As someone who hasn't been in prison but has done a good job of not letting media outlets getting to me (since I just block a lot of them through my pihole), he's spot on. I've had people on a discord server whom I was friends with basically oust me simply because I had some marginally more conservative views than them. My experiences were invalid because they did not align with their worldviews. That is the media today with social media platforms amplified in that regard as well.
I'm not sure I follow how some former friends booting you out of a Discord server relates to the media. Are you giving that as an example of people so immersed in a left-wing media culture that they can't handle differing opinions? That's certainly something I've seen more and more of on both ends of the political spectrum. I do think there are more moderates on the left than the right, but in both cases the extremes do seem to be hostile to nuance.
I don't think he gets anything wrong after the first essay. Everything after just sounded like a way to make a mountain out of a molehill in terms of an interesting essay.
Canada has one of the highest suicide rates among divorced men because of their even more draconian alimony/child support payments.
Long story short, don't get married in Canada. Dave Foley on the Joe Rogan Podcasts (in like the 0-200's episodes) went through his divorce and explained how absurd it was.
I believe there was a reddit thread one time about some family in New York that cut ties from their parents or grandparents, and due to some age old Kinship law, the elders could take children to court for not allowing them to see grandchildren or something of the like.
It's fascinating in the US that we've gotten to the point that families can break contact entirely and be successful but due to completely out of date institutions baked in to law, we're stuck with arbitrary reasons to engage with hostile people. As a judge, why would you ever grant rights of a grandparent willing to take their children to court to see their grand children short of an abuse related situation?
This doesn't sound like some misinterpreted archaic law. It sounds like the law prevented exactly what the drafters intended - parents cutting grandparents off from children. Whether that's a stupid law is another question.
> Grandparents' rights groups are one step forward and one step back. One step forward, because the majority of the people who are interested in this cause are the people grandparents' rights were meant to help: grandparents who lost touch with their grandchildren through the parents' divorce, incarceration, or some other rupture in their children's families. However, it also brings out the people who think they have more rights over their grandchildren than the children's own parents do, the people who want to force a family reconciliation through the courts, the people who want to take custody of their grandchildren to punish their children.
I bought a new car this year when I graduated and got a new job. The main reason I didn't buy an EV is because of the cost, the dependability (I'm not gonna be a guinea pig wasting time getting repairs that not many people know how to resolve yet), and because I live in the Midwest where salted roads in winter just eat the hell out of everything. So I'm gonna need a new car in 5-10 years anyway.
Obviously EV is the future. But with this "Vehicles as a Service" model where a lot of stuff is not meant to be touched by you, it seems like cars are just getting absurdly more expensive for no reason at all. EV is a marketing term so that somehow causes the product to be worth an extra $5k right off the bat.
By driving less than 10-20 miles a week with a gas vehicle, I feel like I'm actually doing more to save the planet than the typical EV driver doing 100+ miles thinking their excessive driving is 100% eco-friendly. Consumption is never eco-friendly.
I dont make $500 a month but in the next 5 years I hope to if not more. I make pottery, mugs, and bowls for fun. Only after doing it for so long did I realize that you can honestly make a living off of it. So long term when tech discrimination hits me but the arthritis doesnt, I'll be making pots til I'm dead!
When I worked in mortgages in a previous career, we had a presenter talk to us about Private Mortgage Insurance (PMI). Back in the day, banks by default would just tack it on as an extra insurance for them in case you were to default. You're basically paying insurance against yourself to cover the banks losses. Once it was added, it was basically permanent for the life of the loan.
Then one day, a senator I think from Utah was asking about his his costs after signing. The bank explained to him that it was PMI and he couldn't remove it.
Thanks to that situation, PMI cannot be enforced if the loan to value ratio is below a specified threshold and the banks cannot force it on you if you meet that threshold prior to closing or after you reach it.
In a nutshell, this is what needs to happen before a lawmaker bothers.
This is why it’s important for many of the software engineers from hackernews to consider a career in politics after reaching a certain level of wealth and seniority in their career. If some of the greatest minds in the tech industry can rise to positions of power in government we can build a better world the way we know it should be, rather than hoping decrepit politicians come around to good ideas eventually.
Unfortunately, most businesses will only react to three things; stuff that makes them money, stuff that costs them money, and laws that are enforced effectively. Look how hard Apple is fighting against allowing alternative payment systems for apps. And against Right to Repair. Yet they start to budge a bit when lawmakers make them feel uncomfortable, or even pass laws (though most of Congress isn't really interested in the legislative side of the job.)
My team still uses .Net Framework 4.6. That's from like 2015. While not "ancient," it's still pretty old. But for instance, when the SolarWinds hack ocurred, we actually lucked out cause we were using a version of it before the intrusion.
"What would you say...you do here?"