You may have given up too early. For me the key part of this story is that she made a personal connection willing to guide her through and to overlook technicalities (like not having enough experience). The fact that she then reached a different person who was a jerk is a matter of chance. I’d you find a way to keep making these personal connections, she’ll get a job eventually. Also: it sounds like you’re very supportive and invested: good on you. She’s not alone.
This is very well said. It's horrifying, but very well said and very true. Sometimes the situation is just plain bleak. I have been unemployed for more than a year twice; I've been unemployed or underemployed for about 5 years in total. This despite accomplishing great things while employed and being well-regarded at past jobs. For me, each time the cloud has eventually passed and new work has come along, but that doesn't help until it actually happens.
@phoenixhaber, you're in a very dark place, no doubt about it, and it sounds like you've been there a long time. I've been in that dark place and I feel for you. Let me just assure you that dark times do give way, eventually, to light. If you need a rational basis for that claim, think of it as regression toward the mean: extremes, good or bad, move toward the non-extreme. Things will get better.
In the meantime, your task is to separate from the darkness and let it be on the outside, not the inside. It's bad enough when it's on the outside: that is, in the world around you or even in your own body. When it's on the inside—not just the body but the mind—then it destroys. Push the darkness out of the mind and into the outside world. That's pretty abstract advice but it's the best I know, and if it makes sense to you, I hope it helps.
I'd love to see the evidence for or against this assertion. If BLS is grossly inaccurate, that'd be a good thing to know. If it's accurate, also good to know. Evidence?
He's not the final word on the matter, but Nate Silver writes...
> I've worked a lot with data produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other federal agencies. In fact, an economic index based on a half-dozen of these statistics is part of our presidential election forecast, so we’ve pulled this data all the way back to World War II.3
> And I consider it to be of very high quality. When BLS data is revised as more information becomes available, it’s meticulously documented and explained. For more on how this works, including just how difficult the BLS’s job is and how it’s being made harder by declining survey response rates and cuts to federal agencies that track economic activity, I’d strongly recommend this edition of the Odd Lots podcast with Bill Beach, the former BLS commissioner under Trump 1.0 and Biden. It might not be the most riveting interview, but one thing that comes through is just how much of a straight-shooter he is.
We can start with this reading. Average monthly job growth dropped from 147,000 initially to just over 70,000 a reduction of approximately 52% from their data. This at precisely when the Fed needed to start cuts when the administration has been aggressively hammering them. Hopefully the Fed is not too late this time, and their 6+ month delay cutting won't result in a recession or serious economic impact.
I expect they're correctly hesitant to cut rates at the same time as the president pursues inflationary policies, since that'd be courting stagflation, which was so bad last time it happened that it was one of the main factors that defined our politics for the following three decades.
You model about what the Fed does and how rates affect the economy is just wrong. The fed raising or lowering rates won't change what's happening with jobs. You have to explain why when the fed raised rates, the market shot up and unemployment dropped. But you can't with the model you have.
The fed was cutting rates and on track to continue until Trump threw a tariff grenade into the economy. They, like most businesses, decided they needed to see how the idiotic economic policy played out before doing anything else.
I know that folks are just having fun with this, but it embodies one of the things I dislike about D&D, one of the reasons I simply ignore most of the “rules.” At heart a role playing game happens in the imagination of the players. You can play RPGs entirely in those terms, with no real rules and very few numbers, just storytelling and imagination. On the other hand there are of course many tabletop games that do rely on structure, rules, and numbers, but these tend to limit the scope of what may happen in the game by virtue of having limited elements and rules. You cannot earn a trillion coins in Powergrid, there simply isn’t the time or resources. What is so strange about D&D is that it tries somehow to join these two models of gameplay: the subjective/imaginative and the objective/numeric. When it works, it’s fine (though, as I said, I personally tend to find the imaginative, storytelling part for more compelling than the objective, more tabletop-like part). This railgun embodies some sort of weird distortion in the whole affair. No: of course peasants cannot throw a pole however many thousands feet in a matter of seconds. If the rules somehow imply they can, the rules are dumb. Even if you accept the rules, use your imagination: what will happen to peasant hands and heads with an object passing that rapidly along them? What would happen to peasant skin if it tried to pull a pole with the kind of forces we’re talking about? I truly don’t understand how D&D players think. No disrespect: I’m not saying anyone is dumb. I’m saying that I can’t picture how I would be thinking about a game, or rules, or a line of peasants, such that I would consider for a moment the idea that they might propel a pole in railgun fashion. It’s… kinda funny… kinda. But the fact anyone pursues the joke more than two seconds, much less actually attempts this play with real DMs, is unfathomable to me. I don’t understand how you would be trying to merge the domain of rules with the domain of imagination in order to get yourself into this knot. Does that makes sense at all?
Like you, I'm very much in the role playing is story telling camp. I think the difference is people who, like you and I, want to play in the world, and people who want to play with the world. I.e. they are playing a meta game where they play with the rules to "win". This makes no sense to me, because there is no winning when you play in the world. It's the story you tell that is the point. But I can understand their POV because I do play to win in other domains.
Every table and group has it's own ideal version of the game and you can play either in D&D. I think a lot of people fall into the play to win because it's simpler and fits the mould of most games people are used to playing so it makes more sense to apply that pattern to role playing games.
To me, I see pushing rules boundaries as part and parcel with exploring fantastical worlds. Elves, dwarves, and dragons exist. Those aren't "real". Magic spells that allow you to fly and shoot fire from your finger-tips also exist but also aren't "real". If we're already breaking biology and meta-physics, why assume basic physics works exactly the same way either?
For some, I think it is re-capturing the child-like attitude of wonder, excitement, adventure, and asking the question "what if?". This, of course, may be tempered by campaign tone; something that might happen in a DnD campaign but likely not in Call of Cthulu, Kids on Bikes, Monster of the Week, etc
I wake up every morning and thank God I am not working on or near Microsoft code. There is nothing about this code or anything about this story that is in any way sensible or pleasing. Take a simple, well-solved problem. Forgot all prior solutions. Solve it badly, with bad systems and bad ideas. Write the code in the ugliest, most opaque, most brittle and fragile manner imaginable. Now sit back and enjoy the satisfaction of getting to debug and resolve problems that never should have happened in the first place. The miracle is that Microsoft, built as it is to such a degree on this kind of trashy thinking and trashy source, still makes its annual billions. That right there is the power of incumbents.
Yes, as other commenters have said, this game is a great example of the design error where the tutorial careful prepares the player for not-this-game. There’s another game out there somewhere that the tutorial has made us competent to play. Meanwhile we need a different tutorial for this game.
You’ve drawn a false dichotomy. It is possible both for the existing system to be full of waste and for the process of shining the sun onto “blight” (good word) to raise significant, even catastrophic, security concerns with lasting implications. Bad + bad doesn’t necessarily = good.
Am I wrong in thinking that the visual below “Finally with 5 the self-similarity continues as expected” is wrong? I’m thinking that the second-to-right and rightmost subtrees need to be larger, to have a sequence of four and five nodes respectively in their rightmost branches.
The clickbaity title is misleading. The article does not argue that monkeys have a strong election prediction ability. It merely argues that there is some gentle correlation between monkey gaze behavior and election outcomes. That’s not surprising. Almost any reasonable hypothesized factor—number of letters in candidate’s name, for example—will have some correlation. The title and tone of the article are overblown.
reply