Sure you could. At that point you should just give up entirely on talking to people if you think I'm lying about the experience of my cabinet maker father.
You could be telling the truth as far as you know. Did your father tell you everything?
That's a simple way to resolve this impasse - point to a job ad for a cabinet maker offering $60K/year for someone with no "real wood working experience beyond building a small sailboat". [1]
You know an employer right now who is looking for people. Can you point to a help-wanted ad for that company showing what they are looking for?
I did a job search and found a $66K/year Cabinet Maker I job in Hawaii (which is one of the best paying places for cabinet workers according to the BLS tables you don't trust), for the state Department of Education. However, it requires apprentice training or 4 years of carpentry experience. https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=Cabinet+maker&l=Hawaii
From the same site, in Hawaii, there's an offer for on-the-job training, starting at $17/hour, so about $35K/year + overtime.
Otherwise there are cabinet maker jobs in Hawaii in the $20-$25/hour range and require a few years of experience. The same holds for elsewhere in the US.
I did find that CalTech is looking for "a Journeyperson level contributor in carpentry and cabinet making" at https://phf.tbe.taleo.net/phf03/ats/careers/v2/viewRequisiti... and they pay $29.75 - $43.75 Per Hour, but require "Completion of apprenticeship or equivalent training, one year or more of journeyperson level experience and five or more year’s total experience in cabinet and/or carpentry trades"
Furthermore, that person "will apply journeyperson level skills in providing building maintenance, laboratory installations and rehabilitation projects. This person will also apply cabinet making skills to the layout, fabrication, and installation of new and rehabilitation projects" and must be able to weld, and they would like someone with at least 5 years of work experience in a university or facilities setting and CNC machining certification.
So yes, "approach $100k for dependable people that known the field" is possible. But that's someone with years of experience, and for something far beyond the basic skills your father had.
No. Doctors who qualified in a different country cannot simply start working. They have to do expensive and time consuming training to convert their credentials. This is partly because it's very important your doctor has appropriate language skills and understands the local system - and partly because local trade associations of doctors insist on it to protect their own jobs.
> I don't think the limit on trainees has any effect on salary
This is far from true. On the margin, doctors can work in the private sector or leave the country. Only a few choose to do so, but this is (among other reasons) because the NHS always has to respond to price pressure to keep that small number from growing to where it causes shortages.
Recently a change in how pension contributions are taxed was pushed through almost entirely because it affected senior doctors. If the NHS had pricing power as you suggest, why wouldn't they just tell doctors to pay up?
But if you have a web client and app store apps, which are frontends to the same thing, doesn't that mean that your site is still constrained by the app store rules?
Less data can be grabbed from a web app, which is better for users.
Less apps going through the app store ecosystem means 30% lower rents if you can divorce the app store billing, which is better for the company.
I imagine a future where the webapp installs a PWA to mitigate the rent-seeking app stores. But I am sure the app stores would insert a clause preventing a "lite" version of PWA's to be installed.
Major caveat being Grindr’s new web app makes it significantly more easy to download high resolution images/videos (using browser extensions) from disappearing messages and ‘private’ albums shared with you. On the app at least they block screenshots and screen recording.
Of course don’t share what you wouldn’t want copied. However, the false sense of security they communicate to the average non-technical user about their ‘privacy’ features like disappearing photos and locked albums is quite disingenuous and harmful.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the number of staff. It is directly related to the ADL’s campaign of convincing advertisers to pull out. It appears there will be a lawsuit.
What about the ADL itself? Here’s their call to action against Facebook. Why wouldn’t they go after twitter… Oh wait they did barely one month after acquisition.
Sorry, I should have been less brief. I don’t deny that the ADL has been campaigning against xitter, I just hold extreme doubt that they are the main reason xitter lost half of its ad revenue. I think that is more likely caused by other factors.
Do you have insider knowledge of the _other factors_ you _think_ is more likely the cause of revenue loss? Isn’t almost all of twitters revenue pre paid blue check, advertising? Where else are they generating income? Wasn’t twitter losing money before? Has twitter ever been profitable?
I’ve linked to proof of boycotts and the ADLs position in convincing advertisers to drop twitter due to the ADLs “research.”
You provide nothing other than you opinion or assumption presented as fact. I digress, you can believe whatever you want to.
