Employees cost more than just their salary, but I see your point. So far, their attempts to make reddit more profitable have made the user experience terrible. "New" reddit is way worse than old, and is full of nagging you to use the app on mobile, to the point where you can't even view the content. I've never used the official reddit app because I've heard it's terrible, and there are many great alternatives.
I really don't know what they should do with the money other than make reddit more reliable. It was down last night. The value of reddit is the users/community. Technically, it's a modern message board/link aggregator. There are already many clones.
Kids do not write laws or have political agendas. In an ideal world, skin color would be an afterthought. But that is not the world we live in. I grew up as a white person in a 99%+ mexican/hispanic area. I grew up thinking the same. I didn't think much of people's race, but other people did. I was treated differently because I was white. It took me a while to realize that I wasn't seeing the world from the minorities point of view because I wasn't a minority. If you try to ignore race completely, you ignore the issues minorities are facing.
Large chunks of meat are best done by temp. A brisket, for example, can look the same if the internal temp is at 150 vs 210. One is pretty much inedible. Same for large chunks of pork. You want to cook these to where they are tender, but not dry. For brisket, that is normally around 203-210 when measured at the largest part of the flat. You would just be completely guessing without a good thermometer.
I mean, if you know what you are doing because you have made for instance BBQ many times before, especially even on the same equipment, it's not exactly "completely guessing".
People did make good BBQ for many years before digital thermometers existed, and without using meat thermometers! I suspect professional experts barbequing all day probably still don't use thermometers. They are have the same heat source many times, and know how it cooks and know how to judge the size of meat, because they've done it hundreds of times.
But yeah, for those of us who are less expert, a meat thermometer can get us much better results.
You can go by feel and sometimes appearance (and pretty much have to for some things like pork ribs), but the size and shape of large chunks of meat vary quite a bit, so does the weather, heat source, etc...
If you're a restaurant that is constantly smoking meat, you probably don't need a thermometer, but you probably have one. If you're an ordinary person, I would recommend a decent one at least. I have a thermapen. I don't regret buying it. If my fire dies and I don't feel like chopping more wood, or if I just put the brisket in the oven to finish overnight after it gets smoke, I can still know exactly when it's ready. I don't have to repeat the exact same process every time for a good result.
Sure, if you have the same heat source, in an environment with the same atmospheric conditions, working on a piece of meat similar to what you've cooked many times before, you likely don't much need a thermometer, not that it'll hurt.
But a thermometer let's you transfer those skills much more easily to environments with varying conditions, It's especially common for professional cooks to be expected to cook in varying conditions.
I'd say that's mostly true for credit card transactions, but I don't of anyone who has gotten scammed and got their money back. Banks either don't care, or can't actually do anything. Scammers know what they are doing.
I think it's mostly the teachers and the administrators who advocate for the earlier times. Well, that and parents who drop off their kids before work. A later start would be great for students.
Work schedules would have to change. Schools are basically a child care service with varying qualities of value-add education thrown in. Maybe after a year of WFH being normalized, companies will be more accepting of flexible schedules.
I used to tutor at a Boys & Girls Club in a very low-income area in Massachusetts. The way they assign students to schools is weird (at least to me, I didn’t grow up here). Students need to apply, even to public schools, and they’re offered spots through some combination of lottery, location, and grades/test scores. One of the girls I tutored went to a school that was pretty far away from her home - something like a 90 minute bus ride thanks to traffic. When I asked her about how she ended up at a school so far away she casually explained that her parents had to be at work early so she had to go to a school where she’d get on the bus as early as possible. It broke my heart.
I had a 70-80 minute bus ride every day for 7 years, while pretty annoying, I wouldn't call it "heart-breaking". You did homework, read books, listened to music, etc. It was just a thing you did.
Sure, and I’m glad that worked out for you! But for the population at large, lots of research suggests that early wake up times are detrimental to student outcomes as a population.
Work schedules would not need to change if one salary would be all you need to support a family. This world we've raised for ourselves was underpinned by a primary wage earner, and a primary homemaker. We even used to subsidize homemaking. We've gone backwards all in the name of progress.
Alternatively, let both parents work, have careers, and be theoretically capable of supporting themselves independently, and also reduce the minimum number of hours people are expected to work in a week in order for it to count as a "real" job, so that both parents are also able to spend adequate time with their families.
I'd like to see some change, but I'm not sure that just going back to some version of how it was done when my generation was young necessarily counts as progress.
Dual-income households were always a thing, even in the most gender-restrictive days of the 1950s. The idea that one male breadwinner would provide for a whole household was always an upper-middle-class fantasy.
> Dual-income households were always a thing, even in the most gender-restrictive days of the 1950s. The idea that one male breadwinner would provide for a whole household was always an upper-middle-class fantasy.
