running_ragged

I guess I misinterpreted when they talk about LNG pipelines.

That isn’t much comfort though, since gas leaks are both more likely and more difficult to contain.

They pipe it in liquid form, LNG.

And more leaks than they report.

https://www.iea.org/news/methane-emissions-from-the-energy-sector-are-70-higher-than-official-figures

Well pointed out. Too bad the emissions are higher than anyone connected with the industry is willing to admit.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2023/12/11/Alberta-Methane-Super-Emitter/#

https://www.iea.org/news/methane-emissions-from-the-energy-sector-are-70-higher-than-official-figures

Seems good. Until you realize they just shifted to ‘Natural Gas’. Aka liquid methane, which in the short term traps heat 80 times worse than CO2 for about 20 years.

Those wasn’t a move to help the environment, just to make to oil barons richer.

If someone doesn’t like how I look, oh well, that’s life. Seems this is a lesson most people learn in grade school - some people aren’t going to like you, you’re not going to like some people.

You're not entirely wrong, but you're also totally missing the fact that people are 100% judged by stature and not just in attractiveness, but in their value period.

The taller you are, the higher salary people will assume you already are making. During hiring, this means you'll be offered a higher starting salary to try and make the offer more appealing to you.

Here's an article that references the study I'm thinking of. https://merryformoney.com/height-salary/ If you care ,you can maybe dig up the original study somehow.

This sort of bias is pretty inescapable in our culture and will be I think regardless of our language. Preferred body shapes do change over time, even within the span of a single generation. Maybe tying more positive words around these words is part of that change.

Are there not already words to represent the same thing to anyone old enough to read a message? A different representation of something they are already potentially exposed to isn't something that technology standards should be censoring.

Especially when the defacto replacement for this is a symbol of something that could very easily give young men a serious sense of inadequacy and insecurity.

edit: (you -> young)

It doesn’t have to all be bad. If the city could get the head out of their ass, they could sort out the codes and get it done. Let people who work downtown live downtown. Shrink the driving and parking infrastructure, turn it into a walkable, bikeable area.

Rents/leases could go way down for the mom and pop shops that can survive in the new design.

Other businesses can move further out where the people are, so the suburbs can become more walkable.

If we made the focus on reducing waste, and making things easy for everyone, rather than how to make rich people richer, theres lots of solutions.

It does add context though.

If I just said “it adds context”, it’s not seen as a counterclaim to your claim. It’s just a new standalone statement.

Statistically speaking, employers don't.

This is why the UAW are asking for 40% raise, because that would bring their pay back in line with what they were making in 2008 in terms of inflation.

Virtually no one is going to give up extra time of their live to abuse this unless they have been convinced you are worthy of the abuse.

Then it’s personal.

So my question is if thats your default stance, how much do you abuse your staff? And call it fair because its what everyone is used to?

Or the third option, changing to a better employer.

Since everyone seems to think no one wants to work anymore, maybe theres a lot more better options out than than the shitty employers realize.

Sounds like a simple choice. Moving house to be closer to where jobs are is getting more and more expensive.

So that leaves moving jobs.

I wonder why so many employers are complaining ’No one wants to work’.