Post What's on Your Mind
- Thread starter Ellie
- Start date
Mega Flare
Awesome Bro
Been listening to Wrong Creatures none stop the last week
coyotecraft
Sponsor
Ursula Le Guin did at 88. She wrote the Earthsea series. Most people might only be familiar with "A wizard of Earthsea"
The Sci-Fi channel made it a miniseries back in 2004.
Studio Ghibli made "Tales of Earthsea" that I haven't seen yet.
The Sci-Fi channel made it a miniseries back in 2004.
Studio Ghibli made "Tales of Earthsea" that I haven't seen yet.
coyotecraft
Sponsor
smithmikeamerica (35), mikesmithinsurance (35), Smithmike (35), mikemooresmith (35), mikesmithfranchise (35), Mikegaines (35)
coyotecraft
Sponsor
I watched this video about the differences between rich and poor people. Like it's all to do with mentality and not circumstances.
I mean the rich have money, the poor don't. The rich can invest, the poor can not.
The most aggravating scenario was where both are given $5 - so they're on equal ground, neither rich or poor. A poor mentality thinks they can only buy 1 of 2 items that they want, and does. A rich person mentality "thinks" to buy both in a ridiculous unrealistic fashion. The rich person buys neither item at first and instead buys water bottles. Somehow transport themselves and all the water bottles across town (for free, because remember they are now broke) where they resell the water bottle for a higher price (miraculously, under perfect conditions, in no time at all, experiencing no loss or misfortune in the process. As if they weren't sacrificing everything in a risky venture) then return to buy both items in an alternate dimension where the "poor" person didn't already buy one of the 2 items.
I mean, suppose the "poor" mentality still has the item they bought - they could then sell to the rich mentality for -lets say 70%, of whatever income "rich" person makes. Or better yet, offer to trade it for X amount of water bottles so the "rich" person goes back to buy more water bottles only to find they've driven up the market value of water bottles after selling it at a higher price across town and will have to come up with another scheme in order to have it all.
I mean the rich have money, the poor don't. The rich can invest, the poor can not.
The most aggravating scenario was where both are given $5 - so they're on equal ground, neither rich or poor. A poor mentality thinks they can only buy 1 of 2 items that they want, and does. A rich person mentality "thinks" to buy both in a ridiculous unrealistic fashion. The rich person buys neither item at first and instead buys water bottles. Somehow transport themselves and all the water bottles across town (for free, because remember they are now broke) where they resell the water bottle for a higher price (miraculously, under perfect conditions, in no time at all, experiencing no loss or misfortune in the process. As if they weren't sacrificing everything in a risky venture) then return to buy both items in an alternate dimension where the "poor" person didn't already buy one of the 2 items.
I mean, suppose the "poor" mentality still has the item they bought - they could then sell to the rich mentality for -lets say 70%, of whatever income "rich" person makes. Or better yet, offer to trade it for X amount of water bottles so the "rich" person goes back to buy more water bottles only to find they've driven up the market value of water bottles after selling it at a higher price across town and will have to come up with another scheme in order to have it all.
Nathaniel3W
Member
It seems you're upset by this video. Do you think the video was oversimplified? Were its examples bad? Or do you disagree with the premise entirely?
Addressing poverty on a global scale, there's a great book called The Bottom Billion that discusses the "traps" that keep entire countries in permanent poverty. Conflict, landlocked with bad neighbors, corruption in a small economy, and exports from an undeveloped economy are the traps that I can remember off the top of my head. Those are big issues that no single person or family can negate with spending habits or work ethic.
But in a stable, developed nation like the US, UK, Canda, or Australia, there are plenty of opportunities for lifting oneself out of poverty. I don't know that water-bottle arbitrage is one of them. But marriage and having your first child after 30 have a HUGE impact on earnings, that child's future, and the chances of breaking generational poverty. If you're just talking about raw earnings, a cohabitating couple with no children makes more than a husband and wife with kids. But if we're talking about the conditions that perpetuate poverty, then we have to consider kids, and the married couple's kids are less likely to stay in poverty.
There are certain practices that rich (or at least middle class) parents teach their kids that poor kids usually don't learn. There are a million little things (waking up on time; nonviolent conflict resolution; grammar, accent, and other class indicators; avoidance of bad debt) that add up to "employable and living within means," which may not make one a billionaire, but certainly should make one comfortable. Even if you were born in disadvantageous circumstances, there are behaviors that can lift you and your family out of poverty.
