your dryer might be 50A and your AC 40A, but they rarely go at the same time. Same with the stove which has a 40A plug.

I take it you've never lived anywhere in the US south, or even the US west (AZ, parts of TX, etc)....from about April through start of NOV.

Having all of those on at the same time is quite common....especially any combination you want to make with AC.

My AC has clicked on and pretty much will not click off till first part of November....I'm in New Orleans.

Thankfully, my water heater, stove and oven and dryer are gas....but not everyone has the luxury of gas so yes, all those electrics can easily be on at same time, especially with a family of any size...and especially on weekends.

A totally wasted effort. Good luck finding even one engineer at SpaceX who hasn't already thought of that and some.

If they're giving you a battery for nothing, and they're going to maintain it, I wouldn't exactly call that small. TOU plans are common now, and you can take advantage of load shifting. A bigger benefit is if your air conditioning cost is entirely shifted to them, which is likely peanuts compared to the rates datacenters pay.

Why would we do that? When it comes to large scale deployment of mind-altering drugs, chemtrails are so much easier. Did you think you came to the conclusion that the earth is flat and vaccines are bad all on your own? You wish. You will believe whatever suits us. Nothing more, nothing less.

It seems we're reaching 201 BG 9,000 years early.

Not fixate, but knowing it can be helpful for your own bargaining purposes. Why do you think employers don't like employees talking about their own pay? Meanwhile, comparing your own to somebody in a much different position than yours is...mostly useless. It can be useful if you're thinking about a career shift, or alternatively, just plain looking for something to piss and moan about.

Why?

And?

No, it really doesn't. I've looked at the data people from your camp use to argue this point, which ranges from cherry-picked, downright irrelevant, or outright inconclusive, yet somehow you've managed to convince yourself that it points in your favor when it really doesn't point anywhere.

This is a hypothetical that you guys just tell yourselves, and it has no basis in reality. A very slim minority use any of that to pay any bills, buy food, etc, and when they do, they almost always consider that to just be a side benefit, and they're not homeless or desperate, just poor, which as in the case of Pootler, is because of poor judgment more than anything else. Somebody laid off from facebook, shit, even walmart, isn't going to do this because the risk/reward just isn't even remotely worth it to them, even if they had no moral qualms about doing it. If they do, very high chance they're really going to be permanently unemployed, and they know it.

The most common motivations are first and foremost street culture, i.e. just wanting to get "bling" to show off to their peers, and very much removed from anything resembling "desperate", often even wearing nice clothes and/or driving tricked out cars while they're in the process of doing it. Right after them, it's typically a crime of opportunity, homeless or not: They see what looks like an easy target, and go for it. If somebody is both homeless and desperate, 99.99999% of the time it's because they're desperate to get their next drug fix before the withdrawal symptoms really start kicking in.

Source:

https://nij.ojp.gov/library/pu...

If homeless people are going to steal when there's no drug addiction involved. Usually it's shoplifting, and usually for something other than food because they've already got plenty of ways of getting that in abundance, often going as far as to sell their food stamps for something stupid like cigarette money.

Again, this is just something you guys tell yourselves, it holds practically no basis in reality. In order to even get there at all, it's not done with "double-digit millions" on their W2 that you think it is. The only realistic way it's done is with capital appreciation, which itself is done by investing in some form or another. Put it this way: If I own a million shares in say Pepsi, and over 10 years increases by $1,000 per share, what does that do to my net worth? And exactly how much did it cost you? Easy: Exactly zero. This is what positive sum means -- value, or what you incorrectly refer to as wealth, literally appeared out of thin air. Zero-sum would mean that value literally had to come from somebody or somewhere else. It simply didn't.

As for the ones with the 7-digit W2s (which is incredibly rare, by the way, more often than not they're given stock options, which you can't directly measure as income until long after they're exercised and then sold) You likely tell yourself, often, that more money for them means less money for you, and that's just not the case. Like I told Pootler over there, it's not zero-sum.

You, just as they, are paid whatever the market rate is. Executives can only set their own pay if they own all the seats on the company board, which is almost never the case, and even if they were, that's just begging for a lawsuit. When even a mid-cap company board wants to hire a CEO, they don't just post a listing on linkedin. Rather, it starts with a very, very short list of names of people who they believe will be the best for the job and who they believe they can afford, and assuming it's not somebody already within the company, they go poaching.

