[subego]

Rehosted.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That's a hell of a URL. Not sure if it's not loading for me because of a URL issue or a work filter issue.

Huh. It's showing up for me. Oh, well. Danke, subego.

[Laminar]

Looks like "discogs.org" is block by my work's internet filter.

[subego]

Interesting.

That looks like a video site, owned by wn.com, a 1.0 era news aggregator.

I feel like Imgur would have worse crap on it.

[Spheric Harlot]

Discogs.com is a music discography site. That Shriner parade up there is the album cover to the Dead Kennedy's "Frankenchrist" album.

Discogs.org is something weird.

[Thorzdad]

Laminar's workplace probably just lazily wholesale blocks everything "discogs" .com, .org, .tv, etc.

[Laminar]

Back at it again at Krispy Kreme

[subego]

The seasons are changing, and they’re just reminding you layers are good for when it gets cold. Quite thoughtful of them.

[Thorzdad]

Apparently, Q-Anon faithful are gathering in Dallas, awaiting JFK Jr.'s return from the dead.
I mean, what the actual fuck is wrong with these people?

[andi*pandi]

Why they think JFKjr is going to be a republican now is only slightly more ridiculous than him coming back from the dead.

I have to wonder what the Kennedy family thinks about all this.

[reader50]

According to Wikipedia, JFK jr's ashes were scattered at sea from the Navy destroyer USS Briscoe off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. A long way from Dallas - which is not even a coastal city.

[Thorzdad]

reader...That's all part of the cover-up. Wake up, sheeple.

[reader50]

Also, if JFK (senior) were still alive today, he'd be 104 years old. I doubt he'd be up to political speeches from his oxygen bed, or particularly recognizable. Might not be clear on current issues either. However, he's probably an expert on music matters, after hanging out with Elvis for so many years.

[andi*pandi]

no no, they've also found a youth potion, so it's all good.

[Thorzdad]

Remember the lethal mess in Texas last winter?

Natural gas customers in Texas get stuck with $3.4 billion cold-snap surcharge
State oil and gas regulator will allow exemptions from winterization mandates.

[andi*pandi]

Meanwhile Texas is busy complaining about the infrastructure bill when they so badly need to revamp their infrastructure.

[subego]

Josh Duggar going to the slam for child porn.

Autocorrect seems to think it was “choir porn”. He’s probably guilty of that, too.

[Laminar]

To continue my "creepy facebook ads" series, last night wife and I slept in different beds. I was exposed to a positive covid case so I'm quarantining from the rest of my family to be safe.

Today, completely out the blue and with absolutely no prior ads, Facebook showed me several ads for apartment rentals. Then later it showed me homes for sale in the $100,000-150,000 range - you know, the kind someone could afford on a single salary. It's never ever ever shown me apartment or home for sale ads. Usually just tools, shitty right-wing stickers, and women's clothing.

[reader50]

By any chance, do you have a Ring system installed? Or Alexa?

Amazon has been dinged for using the recordings in ways homeowners did not expect.

[Laminar]

Alexa, though I'd be surprised if they divulged anything to Facebook.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

you both altered you're evening pattern simultaneously. facebook/google knows all

[andi*pandi]

That's... disturbing.

[reader50]

Recall the time Target realized a teen girl was pregnant, then tipped off the parents by offering baby-stuff coupons. Target learned to hide the baby coupons among unrelated ones, so other people would not catch on.

This was state-of-the-art marketing - a decade ago. I expect things have improved since.

[OreoCookie]

@Laminar
I’d book an appointment with a marriage counselor then.

These algorithms are so damn sophisticated. (I’m serious about the latter.) I remember a Twitter thread where someone in the know explained how algorithms targeted ads for a specific brand of tooth paste that his mother was using. While he was visiting his mother’s home. It’s eerie and has long crossed the Rubicon in my book.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

you both altered you're evening pattern simultaneously. facebook/google knows all

Shared IP, unique device identifiers — and once those no longer worked, recognition of established usage patterns. And sudden change by both of you… Has your wife seen something similar?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Shared IP, unique device identifiers — and once those no longer worked, recognition of established usage patterns. And sudden change by both of you… Has your wife seen something similar?

