Mainly 100% removal from Ukraine (not unreasonable, but also not going happen without Ukraine doing much better on offense) and a shit ton of reparations for all the damage done and people killed (this is never going to happen).

IMHO The most likely scenario is Russia keeps 50 to 80% on land they’ve already captured and Ukraine agrees not to join NATO and the war stops. Keep in mind much of the land that they’re currently fighting over will be useless for a generation due to all the mines and shells shot into it. (Maybe “useless” is too strong, but it will take a lot of work to make it safe for living and farming.)

The reality is that both sides are laying out unrealistic terms for surrender right now… and that’s fine. The start of a negotiation is always to start with a stated position and go from there. This war will end at the negotiation table… at least we hope it does becuase unconditional surrender won’t come from Russia, but it could come from Ukraine.

The real question is have both sides suffered enough for a negotiated end to this war? Look, it sucks, but that’s the truth of it. It would be good to see an end to the fighting and dying in Ukraine. Wars suck. The only side winning in this war is the US. They/we spend a pittance of money and watch Russia burn their future generation, military reputation, and global standing to the ground. That’s the #2 political opponent the US has in the world, and it’s acting as a great example for to show China (the #1) why it should behave itself over Taiwan. Win win!

But wars suck. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines, but there a lots of people fighting and dying over there who have nothing to do with make the decisions for war. Yes Putin’s demands are ridiculous, but so are Ukraine’s. That’s fine. Put them in a room and hopefully they can figure out way to end the killing that’s in between the two.

deleted by creator

But the reality is managers want to pick who gets laid off. It’s not that they want to just cut heads and reduce costs… upper management. may want that… but the actual managers want to keep their best and brightest. They know who the people are who get shit done, and they want to keep those people. Rto tends to have the opposite effect.

The reality is it is often the best employees, the most experienced employees, and some very high level employees who have the most confidence and are most willing to say " screw you, I know I can find a job somewhere else" And give the middle finger to the employer who’s trying to do an RTO plan.

Don’t be fooled by the headlines. Real businesses want to control who they let go. They want to have all the power in the relationship. They want to cut their lower performers and keep their superstars. RTO is about the worst head cutting program you could dream up.

This is the home of Tesla. There are a million EVs here.

I’m in the SF bay area.

The off-hours rate for my electricity is $0.04 cheaper than the prime hours rate. It’s laughable. $0.51 vs $0.47. Why bother even thinking about it at that pathetic difference? It’s certainly not going to change the math much.

It’s shockingly high. I live in the SF bay area and I’m a bit pissed off at how bad we’re getting screwed.

We have a Volvo XC90. Much bigger (and probably heavier) than your Bolt. It gets ~26MPG on the gas only mode. It has an 18.8kWh battery and can go ~30 miles on a charge. So again, bigger, heavier, and less efficient. At $0.50 per kWh, it takes ~$9 for 30 miles, and ~$5.5 in gas to go 26 miles.

That’s all great, but the real thing that will stop it is economics. We have a PHEV and I calculated it out and we pay $8 per gallon equivalent compared to $5.50 for regular gas. That’s a pretty big difference. Right now we ignore the EV part of the vehicle. (Live in California and I pay $0.50/kwh.)

We’re planning on getting solar shortly and that may make it feasible, but until then, it’s not.

It’s a common phrase for to describe prioritizing bad news over normal news in media… basically saying bad shit gets top billing on news outlets. For example, murder, accidents, deaths, etc, they will lead the news feeds. This tends to give watchers/readers a skewed perspective as to how bad things are in the world. For example, murder rates may be down but media constantly hyping up the latest murders may get people to think it’s the worst it’s ever been… reality be damned.

