation

The blue part is obviously land

Exactly.

I'm probably generally more optimistic about the future than the average Lemmy users, but even if I were pessimistic about the broad big picture questions, I'd still have plenty of local bits of local optimism. I really enjoy the company of my friends and family. I'm excited about my kids growing into cool adults who will do good things, from the tiny and mundane (a piece of artwork, a joke that makes me laugh) to the medium (taking an interest in my interests) to the big stuff (making big moves to change the world for the better).

I can't end poverty or hunger. But I can support the food bank in my neighborhood and volunteer/give to organizations that are doing good work at alleviating hunger and homelessness. And maybe feeding someone a single meal doesn't change the systemic problem that made him rely on my charity, but you'd better believe that meal still makes a difference to him in that moment.

Same with getting local kids their school supplies, helping a neighbor raise funds to pay off some medical debt, getting someone work clothes so that they can go interview for a job, teaching people how to negotiate and organize for better pay, etc.

We have plenty of power, collectively. Let's not waste it being miserable and unproductive.

I just assumed that the family in the movie was rich and that all of the drivers of the plot were rich people problems. Kinda like Home Alone.

3d scanner that generates a 3d printing file that automatically creates one in your friends' inboxes. It's just plastic for now but they're working on adding new materials and artificial scents to really capture the whole experience.

Marvel licensed the film rights to Spider Man to Sony.

Then X-Men to Fox.

Then Hulk to Universal.

And throughout all of this, the lawyers have fought over which villains or characters properly fall within each category, signing new deals or borrowing characters and rights.

The Disney-Fox merger made things simpler for X-Men versus not-X-Men characters. But the Spider-Man cross licensing for Sony-produced Spider Man movies that take place within the same universe as MCU makes it more complicated, too. So did the Netflix rights to Daredevil and Jessica Jones and a few other characters in that orbit.

Wtf is it for?

To make money, including making sure that rights don't lapse from non-use.

Dawkins' The Selfish Gene goes into this in greater detail. Many species are hardwired to be willing to sacrifice their own lives for the survival of their kin. Basically, genes that code for protective and social behaviors might result in any given individual more likely to die before reproducing, but makes that individual's close genetic kin more likely to survive to reproduction such that a particular group/pod/clan/flock is much more likely to persist over generations.

The extreme example is ants and bees, where most of the workers we see biologically cannot reproduce and are dead ends as individuals. But they work for the hive/colony, and the reproducing queen is the center of that reproductive strategy.

You see it with a lot of animals, especially those wired to be social.

Now I make 230

Yeah the break even point is like the early 30's, even among people who are killing it in either path.10 years of $100k+ in your 20's won't be able to build up enough of a buffer against $200k+ after 30, when retirement ages are around 60.

a number of students that were attending just because family wanted them to, but their heart wasn’t in it

There are probably an even higher percentage of those in trade schools or entry level trades roles. You can't compare the worst outcomes in one category with the best outcomes in another, and should instead compare medians.

Seems like there's a way to analyze this in a systematic way, from social security name data. Any name that popped up as a newly popular name and fell back off within a decade or two would probably eventually become a marker of that generation.

Gladys was popular between 1900 and 1920, and became known as an old lady name by the 80's or 90's.

Karen was popular between 1945 and 1965, and is regarded a prototypical boomer name.

The Baby Jessicas of the 80's will be retirees in the 2050's. Ashleys and Emilys will probably be that in the 2060's. There will be Britneys and Emmas.

But the methodology could probably be applied to the data in a systematic way.

Nah, that advice is still correct. The 4-year degree provides a huge benefit over not having it.

It's just that a lot of people don't realize just how much shittier not having a degree in 2024 is compared to not having a degree in 1974.

So while the baseline has gotten worse, and the actual benefit of college has shrunk, it's still easily worth the 4 year commitment and the tuition/opportunity cost.

Altoona melt

I was gonna eat that steak anyway, whether I send zero or 100 emails today.