And if the executive is good enough, they'll refuse to move at all unless the board offers them some kind of guaranteed severance should things go south, for any reason at all, because they're likely already very secure in their current job and, like most people, wouldn't want to risk giving up something that they can't go back to if they leave. That's where the so-called "golden parachute" comes from. If you're good at what you do, you can ask for that and a lot more. Why do you think A-list actors are paid in the tens of millions for a two-hour movie where the D-list gets maybe $100? Why do you think the WNBA is paid peanuts compared to the NBA?

Let's use your $50,000 programmer example -- if that "programmer" had any sense whatsoever, he'd quickly start applying to other jobs that pay more. As soon as he says "I've got another job, I'm out" if the employer values him that well, and it was within their budget, they'd try to match or beat it. What's going on in your and Pootler's head is they're just going to (or "should be required to") point-blank pay him more just because the company had a good quarter and a cash surplus. You know who does that with their budget? Politicians, and that's exactly how you get chronic budget deficits. The private sector can't do that though. Pootler over there likes to talk up the virtues about employee owned companies, especially employee-owned co-ops, and they don't even do this. Why? Because if they do, then they're always one quarter away from insolvency. Any non-government employer that wants to actually survive, regardless of ownership structure, simply can't do this. It just doesn't work. At best, it can be like the nonprofit I used to work for, who would distribute a bonus to all employees if overall revenue was good. But the bonus is pretty small (our best year when I was there was 2018, and it was a whopping $400 for the entire year.)

Back to your programmer: If he was kind of shit at his job, didn't work well with others, etc, they'd be like "have a nice trip" and never want to see him again. Your pay is what it is just to retain you as an employee. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Taking it away from the top earners doesn't change that. Moreover, they'd have some explaining to do to the board and/or the investors for why they're paying an employee more than they need to in order to retain that employee. The US actually tried pay caps once, by the way, under FDR under an executive order (which is blatantly unconstitutional, by the way, that power belongs to the legislature, not the executive, but the legislature forced its repeal anyway.) And you know what? It didn't increase anybody else's pay. Get this though -- the bottom was getting more money, but not because of pay like you're thinking, rather because they were increasingly saving money, which in itself was primarily due to rationing. In other words, they were saving money because there was less "nice to have" stuff they could buy with their disposable incomes because the materials needed to produce those goods were going towards the war.

It's like I told you and Pootler already: The expenses really only come from consumption. It's really a fundamental law of nature. You know what they could, and *did*, spend a lot on because it wasn't rationed? Entertainment. Hollywood and movie theaters were booming in those days. Prostitutes in Oahu were literally hitting the national salary cap simply because people just didn't have anything else to spend their money on.

These are all little things that, if you pay attention to history, especially how economics historically have played out, then you'd have the benefit of hindsight before you run your mouth and say things that not only can't be proven, but in fact history directly contradicts. This is also why people laugh at you guys when you talk about the virtues of socialism, which you guys only think is a good idea because you're in your own little echo chamber which quickly dismisses anything that contradicts you before you bother to spend even a second thinking through it.

You're welcome.

No, it doesn't get that absurd. This is just stupid. Show me exactly a place that has $50,000 programmers with $300,000 team leads, or anything even remotely approaching such a ratio. It's not at all unheard of for software developers (note the distinction) to make more than their director does, let alone a team lead. It's all about market rate.

Nothing. It's just bullshit. As I already mentioned, it is in fact a logical error on your part, which I don't need to ask if you are having problems understanding that, because you very obviously didn't understand.

Yet it doesn't seem to bother you that the very first post randomly brought up ketamine.

They can receive them from a telehealth visit, but they have to have at least one in-person visit beforehand. At least, that's what they're telling me. I literally haven't had my Adderall prescription filled in the years since moving to California due to that. Fortunately I've been able to make do without it because my current employer highly discourages frequent and/or long meetings, which is usually where my ADHD runs into problems. I'd still be better off with it, but I gave up trying to fill it after the first year.

Not deleting the password from memory is where Edge ultimately exposes itself excessively compared to competition. This is what happens when you have programmers that only think in terms of a Turing machine abstraction, versus doing practical threat modeling.

Actually, the website says "Coming Soon"

Thaaaat is scary... So far the one program I've looked at has MDs who do their own assessment of you to determine whether you're a candidate to begin with -- a diagnosis alone is insufficient.

While telehealth medicine is a thing, I don't believe the DEA rules permit prescribing any scheduled drug without at least one in-person visit. They probably did their one visit, and there are probably legitimate cases for that, but at the same time, dirty MDs have and do run drug mills.

*conclusive