She at least tries to spend less time on social media than I do. Although her tastes are probably better defined and easier to market to considering that she follows more "influencers" and sends out a lot more likes than I do. So if they want to sell her something they don't need a shot in the dark, they know exactly what to show her.

Also I could play the "men are oppressed" card and point out that especially with kids, the wife is more likely to keep the house while the man is more likely to have to move out, so practically speaking I'm the one that's going to see the changes.

[OreoCookie]

Although online commercials aren’t perfect. For whatever reason when I watch youtube on my iPad I get ads for denture adhesive creme!?!? Ok. Weird. I was just at my dentist a week ago and he said my teeth are in perfect health. But what does he know?!

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Although online commercials aren’t perfect. For whatever reason when I watch youtube on my iPad I get ads for denture adhesive creme!?!? Ok. Weird. I was just at my dentist a week ago and he said my teeth are in perfect health. But what does he know?!

Perfect health maybe, but you could always glue some shiny bling to them.

[reader50]

Ad targeting on Youtube looks like a waste of money. I get ads for arthritis medicine, anti-depressants, big-ladies weight-watch diets, colon problems, and right-wing "we are being censored" subscriptions. None of which are applicable here. YT at least, should give up targeting.

Giving people a larger selection of untargeted ads would at least make them less repetitive. Lets admit it - there are some cool and funny ads. On the first couple viewings. They're a lot less interesting after you've seen them 50 times. Some of the ads I've seen are going on 200 times.

[OreoCookie]

I think a lot of these targeted ads are surprisingly ineffective. Amazon is a good example. After I order two new hard drives for my NAS, I get inundated with recommendations for hard drives. You freaking have my purchase history, I already bought hard drives. No need for more. I’m fine, thanks!

[subego]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Ad targeting on Youtube looks like a waste of money.

What gets me is how counter-productive the “skip ad” system is. All my concentration is focused on the countdown.

Make the ads non-skippable, but shorter than 5 seconds.

[Waragainstsleep]

And stop repeating them so much. Especially if I was paying enough attention to skip it first time, showing it again 3 minutes later isn't going to get you anywhere except my bad books.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And stop repeating them so much. Especially if I was paying enough attention to skip it first time, showing it again 3 minutes later isn't going to get you anywhere except my bad books.

Another thing they do is show me two ads of competing food delivery services, one more annoying than the next. In some people they'd surely trigger seizures from all the flashing lights and the in-your-face sounds. Ugh.

[subego]

How many do you have? In Chicago it’s basically three. Grubhub corporate is headquartered here though, so it may have forced out some smaller players.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

How many do you have? In Chicago it’s basically three. Grubhub corporate is headquartered here though, so it may have forced out some smaller players.

Judging from the ads, we have:
- Uber Eats
- Didi (a Chinese company)
- Wolt (which may have stopped serving our city, it's been a while since I saw one of their backpacks)
- PayPay (a Japanese electronic payment company has branched into food delivery)

And I think there is one more, but its name escapes me. I have no intention of ever using these services, since I think the work conditions are super exploitative. (E. g. delivery drivers/riders aren't even insured, so when accidents happen, they are responsible.)

[subego]

If you don’t mind me asking, how do you decide where the cutoff is between “exploitative, but better than no job”, and “no job is better than this exploitation”?

Full disclosure: I use Grubhub pretty much every day.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you don’t mind me asking, how do you decide where the cutoff is between “exploitative, but better than no job”, and “no job is better than this exploitation”?