Addressing poverty on a global scale, there's a great book called The Bottom Billion that discusses the "traps" that keep entire countries in permanent poverty. Conflict, landlocked with bad neighbors, corruption in a small economy, and exports from an undeveloped economy are the traps that I can remember off the top of my head. Those are big issues that no single person or family can negate with spending habits or work ethic.
But in a stable, developed nation like the US, UK, Canda, or Australia, there are plenty of opportunities for lifting oneself out of poverty. I don't know that water-bottle arbitrage is one of them. But marriage and having your first child after 30 have a HUGE impact on earnings, that child's future, and the chances of breaking generational poverty. If you're just talking about raw earnings, a cohabitating couple with no children makes more than a husband and wife with kids. But if we're talking about the conditions that perpetuate poverty, then we have to consider kids, and the married couple's kids are less likely to stay in poverty.
There are certain practices that rich (or at least middle class) parents teach their kids that poor kids usually don't learn. There are a million little things (waking up on time; nonviolent conflict resolution; grammar, accent, and other class indicators; avoidance of bad debt) that add up to "employable and living within means," which may not make one a billionaire, but certainly should make one comfortable. Even if you were born in disadvantageous circumstances, there are behaviors that can lift you and your family out of poverty.
Nathaniel3W":1e10we8t said:
So you're saying if I have a(nother? There's actually a high chance I legit have multiple children around the UK) kid before I'm 30, there's a chance they could break me out of poverty and make me rich, but if I wait until after, I'm screwed? God I wish I could just have a kid and put it on tele and make it do stupid shit for adverts or something, or have some celebrity touch it so I got a fuck ton of money. Doesn't even need to be my kid, or a kid at all, just someone who can sound convincing enough to have people believe a celebrity touched them... anyone here fancy hopping on the #metoo bandwagon, see if we can make some big buck?
Nathaniel3W
Member
I didn't say anything of the sort.
Having kids before you turn 30 correlates with generational poverty. If you have your first kid before you turn 30, you and your kids are more likely to end up poor than if you have your first kid after 30. Because I specified generational poverty, that necessarily involves children. Poor people not having kids would by definition end generational poverty, but I don't see that as a solution to the problem.
It may well be that the first-child-before-thirty metric is a spurious correlation, but it's probably a good proxy for a more complicated having-one's-shit-together-before-having-kids metric.
Having kids before you turn 30 correlates with generational poverty. If you have your first kid before you turn 30, you and your kids are more likely to end up poor than if you have your first kid after 30. Because I specified generational poverty, that necessarily involves children. Poor people not having kids would by definition end generational poverty, but I don't see that as a solution to the problem.
It may well be that the first-child-before-thirty metric is a spurious correlation, but it's probably a good proxy for a more complicated having-one's-shit-together-before-having-kids metric.
coyotecraft
Sponsor
A little bit of everything I guess. I mean, it was saying it's a mindset. But the "rich" thinking in the examples are foolish, impractical, unrealistic and would require their own circumstances to work. There's one about a shoe salesmen visiting a village that doesn't wear shoes. The "poor" salesman leaves because there isn't a market for shoes, while the "rich" thinks "Awesome! An untapped market". Somehow the rich thinker manages to do what the poor couldn't and squeezes blood from a stone.Nathaniel3W":2xyskkl2 said:
Maybe it was trying to say poor thinker didn't even try, but that's stupid because he's a shoe salesman and traveled to the village. How does he not try?
It's like the the example with the waterbottles. The rich person thinks to obtain more money. Implying a poor person wouldn't? I mean, it's an obvious solution.
Like nothing is an obstacles for "rich" thinkers. Anything is possible. Like a "poor" person would go down with a sinking ship. A rich person would tie planks to their shoes, wrangle a dolphin, and water ski to safety. lol, poor people are dumb. Circumstances be damned, it's all about positive thinking. It's "the secret", the law of attraction bullshit.
There's plenty of opportunities for people to work their way out of poverty - but so, so many children are never given these opportunities. Even in developed countries like the UK - so many children miss out because of the location in the country or the age of their parents or the amount of income their family has.