You've proved that the ADL is calling for an advertising boycott, which is a 1st amendment protected right. You haven't proven anything in regards to the effectiveness of that action.
Here's some vetted research from reputable institutions unconnected to any boycotts showing a demonstrable increase in hate speech on twitter https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.04129.pdf.
I don't have insider knowledge, but I would be perfectly willing to believe that advertisers find it untenable to risk advertising alongside hate-speech, or to be associated with a platform that has failed to signal that they won't tolerate hate speech, and as a result they have pulled their campaigns.
Whether that is because the ADL alerted them to the increase in hate speech, because it is their job to understand cultural phenomenon and trends, or because they have web browsers and eyes, I would not be able to tell.
> You've proved that the ADL is calling for an advertising boycott, which is a 1st amendment protected right.
The First Amendment is somewhat beside the point, since Elon is alleging that they are defaming him/Twitter. Defamatory speech is not protected by the First Amendment. So it's totally fine to call for a boycott — but totally actionable to call for a boycott using defamatory statements.
It will be difficult for Elon to prove defamation, since he is a public figure, of course.
It will be virtually impossible since none of the "defamatory" claims fall under matters of (legal) fact. In fact, unless Elon really wants to burn more money, I doubt he ever files an actual lawsuit and this is all bluster. Then again I'd probably lose my shirt betting agains Elon doing foolish things.
elmu could wake up tomorrow and allege space aliens were trying to break into his brain, and the same group of sycophants would take his word for it as is now
for everyone else, he is an entitled, inherited-wealth internet troll with a history of lying
you don't see him filing his lawsuit against the ADL like he said he would, do you?
how about him stepping down as CEO of twitter like he said he would?
How much wealth did he inherit from the emerald mine?
It takes more than a couple days to create the suit. We’ll see what happens. If you have any _facts_ that he’ll never sue I’m all ear. Probably just your assumptions.
He isn’t CEO. He hired a CEO, Linda Yaccarino. Again either you don’t follow what’s going on or you’re intentionally dense and arguing points that you don’t know about.
Just admit it you hate the guy and will recite anything and everything to reaffirm your unsubstantiated claims.
The ADL is not powerful enough to cause a 50% drop in Twitter revenue…most businesses don’t care about what they say.
The reason for the drop is Musk’s erratic behavior. Advertisers paused or halted their spending entirely because Musk is known for making on-the-fly decisions, and businesses don’t want to get caught up in his latest antics.
There is no proof outside of Musk’s statements that revenue has dropped since X no longer makes public their finances, and there is no proof that anything the ADL has done rises to legally actionable defamation. They have certainly mounted a boycott campaign, but that is not proof of defamation. Myriad other organizations have also called for boycotts. It is curious to me that you are so personally focused on the one boycott that Mr. Musk cited as the sole cause of the revenue drop.
I did link in another post a peer reviewed study from a third party showing that hate speech has measurably risen since Mr Musk’s takeover.
There certainly is a lot of correlation here, but all of us, including you, are speculating on the causality. You are leaning heavily on the statements of a single man who has a proven track record of being incorrect, to put it gently. We are leaning on a variety of other heuristics that can be summed up as “A known bullshiter has said something that sounds like bullshit, and makes no sense to our understanding and experience of the world.”
What kind of proof would be sufficient to you for the claim “Elon Musk makes erratic and unpredictable decisions with his businesses”? Would a list of previous erratic decisions sway your mind?
I mean, Elon is also blaming the CCDH for his loss in advertising. He’s not exactly an unbiased source here. Just because he says it, doesn’t make it true.
Do you have any sources or insider knowledge that you can present that would put Elon himself on the hook for loss in advertising? I’ve replied to multiple comments citing ADL CCDH and others actively seeking to sway advertisers away from twitter using “research.”
Instead of presenting a counter argument with facts or data to back it up you resort to calling Elon a liar. It obviously shows your bias. You can believe whatever you want to believe.
elmu is a liar, thus him and his word simply can't be trusted
do you have any reliable sources or insider knowledge that you can present that would prove true these unreliable, unconvincing claims of an infamous liar?
it is actually a fact as determined by a court of law
but your opinion that he is not is cute
I imagine such silly, reality-denying opinions accompany the same derangement that drives a very small, very loud minority of people to shriek hate and "hate!" at everyone who points out that elmu is a notorious liar
Corporations decided to give away the single-use plastic bags for nothing when this was allowed. If they wanted to increase their profits like this, they could have just stopped giving them away for free.
