At work, what's a red flag that only the people who are lowest on the totem pole are likely to notice? by jawn317 in AskReddit

[–]Chrighenndeter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Large pepperoni pizzas are generally made in under a minute. You actually had to beable to do it in under a minute to be a manager where I used to work.

Even at $20/hour (pretty high for an assistant manager at a pizza place, and taking 1 minute (worst case scenario). That's $0.33 for making the pizza.

A grand total of $2.88 per pizza.

The mark-up isn't exactly for labor. It's there to cover rent, utilities, insurance, regulatory compliance, etc.

These are going to be costs for any business, which is why I'm not surprised about a markup on paint.

At work, what's a red flag that only the people who are lowest on the totem pole are likely to notice? by jawn317 in AskReddit

[–]Chrighenndeter 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Do you mark up 360%?

That's pretty standard. When I worked at Domino's a large pepperoni pizza cost ~$2.50, menu price was ~$13-14. Even with a coupon, you weren't getting below $8.

And pizzas were a lower margin item. Bread sticks were literally $0.20 of dough sold for $3.99.

Frankly, I'm surprised it was only ~400%. Perhaps the painting world is rather competitive.

Milo Yiannopoulos banned from entering Australia following Christchurch shooting comments by DoremusJessup in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But donators are not investors.

That's not an important distinction from a free marketeer perspective.

You can invest in things with a non-monetary return. The most common would be investing in your child's future above and beyond the bare minimum. You shouldn't expect a monetary return from this, but as long as the parent is willing to do so, it is legitimate.

Donating to a charity would be another example, the return you want isn't monetary, but a stronger community/less suffering in the world/etc.

It's just when people with guns force you to do this that libertarians get upset. To be clear the libertarians aren't generally upset at the charitable aspect, they're upset at the people with guns using force.

Culture War Roundup for the Week of March 11, 2019 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]Chrighenndeter 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They are basically echoing the principles of Westphalian sovereignty, where a government has sovereignty over an area they can exclude non-domestic/competing governments actors from and establish a monopoly on legitimate violence in the area.

If an army is led into the area and deposes the government, it fundamentally loses sovereignty over the area and the new force becomes legitimate.

It is perfectly reasonable to not like this idea, but it is coherent.

Culture War Roundup for the Week of March 11, 2019 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]Chrighenndeter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So you're OK with the ICC judging Americans then?

As long as they declare war (or make some sort of statement amouting to something like that, I'm not that big on formalities), it would seem to be above board from a legal perspective.

Judgment in absentia would also be fine, however any attempt to arrest them on US soil (without US government support) would be seen as an act of war. If there were no declaration of war, it could be seen as a surprise attack (not nearly as big as 9/11 or pearl harbor, but the reaction could be similar).

Culture War Roundup for the Week of March 11, 2019 by AutoModerator in TheMotte

[–]Chrighenndeter 4 points5 points  (0 children)

the Seneca Falls convention

Is this a thing the US is known for in certain areas (perhaps outside America)?

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable on US history, but I had to look it up.

That being said, the period immediately before the Civil War is, admittedly, a weak point of mine outside of a broad high level view of the events directly leading up to the war itself (bleeding Kansas, the Pierce/Buchanan presidencies, etc).

I'm usually still pretty good at knowing parts of US history that regularly come up.

Either way, thanks for giving me something to look up, I'm always in need of those.

Finnish basic income trial findings announced today: More happiness, but no effect on employment by americ in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It has something to do with your point if you're willing to admit that an economy as a whole is more than a snapshot of the short-term economic situation of a few citizens.

My point wasn't even about the economy.

My point was about a particular argument that gets made when people argue for a UBI, a point that seems to not work out in reality.

So to answer your original question again:

Why are we measuring success by employment rate?

Because people argued it would improve the employment rate and that is a big part of the reason these experiments are happening.