That’s weird because the world is in better shape than it was when I grew up. You have drills for what to do in active shooter situations. I had drills for what to do in case of a nuclear war. I don’t think it’s as much to do with how bad the world is vs how bad the economy is for young people… and I"m not even sure if it’s statistically worse. Certainly housing is worse. Are there any other metrics that are really worse? (This is an honest question, I"m not looking for a generational fight. None of us have any control over when we were born.) Wealth inequality has gotten worse, but it was pretty bad before too.

I guess what I"m really arguing is that I think there is too much negativity and pessimism in our society especially amongst the young. Some things do suck. But finding someone who you love and then deciding to start a family with them and creating a small pocket of a better world seems 100% worth it to me.

This is so weird. Why would they not just pay their drivers more. Add it directly to the cost of doing business. What’s the issue?

It’s like making a minimum wage for all fast food employees. All fast food establishments now have higher wage costs. So what? The cost of a hamburger goes up $0.50. All your competitors now have the same costs. How does this change anything for you? Versus going out of business?

Think about if only Uber left. That’s a lot of extra business for Lyft. What’s the big deal? Hm… maybe they have to cover the salary even if the driver doesn’t accept any rides? Maybe that’s the real issue. How do you guarantee drivers are busy and not just signing in and doing nothing and canceling offered rides? That still doesn’t seem that hard to fix.

The reality is that even if they’re pretty in shape, they wear enough gear and body armor that running in that stuff is going to be quite a workout. If you and the cop are equal runners with no gear, you’re going to beat him by a mile when he has his gear on.

So you only heard about climate change when celebs like Taylor Swift started promoting it? The writing has been on the wall for decades (from scientists) and we’ve been hearing about it for that amount of time. If you think that the only reason you know about it is from celebs then apparently they were needed in order to reach you.

More people than billionaires are telling you there’s a climate issue. Scientists are, normal people are, etc. It’s the biggest environmental issue of our lifetimes. And there are some celebrities that are also trying to use their popularity to promote the message to get the government to create a set of rules that will actually impact out much CO2 we’re putting into our atmosphere. The right-wing talking heads have found that it’s really effective to point at them and say “LOOK! They have big houses! They fly around in private jets! They use more resources that 100 of you normal folks, therefore we shouldn’t do anything.”

The reality is that they’re using more resources than 100 of us normal folks, but there are 100k of us normal folks to each of them so we make a much more significant impact on the climate than they do. And yes, lets make the laws affect them also. But the “they’re flying around in jets” talking point is lame. They’re going to be flying around in jets no matter what. They’re going to have big houses no matter what. So lets make them have lots of solar panels on their big houses or make flying around in private jets more expensive. That’s just a reason to make the laws affect them also, it’s NOT a reason to do nothing and let the world burn.

The thing is billionaires will always use more resources than you. They will have more stuff. It’ll have more houses. They will have boats, private planes, huge mansions, and more money than they know what to do with. They will always use more resources than you. If your whole statement is we shouldn’t try to solve global warming because some people are rich, and we’re doomed to all die. And by the way, The billionaires will have a nice air-conditioned bunker while the rest of us die.

I’m all for trying to solve wealth inequality, but it shouldn’t get in the way of solving a major environmental disaster.

The idea that if you’re still living at home that your parents are still taking care of you. That they still make your food, do you laundry, pay your bills, etc. there is also a stereotype that you’re emotionally stunted since you haven’t moved out and had to take care of yourself. This is often summarized in the neck beard living in his parents basement meme.

I’m not saying this is true, but that’s the idea.

Spoken like someone who doesn’t understand tax brackets or math.

This only matters if you’re making more than your peers. Most of my friends had engineering degrees coming out of college so we weren’t massively different in compensation. I’m pretty open amongst them, but I wouldn’t tell anyone how much I make it i thought it was more than 10-20% different than them.

0. Going to collage and experiencing the wide gamut of experiences there.
1. Meeting my wife and her saying yes to going on a date with me my last year of college.
2. Living in a foreign country (Japan) for 3 years for work with my wife and having 2 kids while I was there.
3. Having kids (3 in total)
4. Designing and building our own house.