peopleproblems

joined 2 years ago
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Wait hold on

Wouldn't that mean that lenders have a vested interest in keeping borrowers alive especially if they have extreme net debt?

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

That's going to make a lot of people upset. I don't recommend doing that.

But then again, I can use reasoning to gauge whether a certain action will have a certain outcome.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Is Comic Sans ADHD friendly?

If you have ADHD you know that nothing is friendly. Or everything can be. Or something that triggers feel good becomes interesting and good. Maybe you know why you asked the question, maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe I forgot why i started answering this in the first place.

Point is maybe?

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I would think the only way they could fight China effectively is by being the extremists that these militants aligned with. Which unfortunately means the CCP is going to crack down harder on anyone remotely affiliated :/

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Correct.

When it comes down to the necessary facts, it's a numbers game. There are so many more pissed off people than there are in power and wealth. They'd essentially have to massacre incredible amounts of people without destroying their own means of making income.

Guess how much a health care insurance org makes without people to insure?

$0. Interestingly, the same amount we believe it should make with people to insure as well.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah, that makes sense too.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago

I would think that the title of CEO might not be appropriate to every organization either. I know a rather big org where the CEO is basically someone who begs for investors, and the CAO does what a CEO usually does. There are orgs where that's the CFO, or the COO. Regardless of the title, it's all executives we're angry about because of the incredible income disparities versus actual responsibilities.

The executives I've met are essentially hype men or thumbs up thumbs down types. All of them were finance types or management types. To me, if your only qualification is many years of managing with barely any experience in the actual product/service your org provides, then that's a problem.

Hospitals run by management types? Engineering services run by accountants? It's all middlemen extracting piece of the pie from the people actually doing the work.

As a society we need to purge the system of middlemen period. The internet made middlemen obsolete, yet they are still exploiting labor in ridiculous ways.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm certainly not kidding about it. Associating with communism or people who associate with communism is a big NO. And it doesn't exactly make sense anymore, but that's the FBI for you

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (7 children)

No.

However, anything that requires security clearance or is PR for the employer will (in the US at least).

If you want a job that needs clearance, I recommend closing your social media now, stopping all drugs now, and wait at least 7 years before applying to those jobs. Limit travel. Work to have any mental health records destroyed (idk if you can actually do this) and cancel therapy. Stop using Lemmy, and don't do anything that remotely indicates that you associate with divergent cultures (i.e. communism or anarchism).

For PR - just stay off social media and drugs and don't talk about work except in an extremely positive way.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

If you guys need ideas on how to solve the conservatives pushing it, we did find out a way to scare them recently.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

What infuriates me is that there are those that make 6 figures as being able to potentially make 7. And sure, some of them might.

But are they brain surgeons that have such a specialized life saving surgery that by the nature of economics pushes the value of their skill exceptionally high? Nope.

Hell, I make 6, and I'll admit, I have a lot more than a lot of people. I'm 2-3x the median of my area. I can't buy a house. I own a 7 year old RAV4. If I was better managing my money and not having to pay out my ass for my ex wife, sure, things would be better.

It's not at all difficult to find how just a little less income makes life much harder. It is VERY difficult to see how someone who has so much money can be remotely ok with people having it harder than them.

Those pulling in 7 figures without highly valuable skills should be dehumanized. Because they have abandoned what has helped humans survive at all. Each other.

 
 
 
 

I didn't care for the musical nature of it. That aside:

The first 'Joker' clearly established that the main character was Arthur Fleck. Clearly suffering from mental illness as a result of abuse growing up, and the people he murdered were abusing him in some way. To me, as a long time Batman fan, this 'Joker' was anything but Joker.

  1. He didn't take pleasure in chaos.
  2. He wasn't anti-batman in anyway.
  3. A clear back story that lined up with his behaviors.
  4. Clearly a dude pushed too far (kind of like Killing Joke, but it didn't line up with that character's style).

However, when he was in the 'Joker' role, he became clear headed and focused. So now the 'Joker' clearly isn't Joker but the beginning of Joker?

In Folie A Deux, we see him continue to be abused, still having strange fantasies, a system failing around him, and noticably the 'Joker' character is resonating with people fed up with all sorts of bullshit. The collective desire to burn it down and restart - very common theme within the Batman comics and joker. We see Harley Quinzel introduced, and as we discover throughout the movie - this is the actual Harley Quinn Psychiatry, brilliance, obsessed with Joker to the point that when Arthur says it was just something he made up to do what he thought he needed, she quit him. The last parts of the movie tie is completely together. Ricky, who is killed by the only guard that is sometimes nice, breaks Arthur, realizing murder happens to those undeserving by those who 'shouldnt' be doing it.

Joker escapes after the court room explosion (with a burned Harvey Dent, that was badass). He's rescued by enthusiasts, who he escapes from. He encounters Quinn and she says that his "fantasy was all that mattered, and it's gone."

When the Joker is murdered at the end by the psychopath, he starts it with a retelling of the joke Arthur told Murray. Albeit, one that was significantly better delivered. He also notably uses a knife, and is laughing the whole time, and gives himself a scarred smile. This man, (if Warner Bros could ever finish a good DC series) would likely continue to be an evolution of 'Joker'.

This all works because:

  1. Joker rarely has a back story, and famously is stated to prefer his origin to be "Multiple Choice."
  2. Several comics and media (Notably the Arkham series of video games) explore how Joker is not confined to a single person. Unlike Batman who has very specic goals, values, and traumatic origin, Joker is a shared 'idea' between these individuals that reject the value of civilization at all.
  3. Harley Quinzel was only introduced in the 90s, but her main obsession with Joker evolved over time as he abused her, or burned things she learned to care for, but seemingly remained obsessed because of some 'fantasy' she provided him, UNTIL he broke that fantasy and she quit him abruptly just like in the movie.

I don't think it was a great movie. But it actually reimagined the same Joker story in a new way that I did thoroughly enjoy. And it left it plenty open for more stories from it, just as all good DC stories do.

 

This is what I do for work I guess

 
 

It will still break them if you try it

 
 

I'm talking like one person brought in all the money for a decade, then a divorce happens. Some of it makes sense - a house with mortgage, one spouse buys the other out of the house. Which is great, but if one spouse doesn't have the income to take a loan out to buy the other, does that mean that the spouse who does have the income has the choice to buy out or sell?

Similarly, things like 401ks and pensions I imagine you can't just take out half the cash in them and give that to their spouse. Or does that have to be a loan for the amounts in those plans?

Is it debt all the way down for both?

 
 

Let me set the stage: Newly single dad of a young kid. After COVID-19 I haven't done much outside of my home and taking care of my kid. I work full time-remote, and between the kiddo and leaving room for a hobby or taking care of the house, it seems like the only other thing I have time for is sleep.

The thing I know is that this is likely an issue with my anxiety and anxious attachment. The conclusion we've arrived at in therapy is that I gotta meet people. I apparently forgot, or don't know how to do that. Where to meet people. It's not a big city, but 200k-300k people in the county.

Maybe I'm looking for something of a strategy more than anything.

edit: thank you guys, I really appreciate it!

 
view more: next ›