Boycotts, divestment and sanctions work. Use them.

Here's an explainer, with a way to get involved to stop it:
https://darksky.org/news/orbit...

I canceled Prime several months ago, but it was part of what I called "Amazon Divorce," because I was sick of them and it took about a month, on and off to cut them out my my life and delete my data as much as possible. Canceling Prime was fairly easy, however my account went back to 1998 and I also had been using other services. So it took awhile to delete all my reviews, delete all my browsing and shopping history, save my wishlists to a file and delete them, ensure all my MP3s were backed up, research whether and how I can de-DRM my Kindle titles (yes, and it's complicated), and replace the various services with other things. So those were choices.

The problem is if you actually want to completely rid yourself of Amazon, unless you're prepared to never buy anything online, it's going to be tough. Some companies may have their own websites but do fulfillment via Amazon anyway. The unexpected bonus for my doing this was that I've since found superior companies to do business with, superior products, and often, superior prices. So am I glad I crawled out of the Amazon Hellmouth? 10/10 highly recommended, would leave again.

A lot of people do conflate jury rulings with factual findings and settlements with admissions of guilt. Sometimes they are aligned, and sometimes they aren't.

I'm not anti-AI but FFS I wish people would stop trying to shove it down my throat. Invite me to try it, ask me if I want it. But stop turning on for me and not telling me about it. The code completion guesses for my AI aren't even wrong --most of the time--, but they are wrong often enough - probably 20-30% - that it just slows me down and I'm turning it off. If you have a friend that randomly lies to you even 10% of the time, would you consider that friend a trustworthy person? Would you count on them for important information? How much time do you want to spend fact checking your tools? My answer is ZERO.

Absolutely. Every news item I read about OpenAI the more I think they they only know how to write code and math, and don't think any other skills are needed. This isn't just tough to get working on a machine. Humans are complicated, we don't even fully understand ourselves and we frequently fail at being parents. What makes anybody think they can adequately program an AI that's going to be only a benefit to society (or maybe they aren't actually going for that, which is worse)?

IDK people blowing smoke up my rear always raise my suspicions. Even ChatGPT doing it makes me a little disgusted.

It is a common tactic of con artists, narcissists and other anti-social types. Agree that the problem isn't "mental health" per se, IMO it's more emotional intelligence; not having experience/training enough to recognize when someone's being sincere, and to have a good defense mechanism. However having mental health issues can go along with that lack of experience/training. I think it's because someone can be so occupied dealing with their issue, they don't have a lot of time for learning self-defense against the psychological Dark Arts, or their mental state can drift into being particularly suggestible, for example.

BWAHAHAHA, try just setting it to stop filtering out your OWN EMAILS to me as spam, Microsoft.

> ...if you have a male resume, it gets put straight into the circular bin in favor of any other checkbox class. > [...etc] What hyperbolic garbage. Prove that happens on anything but a trace percentage of times. It doesn't even make sense for particular fields that men utterly dominate, like trucking. You'd never hire anyone!

> Is it true that men are advantaged over women "on average"? I can't speak from incontrovertible evidence, I find this question disingenuous or truly intellectually lazy. That or what passes for "incontrovertible evidence" for you has such a strict definition as to be impossible to meet. Geez man, open your eyes! You most certainly can speak from "incontrovertible evidence" with less than a minute's worth of internet clicks. I don't understand how anyone today can believe, after thousands of years of documented sex discrimination in law and custom, that a society could just pass a couple of laws and within a generation or two, everyone's an egalitarian! Society drops its traditional ideas and all our biases have magically flown away from us, yay, nobody discriminates any more! No. You can't just declare your culture as having no effect on you, you can't command biases to go away, laws don't rewire brains. I think we're -never- going to be rid of sex or other discrimination like that, because we're evolved to see patterns and we're evolved to make generalizations. The best we can do is recognize that literally everyone (no matter how smart you are) develops biases based on their individual experience and their culture, and then IF you want to be fair, you have to recognize that, consciously decide to mitigate it by implementing processes that reduce unfair bias as much as possible where appropriate, such as hiring decisions and promotions. But back to OP's original topic: > Men who are out of work and looking for a job are certainly not in a position of "advantage". Setting up a job fair to exclude such disadvantaged people is cruel. No it isn't. This assumes that it's the only job fair around, or that job fairs are the only way to get a job. Non-targeted job fairs way outnumber targeted ones. Non-targeted job hunting websites are all over the place. Again speaking generally, it also assumes there is literally no advantage just for being a man, which is demonstrably false. All other things being equal women will, generally, not be as likely to be hired, or if so, be treated as less capable and will be offered lower pay and/or a lesser position. If the idea of a job fair that targets people who have historically been (and provably continue to be) discriminated against makes you feel uncomfortable, I'd ask that you spend a little of your own time educating yourself why people want such a thing. People want to go where they're wanted. Job fairs for "everybody" clearly don't achieve this, or else we wouldn't need the targeted ones. Did you know there are numerous shared spreadsheets of companies that are considered good places for Black people to work? Is that fair? Ask yourself if it's fair that Black professionals' own experience drives a need for such spreadsheets. It's not unfair to target certain groups of people based on their appearance or other physical characteristics that they can't choose, to help them, who still often feel less than welcome in certain workplaces. This has been happening to women for thousands of years, and to Black and Indigenous Americans for centuries. It was only a few decades ago that women and minorities were either actively excluded, discouraged or ignored for certain jobs. Again these aren't the only job fairs around and they aren't the only way to apply for jobs. So I think men ought to be man enough to tolerate what seems like bit of unfairness for awhile, in the interest of leveling the playing field.