This is very dubious. Unless paper bags are produced using timber from first-growth forests, growing and then cutting down the trees that were used to make them took carbon out of the atmosphere. When the paper bag decays or is burnt, they become roughly carbon neutral. But things that take carbon out of the atmosphere for a while as part of a cycle are generally good - by the time one particular paper bag has returned its carbon to the atmosphere, others have been made, and so there is some greenhouse gas reduction long term.
Paper bags are carbon-neutral. Plastic bags introduce new carbon into the environment.
Nuclear power is carbon-neutral (after the construction of the plant itself). Anti-nuke environmentalism in prior decades contributed to the continued and expanded use of coal, oil, and natural gas for power generation.
I don't really agree with the point about anti-nuke environmentalism. In the past many environmentalists were opposed to both nuclear energy (because of the risk of Chernobyl-style disasters or because of the implicit subsidy to nuclear weapons proliferation) and they were opposed to fossil fuel extraction and burning.
The people who were opposed to the environmentalist worldview were in favor of nuclear, but also in favor of fossil fuel generation and extraction (and CFCs, and leaded gasoline, and deforestation, and DDT, etc). They often very publicly argued that all these issues were bogus, that global warming could never happen, that we had nothing to worry about, that all these concerns were motivated by hatred of money or progress.
The environmentalists, on the other hand, tried hard to make a more abstract point - that we need to protect our environment and treat it as a precious good to be shared. This was obviously right.
Why should we cherry-pick one aspect of an environmentalist strategy from a very specific time and use it to blame them for "the continued and expanded use of coal, oil, and natural gas for power generation". Why aren't the numerous vocal cheerleaders of fossil fuels (who may have happened to be in favor of nuclear, but only because they generally argued that we should ignore all safety and resource depletion concerns) held to account here?
> The people who were opposed to the environmentalist worldview were in favor of nuclear, but also in favor of fossil fuel generation
Yes, I agree there were (and still are) people with that view. I said "contributed to" not "the sole cause of"
But I distinctly remember very organized activisim opposing nuclear power in the 1970s. I don't recall much if any opposing new coal plants. I'm sure there was some but they didn't make many headlines.
> I don't recall much if any opposing new coal plants.
I can't argue with your subjective recollections, but this is not by any means an accurate picture of environmentalism historically. Acid rain in West Germany (caused by burning coal) is pretty much ground zero of environmentalism as a politically organized force.
But fossil fuel production is also hideously polluting, and ends us with the carbon from the oil in the atmosphere. Producing plastic from oil means that those molecules won't (typically) end up as greenhouse gases.
That's not the right analysis. If the hydrocarbons in the ground don't get used for making plastic, they are very likely to be burned for energy. So waste plastic reduces the CO2 emitted by that process.
If we can't limit GHGs from burning fossil fuels for energy, we aren't going to magic our way out of this situation by producing more junk.
How are we going to get it out of the ground, transport it to petroleum processing facilities to convert it into useful forms, transfer it to manufacturing facilities (usually halfway across the world) for product creation, transport it (back across the world) to regional and then local distribution hubs, transport it from store to consumer's home, and then collect it all in order to transport it and process it further still to get it buried like you suggest?
By burning fossil fuels for energy at every link in that chain, and probably half a dozen more I couldn't think of off the top of my head.
There is also a notion that in a measly 1,500 years, humanity would probably have incredible uses for plastics and other petroleum materials beyond our wildest dreams, and have the technology and institutional wisdom to make use of them without bludgeoning our atmosphere and various biomes to death in the process. But if we are too far gone on our path of burning our planet to a crisp, and we've already pulled all the oil out the ground in the process, well, that's going to really kind of suck. I get it, from a highly idealized and abstract perspective your proposal makes some sense.
But the practical reality is that ramping up wasteful activities, even if we do so very cleverly and strategically, is not going to get us anywhere but where we already are.
I'm not arguing in favor of the GP's specific proposals, just pointing out that we should consider the displacement of fuel burning when we consider the carbon cost of plastics.
I assumed that his suggestion was not meant to be taken literally - that we should construct plastics for no use - but rather that we should think differently about the value and cost of plastics which are produced anyway.