Source? because this isn't my partner's experience. Her grand parents owned a house, cars and raised more than 5 kids on a single factory worker salary. It would be just impossible nowadays in most of the west.
Basically you have more then third of women working in any except oldest one. Third of women is a lot of women, a lot of households.
Moreover, people kind of tend to forget that women needs to eat even if husband died or got sick, even if they are single, even if husband is unemployed, even if husband is alcoholic, even if husband is in prison. People also kind of tend to forget that having to marry anyone just so that someone feeds you is one path toward disasterous abusive marriages you are trapped in (where you still have to pretend everything is ok for appareances sake).
And 1950 is when economy was the best, male employment was like 95%. And you still had women who were married and they worked and their income mattered to family. (Surprising example is Rosa Parks who worked for money and loss of income was issue to her and her husband.)
> We've gone backwards all in the name of progress.
It's not done in the name of progress, it's done in the name of profitability.
The rate of profit and worker productivity are at all time highs, but who benefits? Worker compensation has been stagnant and decoupled from profitability and productivity increases for close to five decades now. Even engineer compensation hasn't kept up with productivity, inflation and cost of living increases.
If they both want to work, then child care should be affordable for the dual income family. Generally it's not which is why schools are required to fill that care gap and be in sync with working hours.
There's a bit of a math problem there, though. It's hard to make things work out so that the child care is affordable for the parents, the teachers get reasonable compensation, and you're meeting reasonable (and, depending on where you are, legal) standards for child-caregiver ratios.
Doubly so if "affordable for the parents" means "affordable for parents who are in the same income bracket as your average pre school teacher."
True, although kids are only of childcare age for a few years, so if all adults share the cost burden of childcare for everyone throughout their working lives rather than just paying for their own needs for a few years, the math works out a lot easier. (IE, childcare paid or subsidized by the government.)
The other piece of the puzzle though is that there need to be sufficient providers, which can't happen instantaneously. So you'd have to scale up such an initiative in a sensible way.
I know that borders on callousness, and obviously I don't think we shouldn't take care of single parent households that don't have an option or that the child tax credit shouldn't be high enough so kids don't go hungry. Just if you reduce this to the choice to have a child and a lack of outlying circumstances, you shouldn't have a kid if you don't have someone ready to take care of them and the freedom to make that choice.
Well, maybe, but many parents would probably both work anyways because they would be competing with other dual income family units for housing, schooling and other cost intensive resources.
This wouldn also imply return to same domestic violence rates as used to be, because half population would be dependent again with no power to change own situation. Even currently the rates of it goes up and down with who is getting jobs.
Also, there are other reasons why the situation you desribes as ideal sparked the protests back then - for many people ir was unhappy unsatisfying sitiation.
Later drop offs would be exceedingly difficult for lower income families because their schedules are fixed and not as flexible as higher income jobs. I think permanent DST is a long time coming, but after the pandemic, it’s clear the lack of flexibility that lower income families face.
> I think it's mostly the teachers and the administrators who advocate for the earlier times. Well, that and parents who drop off their kids before work.
So what if teachers have children they need to drop off before work? That leads to some kind of infinite recursion.
I think it's a soft limit? I haven't run into the limit, but then it's not my primary data vendor. Just ask them and they'll give you an API key for free.
"Manipulated by an angry mob" is one way to look at it, but "unsophisticated investors attempting to short squeeze billion dollar hedge funds" is another.
I didn't say anything about what you're supposed to think. You can definitely believe it's shady.
As for the proof about cutting losses - no, there's no proof. You can question every single fact you read about this story in the media if you want. The reasons most people have given for why they would lie about it instead of just do it kind of strain credulity for me. There are a lot of conspiracies being spread around with much regard for whether or not they are true instead of whether they could be true.
Logic says they are lying or trying to leave an impression as if they cut their losses, since if they truly already cut their losses why were they so adamant about telling their story and trying to get people out of the market. If they cut their losses they would have no incentive to tell people about it, they would just not comment and go on to new ventures.
Robinhood is what all the people jumping on the bandwagon used. And this coincided with a sharp price drop on all of these stocks blocked. The reason was "Due to ongoing volatility", but any trader will tell you volatility is how money is made. It took all of the normal people out of the game, and tried to scare them into selling so that the ones holding the shorts are in a better position.
And to add to that, a company (Citadel) that pays Robinhood a large amount of money for their data is one of those with the short positions. So Robinhood itself has a stake in this.
Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about and this is only my opinion.
> And to add to that, a company (Citadel) that pays Robinhood a large amount of money for their data is one of those with the short positions. So Robinhood itself has a stake in this.
I really don't know what they should do with the money other than make reddit more reliable. It was down last night. The value of reddit is the users/community. Technically, it's a modern message board/link aggregator. There are already many clones.