Don't know where you're getting your info but you can't just read the plain text of the US Constitution & Bill of Rights and broadly interpret it however it pleases you. Precedent and Congressional laws inform interpretation - there are corners, niches and loopholes all over the place and there are lots of people in prison who tried this kind of thing and failed.

All advertising in content of any kind during content aimed at minors, especially under around 12 years of age, should be banned completely. I don't know why anyone -- aside from corporations selling to children -- is arguing in favor of it, because it seems obvious to me that children don't have buying power and can't make buying decisions (at least not directly, we all know how "powerful" it can be to have a screaming child and be an exhausted parent, but that argues even more in favor of a ban). Advertising is intentionally designed to shortcut rational thought, and children simply do not have the cognitive skills or even the cognitive ability to counteract these propaganda techniques. The problem isn't just that it brainwashes people into massive consumerism and blind brand loyalty from a very early age, but advertisements also exploit stereotypes in order to get attention and sell their product, because those stereotypes go through those exact mental shortcuts. The persuasion tactics end up reinforcing stereotypes and by extension, prejudices, in society. My main source of this information is the book The Age of Propaganda but there are plenty of readily available sources, including research that supports what I've said. In Norway, and Quebec advertising to minors is not allowed, and in the UK, Denmark, Germany and Belgium, advertising to minors is restricted (see the Wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...).

Assuming this is to "replace" my cards and/or cash, why would I want something where, if the batteries are dead, I can't buy anything?
A woman is usually carrying a purse, if it's a man he's typically carrying a wallet for other things anyway, so not much of a win there.
Why give hackers yet another way to steal my money?
Why give the feds/megacorps yet another way to track me and my spending?
WTF is wrong with cash? These days I'm a lot more likely to have my credit cards/bank account hacked than to be mugged for my bills, and money just doesn't weigh that much.
Risk management, cost benefit analysis means no way in hell would I sign up for this. I can't think of any possible improvements that would change this, short of a bona fide, anonymous, non-battery-powered credstick.

I've been reading that there are a lot of people who expected not to retire, but are forced to - typically in their late 60s - due to health issues, and since they planned on working in very late life, their retirement resources aren't (or are just barely) enough to support themselves. This adds up to being majorly screwed, and this actually happened to my grandparents - my dad & uncle supplied the extra money they needed to get by :( People's own future state of health is something they may not have considered when, at age 30-something, they're --not-- planning for retirement.

As the daughter of a long time, now retired public school teacher and who has friends who are currently public school teachers, I'll chime in with supporting teachers to sell their plans and keep the money.

I'll also corroborate all the people saying that teachers make these lesson plans outside of class, at home. They also do all their grading at home, including over holidays and school breaks. They start school 1 week or more before all the students. Most teachers I know pay for a significant portion of non-textbook classroom supplies OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS.

Teachers may have summers off - at least, ones who don't teach in year-round districts - but what they often do with that time is get a part time job so they can make up for the crappy pay they get.

Frankly, I find it appalling that we do not consider teaching a true profession, yet we make teachers go through a long certification process before we let them in the public schools to do often thankless work for crap pay and shoddy treatment. I am one of those people who adores teaching and is good at it, but I've seen what the public school system does to people, and the pay won't even come close to covering my living expenses. No thank you.

So let them sell the lesson plans. If it gives teachers more time with their families and a little more spending money, they deserve it, and so do their families.