Generally I enjoy board games, but for whatever reason I absolutely can’t stand Ticket to Ride.

It’s a shame because several friends and family really like it, but for whatever reason, I just can’t put together the gameplay and strategy in my mind, and either because of that or in addition to that, I’ve never once had fun while playing it.

This and Farkle are two of the few that I just try to politely decline now. I’ll make everyone a snack or something and sit out.

Which is why we need an update to the tax system to add brackets to cover the entire range of income, then redefine them based on percentages off the median, with the highest bracket set at 95% or more for the highest 5% of earners.

My god, I was just using a reference table on another sheet to drive a few columns of data in my first sheet (basically a color hex code in the main sheet that would match a code in the reference table and return the color name in one column and a part size in the next one) and for some unknown reason, 3 rows of the reference table were causing an N/A (value not found) error in the first sheet.

I checked every variable I could think of and nothing was solving the issue.

Finally tried literally retyping the same damn value in the cell and it instantly fixed the issue. There weren’t any extra spaces, format never changed…it just really needed me to retype it.

Can you give examples?

Both clock and auto?

Because other than time, I’m having a hard time seeing what else a clock is telling you by being analogue.

There’s a lot of flawed logic on all sides.

And that’s not even accounting for the inherently deeply complex and illogical stuff that goes along with dating too.

When I was actively pursuing online dating years ago, some of my best dates were the one and done dates where we both seemed to know early on that we probably weren’t interested in each other as long term partners but were mature enough to acknowledge that without taking it personally and enjoy a much more relaxed rest of the date. On one of those occasions, my date even suggested that while I wasn’t a good match for her, if I were interested, she’d give her roommate my number, thinking we’d be better.

In the end it never happened, but it just shows that just because one or both halves of a date may not want a second date, that’s not a failing of either one, necessarily.

I def agree about the level of happened that is going on here, but in defense of this fictional date: while it’s not always good to judge a book by its cover…if I’m being honest with myself, I’d have a certain image in mind and a certain reaction if I met someone at a party and just in conversation, not even a date, asked what they were into and the response was “anime and one specific video game”.

I mean, I wouldn’t stop talking to them, but I’d certainly have preconceived notions that I’d be very surprised if they were very inaccurate.

And it’s not so much that it’s wrong, as that it gives me insight into the type of person I’m talking to. And honestly, if I were looking to date, and this person matched my preferred gender, appearance, etc…well…an answer like that would certainly be a “yellow flag” and a clue that I may not be so compatible with this person, based on others I’ve met with similar interests.

Mind you, it certainly doesn’t justify any rudeness, but it’s a coffee date. She owes OP nothing. And while she could have been nicer, limiting conversation and politely excusing herself at her earliest convenience isn’t the worst thing she could’ve done.

I just first want to say kudos for having a well reasoned point that you’re defending with logic, patiently and consistently, with respect for all.

That’s rare on the Internet, and Lemmy in particular, which is severely prone to the group generally deciding on one “right” position and mercilessly punishing dissent.

All that said, I think I broadly agree with you, and further, think that all of this DEI stuff is essentially “affirmative action for a new generation”.

It’s so hard to nail it down and defend it because (it seems) proponents don’t like to explain so much of how it works (and how it works differently from not incorporating it), and rather tend to answer with what it accomplishes. In theory at least.

The problem, of course, being that this subtly shifts the criticism and defense from DEI itself to its goals.

You can say “DEI means that the company is better by getting the best employees and also helps historically disadvantaged demographics get better jobs” without at all describing how that happens, and suddenly disagreeing on the merits of DEI gets misconstrued as “companies should only hire white guys and maintain the status quo”, at which point they’re more easily targeted with ad hominem and lumped together with true bigots and racists.

Regarding the issue itself, from everything I’ve seen, DEI should be less “this is an initiative we’re doing and have a team on it and track it’s metrics” and more just, “We’ll hire the best person for the job.”

Because ultimately, anything other than “We’ll hire the best person for the job.” means, by definition, “We’ll pass on the best person based on their, or the other candidates’ race, gender, religion, etc.”

If that means an overwhelmingly white male workplace, that’s a social indicator, not a problem for the company to fix. Also, hypothetically, what’s the desired end goal in terms of workplace diversity? To match the local area as closely as possible? If so, what happens when the most qualified candidates happen to be overwhelmingly from a minority? Are they going to start hiring less qualified white guys to balance it out? They shouldn’t. But they also shouldn’t hire a less qualified woman just because they only have one other woman in the whole building.

Ultimately, the only extent I could see a DEI policy actually having merit and being worth talking about would be something sort of like the Rooney Rule. A company saying, “For any position we post, we’re committed to interviewing at least X candidates from historically underrepresented minority demographics. We may still end up hiring a white guy…but this will ensure that we don’t get so used to seeing nothing but white guys that we forget to look elsewhere.”

It’s also not their place to level the social playing field, yet here we are.

Because he thinks it makes him look cool and edgy, especially in an environment like this, where the way to gain popularity is to be the most extreme far left voice in the crowd.

People like that are the vegans of politics: even if you may agree with them in many ways, their repulsive attitude and conduct more than overrules any common views you might share.

Not disagreeing with the idea, but it seems like this would also have the side effect of incentivizing employers to aggressively and artificially reduce wages and pass that burden on to the taxpayer, if you’re eliminating minimum wage.

I think it’s an interesting idea, but one that seems prone to abuse by unethical parties. Not that our current system is immune to that either.

That’s a failure of management.

Or rather, that’s a symptom of a certain kind of management that incentivizes people to look busy, punishes those who don’t, and doesn’t give people accurate and realistic guidance on their responsibilities.

Legally it’s totally okay, actually.

I know this is all very unpopular opinion here on Lemmy, but it’s fact.

Same picks for the same reasons.

… although I’m less proud to admit that I read it as “Known Father” the first time, didn’t catch it until I came to the comments, and he still didn’t make the top 2.

I just kinda figured that “Known Father” meant he was always talking about his kids and experiences with parenthood, and that was enough to eliminate him.

I kinda get it though…it’s not like these armed forces are producing the movie themselves.

The studio wants to make a movie about/involving these entities. They want it to be as realistic as possible and the entity itself has the authority to give them access that it could also deny.

If you’re in charge of, say, the Marines PR department, you’re constantly trying to make the Corps look good and boost recruitment. If you can do this for next to nothing against your budget by granting access to a studio making a film that will give you essentially free PR, that’s a great move. The bigger the movies potential, the more the entity in question is motivated to support it.

On the other hand, if the film is going to make your organization look bad, no PR person with a functioning brain is going to help that project in any way.

Idunno, I feel like these organizations do enough actually bad things, that I don’t feel the urge to crucify them for cultivating image and working to generate positive PR.

It’s “nObOdY wAnTs To WoRk AnYmOrE!” with extra steps.

Democrats: taking votes for granted that they shouldn’t be taking for granted since forever.

"Oh, buddy…you think that’s bad, just wait till next year!

…I mean… If you’re still around then."

Seems that’s an insult to the rat.

“What time is it?!”

“It’s two o clock in the morning.”

“Is it too early for breakfast?”

“Yes!”

“Oh good… suppertime!”

That’s totally fine.