IMHO such jobs are essentially government handouts to companies, because without the social security net these companies could not offer the services for the prices they do. Yes, it is true that a lot of the delivery drivers/riders are students, but not all of them. I have seen men in their 50s, and I don't think they are delivering food, because they prefer that to an office job or a job in a trade. I also know from acquaintances that the delivery people do not get any form of insurance. (One of them had a small accident with a delivery person and that's how they found out they weren't insured by the company.) That is, it is an unsustainable business model. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. I feel the same about Uber and other ride sharing services. (I have never ridden with either.)

Governments should prevent unsustainable businesses/businesses that couldn't exist without government subsidies by making suitable ground rules.

PS I'm not 100 % consistent, of course. During the pandemic, my reliance on Amazon has skyrocketed, and I know that package delivery drivers face the same issues. And if I were in a pinch, of course, I'd call an Uber. I just don't want to make it a habit. Also, I don't call out others, don't like that. Unless, of course, they ask like you did

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That is, it is an unsustainable business model. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. I feel the same about Uber and other ride sharing services. (I have never ridden with either.)

Governments should prevent unsustainable businesses/businesses that couldn't exist without government subsidies by making suitable ground rules.

I want to understand what you mean by this.

These businesses wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves if they paid a living wage, thus their business model is predicated on the government safety net taking up the slack?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

These businesses wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves if they paid a living wage, thus their business model is predicated on the government safety net taking up the slack?

Yes, precisely.
These jobs offer few-to-no benefits, no job stability and generally very low wages. Any time something happens, e. g. if that person gets sick and can't work, the state, i. e. all of us, have to pick up the slack.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, precisely.
These jobs offer few-to-no benefits, no job stability and generally very low wages. Any time something happens, e. g. if that person gets sick and can't work, the state, i. e. all of us, have to pick up the slack.

Essentially they are saying that their entire business model is flawed. If they had to pass on the full costs of employing drivers etc then the cost of delivery would be so high as to stop people using the service. However since the government will step in with benefits etc and effectively top up the staff wages then the price can be held artificially low.

Its pretty much the same here in the UK. In addition companies can employ someone for less than 14 hours a week and avoid having to pay their national insurance. So many do exactly that.
A lot of large businesses (especially those pesky disruptive app based businesses) are essentially corporate benefit scroungers.

A full time job being worked by an adult human should always pay enough for that person to at least live on.

[Doc HM]

Here's a one...

Businesses don't generally have a conscience, but the people working within them do.

So to take an extreme example, how does the CEO of Shell (to pick not at random), who I assume knows as well as the rest of us how carbon emissions are going, can allow his company to essentially piss all over the NIger delta and pretty much everywhere else where no one cares and pretend there is nothing to see here.

I get how it's all too difficult to parse down at the "My car needs fuel, oh a petrol station" level, but at the top these are the guys that could make a difference. And yet it's only extreme and eventual consumer pressure that moves them.

edit
I mean imagine if a bunch of CEO's (including FB, Google et all but also in big industry) came into work and decided "Enough! From now on we are actually REALLY ( ie not in a "Don't be evil - twirls moustache when no one is looking way), going to be the good guys"

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

A full time job being worked by an adult human should always pay enough for that person to at least live on.

That’s it in a nutshell.
A lot of the carveouts were meant for e. g. high school and university students who want to earn a few extra €/¥/$/£, but have since expanded to everyone.

Even if you are not convinced by the aspect of dignity. The thing is that I am convinced this has so many extraneous, but harder to quantify costs, it is not even funny. Mental illness. Children growing up in poverty with all the ramifications that has (including less chances to finish school, to enter university or a trade school, etc.). No retirement savings (poverty when old). Penny wise, pound foolish.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

I get how it's all too difficult to parse down at the "My car needs fuel, oh a petrol station" level, but at the top these are the guys that could make a difference. And yet it's only extreme and eventual consumer pressure that moves them.

