I wouldn't assume that sad songs make you more lonely. For someone dealing with grief, it may act as drug-free therapy. Perhaps deepened sorrow at first, but when one deals with grief, mental state and behavior can improve.
When I work from home, I usually listen to Sade, Brandy, Monica, Faith Evans, and similar music. Although the music is often about heartbreak, it doesn't make me sad. I find it calming.
I think it's the opposite. Those songs are good because you find someone can relate to you and therefore you would feel less lonely. Maybe not less sad, but more connected.
So you're saying you're using Word 2010 and have no problem with files created recently? I find it surprising that modern word .docx is compatible with 15 year old Word
The modern Word suite’s basic format was introduced with Word 2010. So as long as the person who created the doc uses features that were previously present in Word 2010 they’d be fine.
Features from later versions will either not show up or show up as boxes
I suggest not wiring with tissue paper if this is a serious issue for you.
Anyway, you can simply not run into stuff with a wire. There's nothing you can do about bluetooth glitching out randomly for five seconds. Not to mention playing the "what device is playing into my headphones" game. Wireless is for people who don't care.
>Anyway, you can simply not run into stuff with a wire. There's nothing you can do about bluetooth glitching out randomly for five seconds.
Sure you can. Buy a quality headphone and transmitter device. Never had a BT issue with several airpod models (v1, v2, pro) and an iPhone for 7+ years. And I'm pretty sure most other brands have solved this by now too.
How do you recommend vetting brands? This is simply not a problem wired technology ever had. I can't imagine ever trusting a brand to get things right without my fixing their mistakes.
> This is simply not a problem wired technology ever had.
I had plenty of wired sets where you had to hold the cable just so in order to get audio to play through. Happened a ton with those cheap crappy skullcandy earbuds, but would also eventually happen with the higher quality stuff too.
I've tried 100 euro wired IEMs that had that issue. The wire will inevitably hit something (your own clothing) as you move through the city or you will hear the wind vibrating the cable.
Idk if you just became accustomed to it or what but it was my biggest pet peeve with wired headphones
I'm 32 and never been to university for more than a week but recently I found out that I can reduce my cost of living substantially if I can sacrifice my pride a little. I now live in a shared apt, cook my own food and have gone from spending 1200 (700 rent, 500 food) to 550e (225 rent, 325 food).
Seems to me that if you can optimize your living costs then you can save more, get a lot more freedom to pursue whatever you want
I feel like you are trivializing the dogged, uncompromising and ceaseless war liberals wage against common sense and decency.
I'm sorry but when the other side of the war wants me to pay fines, go to jail or be expelled because I subjectively hurt someones feelings I gotta go with the church whatever their faults
Can you name an example of this actually happening, or is this just yet another echo of the utter nothing-burger that was Peterson's complaints back when he transitioned from being an educator to a professional grievance monger that, and I can't stress this enough, has never, once, ever, one time, produced an actual complaint that has resulted in actual penalties?
I don't need to name examples. There was a proposal for a draconian law, it got brought up to light, it was fought and it didn't pass. All that because of people like Peterson.
This was in 2016. In 2023 I went to a climbing gym in Bucharest, got friendly with a foreign (EU) guy that was visiting, asked him what was he doing in Bucharest. Apparently he was representing a leftist party that sounded very good on the surface policy wise and goal wise but then I asked him..
"What do you think about punishing people through the law for misgendering someone?". He started avoiding answering directly, said we shouldn't be assholes etc but it was clear by simply refusing to give a direct answer what his position was.
If he didn't think it is a good law he would've said so, he avoided answering and the conversation died out after that because it was clear we couldn't move past that.
Purposely misgendering someone is indeed being an asshole but that's not the issue at hand. If someone calls me stupid or swears at me that makes me uncomfortable but I wouldn't expect he be reprimanded by the law by stripping away his freedoms.
> There was a proposal for a draconian law, it got brought up to light, it was fought and it didn't pass.
I'm finding it difficult to take your opinion seriously when you're getting basic facts wrong. Bill C-16 did pass, it's been the law in Canada since 2017. And as I said, it has not once been actually utilized in the way Peterson and I'm guessing, you, were so concerned about.
> "What do you think about punishing people through the law for misgendering someone?"