I remember as a child in school having to sit out of activities and watch the other kids because my family couldn't afford to pay the small fee that would have allowed me to take part. Loads of kids playing musical instruments join the music club because they could afford an instrument and lessons as a child, I never had access to that.
I am so incredibly lucky that my dad was obsessed enough with computers to give me the early start towards the career I have now, but when I think back there are just so many obstacles that were in the way where if one thing went differently I would not be in the situation I'm in - because the opportunities would never have been an option for me.
Talking to my half-brother the other day (he's in secondary school) and he said how his first Computing lesson and out of the entire class only two children had seen a proper computer (with a keyboard). Every other child had iPads or Xbox consoles, they were at such a big disadvantage because their families didn't have the computing skills or knowledge or insight to know how many opportunities a desktop computer can bring your child.
I don't think anyone can truly claim to know the difference between what keeps the poor, poor and the rich, rich. My personal belief is that it's to do with the opportunities people are given as a child. If your family has money then chances are you'll get presented with so many opportunities to explore compared to a poor family, but there's more to it than just money.
I remember as a child in school having to sit out of activities and watch the other kids because my family couldn't afford to pay the small fee that would have allowed me to take part. Loads of kids playing musical instruments join the music club because they could afford an instrument and lessons as a child, I never had access to that.
I am so incredibly lucky that my dad was obsessed enough with computers to give me the early start towards the career I have now, but when I think back there are just so many obstacles that were in the way where if one thing went differently I would not be in the situation I'm in - because the opportunities would never have been an option for me.
Talking to my half-brother the other day (he's in secondary school) and he said how his first Computing lesson and out of the entire class only two children had seen a proper computer (with a keyboard). Every other child had iPads or Xbox consoles, they were at such a big disadvantage because their families didn't have the computing skills or knowledge or insight to know how many opportunities a desktop computer can bring your child.
I don't think anyone can truly claim to know the difference between what keeps the poor, poor and the rich, rich. My personal belief is that it's to do with the opportunities people are given as a child. If your family has money then chances are you'll get presented with so many opportunities to explore compared to a poor family, but there's more to it than just money.
I feel like this is especially true. Successful people like to tote that the reason why they are successful is because THEY worked hard and THEY arent lazy like unsuccessful people. Newsflash everyone has that ability, its not anything special; some weren't given the opportunity to be successful. Someone's success comes from the success of another. Its a western mentality
And poverty does make it harder. Education is generally worse, resources are vey limited, mental health issues and crime are more rampant, etc. A lot kids, here in the US, quit education to feed themselves and their family. Full time jobs, sometimes two jobs. Many get exploited. Some sent to jail where they work for nickles instead of dollars (we have a lot of private prisons to fill).
Meanwhile, rich person selling water bottles continues yo exploit people who dont know better, and somehow that makes him successful. They just sold snake oil and widened the privilege gap.
My PC committed Sudoku and it'll be 3 months until I can get a replacement so fuck me I guess. Using my bros laptop for all my C# work but it legit takes 10 minutes for visual studios to start up.
Decided to upgrade the PC though. I'm going to get a SSD, new i7 cpu, new mobo and a 750w psu.
Decided to upgrade the PC though. I'm going to get a SSD, new i7 cpu, new mobo and a 750w psu.
The way people reacted to Linus Tech Tips' video about stealing the sanitary towels from Amazon Go is atrocious. I need a place to vent about this so here we go.
First issue: He got addressed by a person during the shooting who was complaining about him making a video about it being "awkward" to buy feminine hygiene products. For men, it really is awkward (at first - eventually you learn to not give a shit), what are you going to achieve by pretending it's not awkward? The ideal world - in the future - it won't be awkward and everyone will be educated properly and it will be fine, but we're not in that ideal world yet, so for now it's awkward.
Second issue: People complaining about the video title calling them tampons - when they're sanitary towels (pads if you're an English simplified speaker). He calls them pads in the video, and when I first watched it I thought "well, they're pads, but let's watch and see what happens" and after watching the video (where he does call them pads) I came to the conclusion that the misnomer was done for search engine optimisation (closer to a minor form of click-baiting - and clearly it worked). People who didn't watch the video judged it by the title - I'm still okay with this. It's their reaction I think is horrible. Rather than address the mistake maturely, so many people started to try and bully Linus on Twitter for "not knowing the difference", saying things like he'd never slept with a girl before or never had a girlfriend or had never seen a vagina - they guy is married with 3 kids! This is the type of bullying 16 year old kids do, not adults, what is wrong with these people?