In terms of consumer pressure, I posit consumers very harshly punish petroleum companies who do not offer their product at the lowest price possible

[reader50]

I was expecting energy companies to diversify from their fossil fuel portfolios. Adding wind, solar, and other promising items. So they remain energy companies, regardless of how things turn out.

Instead, they seem to be invested only in fossil fuels. Letting new companies grow larger in the new energy spaces. It's like they plan corporate suicide.

The legacy auto OEMs almost did the same thing. Ignoring EVs until bankruptcy is coming into view.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

In terms of consumer pressure, I posit consumers very harshly punish petroleum companies who do not offer their product at the lowest price possible

I think that's true of nearly every industry and business. Any business that raises prices in order to do something ridiculous like offer a living wage or life-saving health care or *gasp* paid time off is likely to lose business to its competitors with lower prices. The idea of treating your employees well can work in extremely consumer-facing industries with good marketing teams - think restaurants.

But for low-end retail or commodities (think steel mills), in no way, shape, or form will your market care that your employees are working in slightly unsafe conditions or that they don't get any health care or time off. Your buyers will see that your prices are 10% higher and they'll buy from your competitor.

That's why a lot of people believe it's up to the government to set the floor at a livable minimum wage, this way one company can't undercut everyone else by running their business like a meat grinder, churning through people like a disposable commodity and letting government social services like Medicaid, welfare, and food stamps make up for what they don't want to offer in pay and benefits.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

In terms of consumer pressure, I posit consumers very harshly punish petroleum companies who do not offer their product at the lowest price possible

I think that is way too simplistic.
Your approach puts too much responsibility to the individual for something that is a societal issue. IMHO companies and consumers should pay prices that reflect the true externalities of their products. Currently, oil and gas companies act like chemical companies in the 1950s. Yes, it is a lot cheaper to dump toxic waste anywhere you’d like, but the costs for society can be huge.

Even people who want a better alternative often don’t have one. E. g. there was a brief period in the late 1990s and early 2000s where some companies dipped their toes into the water for electric and fuel cell vehicles. GM’s EV1 is an example that came to mind. You could only lease it, but not buy it outright. As far as I understand, generally, the owners loved theirs, but GM at one point just took them all back and had them destroyed. They also did not make a replacement. Just imagine where GM would be today if they had kept chipping away for additional 25 years.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

That's why a lot of people believe it's up to the government to set the floor at a livable minimum wage, this way one company can't undercut everyone else by running their business like a meat grinder, churning through people like a disposable commodity and letting government social services like Medicaid, welfare, and food stamps make up for what they don't want to offer in pay and benefits.

Yup. Like you wrote companies exploit that many consumers only look at the immediate price tag, but do not include societal costs.

I think of government regulations like the soil we let things grow in. That’s why competition won’t magically take care of everything, if you don’t change the soil and growth conditions, similar businesses with the same undesired side effects will grow back. The soil determines which businesses are allowed to grow and which wither.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yup. Like you wrote companies exploit that many consumers only look at the immediate price tag, but do not include societal costs.

I think of government regulations like the soil we let things grow in. That’s why competition won’t magically take care of everything, if you don’t change the soil and growth conditions, similar businesses with the same undesired side effects will grow back. The soil determines which businesses are allowed to grow and which wither.

And yet (we are told) "the market" is all that matters. I am staggered that economists persist in bowing down to this completely non existent entity and insisting we all kneel before its demands, when a free market never has, and never will exist and in fact would be almost immediate socioeconomic suicide.

And yet here we are...

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, it is a lot cheaper to dump toxic waste anywhere you’d like, but the costs for society can be huge.

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/20/10660...=1640082009574

California suing Walmart for dumping toxic waste rather than send it to recycling

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

And yet (we are told) "the market" is all that matters. I am staggered that economists persist in bowing down to this completely non existent entity and insisting we all kneel before its demands, when a free market never has, and never will exist and in fact would be almost immediate socioeconomic suicide.

And yet here we are...

Free[er] market.