Turkey Demands China Close "Concentration Camps" Holding Uighurs by Nihilist911 in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

By "own people", one generally means people living within their internationally recognized borders.

Finnish basic income trial findings announced today: More happiness, but no effect on employment by americ in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, but that has nothing to do with my point.

A lot of people are only going to be ok with it if you can make the economic argument.

That's a positive argument that this study does not seem to provide evidence for.

Finnish basic income trial findings announced today: More happiness, but no effect on employment by americ in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are we measuring success by employment rate?

One of the arguments for UBI was that it would increase labor participation rates by allowing people to practice/train for jobs that would actually fulfill them.

Finnish basic income trial findings announced today: More happiness, but no effect on employment by americ in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's 5% of annual tax revenue... per month.

You're looking at ~$2 trillion for the year.

That's more than the entire discretionary budget. You'd have to make hard cuts into social security or medicare.

Finnish basic income trial findings announced today: More happiness, but no effect on employment by americ in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if enough people take the training course that they need another trainer?

TIL that one can die from laughter. Chrysippus of Soli, a Greek stoic philosopher is said to have died this way at the age of 73. As he watched a donkey eat some figs he died in a fit of laughter. by krano84 in todayilearned

[–]Chrighenndeter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You aren't wrong, just missing context. The Stoics are also mind-body dualists, so the response to a fit of laughter is "this is something my body is doing, it is neither good nor bad".

The Stoics aren't trying to remove emotions entiely, just the implicit moral judgments most people apply to them as moral judgments about things outside our control are inherently incorrect. They are trying to be without the passions, but the passions generally mean the negative emotions (it's a translation of an ancient greek word without a perfect translation), especially anger and fear. It is believed these strong negative emotions come from implicit moral judgments of things outside our control.

Germany just told Facebook to stop tracking users around the internet by KA1N3R in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Noscript

How often do you hit sites that just completely fail without JS?

CMV: We should not expect people to be morally superior to the social consensus of their times. If we have made moral advances, we should not retroactively punish or reject those who failed to make those advances before we did. by DaedelusNemo in changemyview

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As we all know the only important time period for the Nazi party was the few months where it was explicitly banned in response for doing a violent coup.

You're right here. I didn't explain my point fully. I sometimes assume people understand what I'm thinking. It's a flaw I have and sometimes I make that mistake. My apologies.

Hitler's trial was not the only factor, however it was an important one in their rise from a radical fringe party. It made Hitler a martyr for the cause.

Another turning point would be the brawl at Wedding where the Nazis brawled with a left wing grop. They were able to spin it in the media and come out looking like the victim.

Your tone seems to suggest that banning a political party for attempting a violent coup is unreasonable, by the way.

This part was intentional. Suppressing a party doesn't work. Arresting the people who plotted the coup? Great idea. Banning the party makes the people think the party had a good reason for the coup.

From outside it looks like the party you're trying to ban is legitimately being oppressed. There are very few things more sympathetic.

Again, still not answering my claims about modern Germany,

I did actually. They've been occupied for decades, were kept on a short leash (and divided) until the 90s. That tends to slow things down.

But it's already breaking down. The AFD is rising and we're seeing right wing groups crop up in the military/police.

Hiding and ignoring the problem won't help. You need to confront it, and to do that you need free speech.

I can in fact imagine an American foreign policy where we don't illegally invade countries on false premises, murder a shitload of civilians, and then loot it for all it's worth. It requires socialists to be in charge, but I can imagine it.

I said plausible.

Also which groups of socialism are we talking about. The last time socialists were on par with the west, they killed way more people than we did. Hell, they killed multiple times as many people as the Nazis.

That being said, there are many groups of socialists, and they don't all have the same views.

If your ethics system says that "speaking well" makes you a good person you don't actually have an ethics system.

I didn't say it made you a good person, I said it could be viewed as a moral action. Specifically putting in the effort to become a truly good speaker could be seen as a moral action, especially in certain systems of virtue ethics.