Going hypothetical: There are so many blokes out there who won't know the difference because they haven't been in a relationship where they've had to get involved in this business - because it is awkward for some people (see first issue above). Even if they've had girlfriends and slept with them, it may be something that they're just kept away from. Rather than discuss that better education is needed and helping these hypothetical men (which I am very confident do exist) people decided that bullying is the correct approach, how is this going to help all the awkward blokes who really don't know the difference? It's just going to show them that the subject is something to get ridiculed about and a source of bullying - will probably make them hate women.
Third issue: People saying it wasn't stealing. This is more of the people who think click-bait is a horrible crime, yeah click-bait is stupid and a shallow sign of attempting to manipulate a system, but who cares? Let them do that. If these people really cared about click-bait being an issue, then they'd have identified the click-bait of using "Tampon" in the video title - but these people missed that and decided to say it wasn't stealing. It's debatable whether it was stealing or not, is such a hill really worth dying over? He took an item out of the shop, falsely refunded it - and kept the item. That could be argued as stealing, these people taking issue on this have such a flimsy argument, they really shouldn't be bothered at all - they're just trying to find petty complaints about click-bait (and ignoring the obvious one where "tampon" was used).
Finally, people saying that this is an example of men in tech being dumb: Saying Linus Tech Tips is "tech" would be like calling the Teletubbies "prime-time television". He is what games journalism is to the games industry - insignificant, yet the only face of the industry that consumers see.
First issue: He got addressed by a person during the shooting who was complaining about him making a video about it being "awkward" to buy feminine hygiene products. For men, it really is awkward (at first - eventually you learn to not give a shit), what are you going to achieve by pretending it's not awkward? The ideal world - in the future - it won't be awkward and everyone will be educated properly and it will be fine, but we're not in that ideal world yet, so for now it's awkward.
Second issue: People complaining about the video title calling them tampons - when they're sanitary towels (pads if you're an English simplified speaker). He calls them pads in the video, and when I first watched it I thought "well, they're pads, but let's watch and see what happens" and after watching the video (where he does call them pads) I came to the conclusion that the misnomer was done for search engine optimisation (closer to a minor form of click-baiting - and clearly it worked). People who didn't watch the video judged it by the title - I'm still okay with this. It's their reaction I think is horrible. Rather than address the mistake maturely, so many people started to try and bully Linus on Twitter for "not knowing the difference", saying things like he'd never slept with a girl before or never had a girlfriend or had never seen a vagina - they guy is married with 3 kids! This is the type of bullying 16 year old kids do, not adults, what is wrong with these people?
Going hypothetical: There are so many blokes out there who won't know the difference because they haven't been in a relationship where they've had to get involved in this business - because it is awkward for some people (see first issue above). Even if they've had girlfriends and slept with them, it may be something that they're just kept away from. Rather than discuss that better education is needed and helping these hypothetical men (which I am very confident do exist) people decided that bullying is the correct approach, how is this going to help all the awkward blokes who really don't know the difference? It's just going to show them that the subject is something to get ridiculed about and a source of bullying - will probably make them hate women.
Third issue: People saying it wasn't stealing. This is more of the people who think click-bait is a horrible crime, yeah click-bait is stupid and a shallow sign of attempting to manipulate a system, but who cares? Let them do that. If these people really cared about click-bait being an issue, then they'd have identified the click-bait of using "Tampon" in the video title - but these people missed that and decided to say it wasn't stealing. It's debatable whether it was stealing or not, is such a hill really worth dying over? He took an item out of the shop, falsely refunded it - and kept the item. That could be argued as stealing, these people taking issue on this have such a flimsy argument, they really shouldn't be bothered at all - they're just trying to find petty complaints about click-bait (and ignoring the obvious one where "tampon" was used).
Finally, people saying that this is an example of men in tech being dumb: Saying Linus Tech Tips is "tech" would be like calling the Teletubbies "prime-time television". He is what games journalism is to the games industry - insignificant, yet the only face of the industry that consumers see.