I think it would depend what you mean by "punishing people through the law." I don't think it should carry a prison sentence, if that's what you mean. However as a legally recognized act of discrimination, I think it's an important data point. For example, if a trans-person was fired from a job for "performance reasons" but was able to demonstrate proof of constant misgendering by their supervisor, I think that can be valuable to that person for a wrongful termination suit. Or, simple inter-workplace bullying. Like that's ultimately what that is, it's just being a bully, and I wouldn't suggest bullies be brought up on charges, but there also should be legally enforceable consequences for ongoing harassment.
And I can't think of why anyone would disagree with a position like that, unless the notion of bullying transpeople is just really important for them to be able to do, in which case I would suggest you find a new hobby?
> They're deliberately undermining the mechanism that funds our shared existence. They want the benefits of living in society without contributing to its maintenance.
So I pay income tax, property tax, road tax, sales tax and even my savings I have to put in the hands of the govt which has been unreliable, corrupt and mostly serves the interests of the few over the interests of the many regardless of which political party has been elected.
The US government has not been unreliable. It has been very much the opposite of that, for a very very long time. That's why it has the best credit that any entity has ever had.
Sometimes I feel like a lot of you want to break things just so that you can then say "See! I told you it was broken!". I have very little patience for this.
Being able to borrow at low rates is only one outcome of being a very reliable government (to this point).
People struggling financially and being unable to buy property are policy choices that have nothing to do with reliability.
To illustrate: If we had never created the Social Security program, a lot more elderly people would be impoverished, but that wouldn't be unreliable, it would just be a different policy choice. But now that we do have the Social Security program, if people start being unable to get their payments, then that would be unreliable.
The distinction is: Are we keeping up our end of the bargains we've made? Historically, we have done so to an extremely high degree, which is why our credit is very good. And not just in financial terms. The current administration seems hell bent on ruining that long history of reliability, and that's very bad. But it's just not true that the US government has been unreliable historically.
They too are undermining our existence they just do it in a different way. I'm not sure which kind of parasite is more offending to the people doing all of the work.
To stick with the topic, the author argues for voting "openness may be too much, as we can see how each and every person votes, and thus can influence them" How is this different from putting a gun to your head and having you transfer your crypto currency to my account?
I find the topic really boring and unproductive. We have a few dozen kinds of robber barons and no amount of superficial conversation is going to change anything.
Everyone agrees really, everyone wants more for themselves or for the things they consider important.
The thing I'm curious about is what it should actually cost to run a country. Can we even simplify the topic to a point where the different configurations are few enough for mere mortals to understand?
I don't see how I'm to judge your road tax without understanding that. You can do roads on many different scales. 200 years ago the people living in a street had to organize the pavement of it. The road to the next city was financed on a city level.
Indeed. Was Beepboop arguing that inflation is the mechanism that funds our shared existence?
Why do you think cryptocurrency at its philosophical core enables wealth hoarding? If I don’t pay my property taxes, I lose my house, regardless of how much cryptocurrency I own.
Why can’t we have a separation of money and state where the state receives its due through taxes and is unable to inflate the money supply?
Cryptocurrency doesn't enables wealth hoarding at its philosophical core, as demonstrated by some that have a pure linear emission, like 1 coin per second forever, with no benefit whatsoever for their creators.
I think he's just advocating for the idea that money (and monetary policy) should be separated from taxation, like the gold standard. Or maybe an imaginary silver standard, where the citizens hold the precious metal directly (and pay taxes in it) instead of just having the currency backed by precious metal.
Just because the government and banking institutions can't easily censor and restrict the money supply, doesn't mean they can't collect taxes on it. In a word where crypto is the dominant form of money they can just throw you in jail if you don't pay taxes.
If you need to pay X amount of taxes, maybe the government should explicitly collect X amount of taxes transparently instead of collecting Y amount of taxes, selling a bunch of debt that needs to be financed at a later date, inflating the currency, etc. Because the more transparency in a democracy, the fewer ways for politicians to hijack taxation.
Not weird at all that a piece of paper you wrote 20 years ago which has like 5-10KB of info that you can decode without any tech can stand the test of time. Archives are hard because of scale, env factors etc.
Sometimes, or oftentimes, the law is used against the citizens. Ride sharing is a real improvement in a lot of european countries.
I suggest watching this with subtitles, while it is a comedic skit taken to the extreme you can see how taxi drivers were viewed before ride sharing apps disrupted the taxi industry.
reply