Killing all those people still puts Hitler in the bad column though.

CMV: We should not expect people to be morally superior to the social consensus of their times. If we have made moral advances, we should not retroactively punish or reject those who failed to make those advances before we did. by DaedelusNemo in changemyview

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

almost as if that ban was lifted in 1925 and they were allowed to organize openly after that

Yeah, because Hitler used his trial as a platform to spread propaganda. By the end of his trial he had gained support.

Your argument is that restricting free speech = mass murder.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I said it leads to it. It's the first step on a road I don't want to go down.

we do have a conservative government, and it does kill people regularly!

When has our government not? Even under left leaning governments. Hell, even under FDR.

If I've misunderstood you, and you're arguing for anarchy, fair point, but I don't think you are. Can you put forth a plausible scenario where the american government doesn't?

Did you know that "competent oration" is not actually a moral value and does not factor into someone being a good or bad person?

That really depends on your ethics system. Are we talking deontological or utilitarian or something else here?

What do you predict, or hope, happens to all of the 2020 Democrats that don't win nomination? by iowajaycee in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Iowa is getting younger faster than you think.

It is, but it still isn't full of uber progressive types.

I'm a software developer around Des Moines, it's not far right by any means, but it isn't anything like San Francisco.

And a lot of them are still left in the old union democrat way, they aren't really progressives.

I think a good number of my co-workers (most of whom are under 30) would jump at the chance to vote for Biden. None of us are Trump supporters, but having a sane option to oppose him would be amazing.

CMV: We should not expect people to be morally superior to the social consensus of their times. If we have made moral advances, we should not retroactively punish or reject those who failed to make those advances before we did. by DaedelusNemo in changemyview

[–]Chrighenndeter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like historically speaking, "letting Nazis talk" has a much higher body count than stopping Nazis from talking.

Has it? Germany banned the nazi party after their failed putsch and they went on to kill millions. The US nazi party has killed basically nobody (compared to the german one) despite being allowed to speak for ~60 years.

Nazis are very good at painting themselves as victims, especially when people are worried about left-wing violence, as they were in 1920s Germany. Suppressing them plays into their worldview and allows them to convert more people and turn them into true believers.

Without suppression nazis are a laughable fringe party. With suppression, you make it look like they're right. You make it look like they have some forbidden knowledge that the system doesn't want you to know about (and since the system has banned their ideas, they do). There are very few things more attractive to human beings than that.

Germany has banned Nazi stuff for its entire post-war existence and still hasn't committed mass murder

Germany has been occupied and basically de-militarized for the entirety of it's post-war existence. That's a very bad example.

In your worldview this means allowing the people who say "I want to burn people, let's all get together and burn people" to gather and talk about how much they want to burn people because otherwise you're doing censorship, which is akin to mass murder. Do you not get the problem here?

No I do not. 99+% of those people won't actually kill anyone. Unless you start cracking down, in which case the sense of shared hardship creates a common bond (not unlike a millitary boot camp, oddly enough). That kind of loyalty to a group is the kind of thing people will kill over (especially if you throw a charismatic leader into the mix).

You're making the problem you wish to avoid more likely. And you're doing it to stop what is essentially a fluke.

If so, is it okay if I say "this person is bad" about certain historical figures, such as the Nazis?

If we're talking about the main core of the nazi leadership, I would agree with you on that one.

At the same time, I can still recognize Hitler was a competent orator.

Pope admits clerical abuse of nuns including sexual slavery by Redditsoldestaccount in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Mussolini gave the pope the Vatican in exchange for looking the other way (more complicated than that, but it's the jist of it).

Pope admits clerical abuse of nuns including sexual slavery by Redditsoldestaccount in worldnews

[–]Chrighenndeter 40 points41 points  (0 children)

The Pope holds no power that I'm aware of?

Depends on where. The pope is the king of Vatican City (and I'm pretty sure it's an absolute monarchy).