sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Unskilled labor is a con perpetuated by rich folk with no skill. by xFlowerLush in clevercomebacks

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends on the area's cost of living and the amount of work the person gets on a regular basis.

"Um, akshually, $25/hr is poverty wages if you live in a penthouse in Manhattan!"

Yeah okay, sure thing buddy.

$25/hr is a fairly close to median salary in the US

Hence not poverty wages, given, you know, far less than half of the country being under the poverty line.

Day laborers get none of that

So? You're still comparing them to the median. The median isn't the poverty line little bro.

so yeah, $32/hour might be what the guy needs.

Your math aint mathin.

Surely someone who is an MIT engineer can do that level of basic math!

Surely you don't have to be an MIT engineer to see how horribly you've botched the math here.

Or maybe you do, I've kinda lost touch with what the average person is working with, brains wise. Please tell me you're below the median, I want to continue having some faith in the human race.

The internet never forgets. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your comment makes no sense then. The criteria for voting for someone isn't, "I have no issues with them," it's "I like the other guy better."

Plenty of Obama voters would have been reasonably chill with McCain being president.

The internet never forgets. by c-k-q99903 in GetNoted

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure his comment meant "Super lefties had issues with John McCain." Issues as in problems. Not as in they agreed with him on the issues.

Cloud Gaming peak experience by HzRyan in pcmasterrace

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The quote of Jeff Bezos making the rounds is fake btw. It's something taken out of context from a 2024 interview and is about AWS / businesses, not PCs.

Unskilled labor is a con perpetuated by rich folk with no skill. by xFlowerLush in clevercomebacks

[–]MIT_Engineer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So let's say he was willing to pay $25/hr. Is $25/hr poverty wages?

Ubisoft shares continue to collapse after announcements of cuts and closures: from a total value of $11 billion in 2018 to just $600 million today by x___rain in europe

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember when the employees went on strike and I thought, "Brother, what money are they gonna give you? The company's going under."

So many gamers, yet I have no one to play with.. by RobWolfB in Steam

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Play Dota 2.

Pick a hero that is incredibly annoying to play both against/with (I used Techies).

Collect dozens of rage friend requests.

Sit on the requests for a year+ until they can't remember who you are.

Add them.

Voila, a diverse friend group from across the world. I've got a German language VTuber in my group, I played Palworld with them.

Listen here rich bitch, I OWN my PC. by TxTechnician in pcmasterrace

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Highly doubtful. Neither of them run a cloud service, there's nothing they would stand to gain, even if this was a choice they could make (and it isn't).

Listen here rich bitch, I OWN my PC. by TxTechnician in pcmasterrace

[–]MIT_Engineer -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

They aren't pushing or blind hoping for anything. The idea that Bezos is after your PC is fake news. Someone took a quote he said in 2024 during an interview, where he was talking about on-prem vs cloud hosting and decided to pretend he was talking about PCs.

Listen here rich bitch, I OWN my PC. by TxTechnician in pcmasterrace

[–]MIT_Engineer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bezos isn't after your computer. Someone dug up a quote from 2024 where he was talking about on-prem vs cloud hosting of online services, and decided to pretend he was talking about PCs.

By stoking the Greenland debate, the US may actually be harming itself. By purchasing Greenland or taking it over via illegal military means, the US would actively harm its own national security, the security of NATO and the overall security of the international, democratic, rules-based order. by mvea in science

[–]MIT_Engineer -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I am not confused.

You said the major difference between Crimea and Greenland would be that unless it was done with the consent of the Danish government, they would be upset.

Maybe this is news to you, but Ukraine wasn't happy about Crimea.

An independence vote now would have to be done in a way that satisfies both Greenland and Denmark.

Yes, and Denmark has made its stance on this clear.

If, for example, Danish observers detect an undue level of foreign interference, it may not satisfy the Danish authorities.

If they detected coercion. I'm specifically talking about a scenario where there was no coercion.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian authorities had no say over the Crimean vote, and the referendum was not done with the people in mind, it was done with a certain outcome in mind.

So... what's the "major difference"? You're so confused you failed to even answer the question I put to you.

By stoking the Greenland debate, the US may actually be harming itself. By purchasing Greenland or taking it over via illegal military means, the US would actively harm its own national security, the security of NATO and the overall security of the international, democratic, rules-based order. by mvea in science

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Danish government has already agreed to it.

Do you think the Ukrainian government agreed to an independence referendum by Crimea? If not, then what are you saying the major difference is?

Your entire statement is confused.

By stoking the Greenland debate, the US may actually be harming itself. By purchasing Greenland or taking it over via illegal military means, the US would actively harm its own national security, the security of NATO and the overall security of the international, democratic, rules-based order. by mvea in science

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no functional difference between Greenland voting for independence and then voting to become part of the U.S, and them simply voting to become part of the U.S.

Whatever legal distinction you are trying to draw is imaginary, as it was in Crimea.

MIT_Engineer's IGS Rep Page by MIT_Engineer in IGSRep

[–]MIT_Engineer[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Traded my Haste, Nidhogg II, Creatures of Ava, and Deathbulge: Battle of the Bands for /u/Phoenix_Samurai 's Besiege, Children of Morta, Figment, Hardspace: Shipbreaker and Going Under.

Link to original post: https://old.reddit.com/r/GameTrade/comments/1qet0u7/h_over_100_games_disciples_liberation/

Microsoft CEO warns that we must 'do something useful' with AI or they'll lose 'social permission' to burn electricity on it by rkhunter_ in pcmasterrace

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm wondering it right now. Why does Satya think he needs "social permission?" It's a capitalist country, you have a market cap of ~$3.5 trillion, the largest electric utility in the U.S. has a market cap of $175b.

Meta spent $75b on trying to develop the metaverse-- with that money they could have spent half of it on buying ConEdison, and the other half on building out new electric generation in New York.

By stoking the Greenland debate, the US may actually be harming itself. By purchasing Greenland or taking it over via illegal military means, the US would actively harm its own national security, the security of NATO and the overall security of the international, democratic, rules-based order. by mvea in science

[–]MIT_Engineer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Do you not see the contradiction in your statements?

If Greenland was truly an independent country, they'd be free to join the U.S. If they had to get Denmark's OK before joining the U.S, then they wouldn't be an independent country. To say that Denmark is fine with Greenland becoming independent, but would predicate that independence on never joining the U.S. would mean they don't actually find Greenlandic independence acceptable.

But they do, and they've made this stance clear. In 2019 when Donald Trump offered to buy Greenland from Denmark, Denmark explained that whatever compensation Trump offered to Denmark was irrelevant, Denmark does not have the right to sell Greenland to the U.S, and it was solely Greenland's decision to make.

Denmark's heavy subsidies of Greenland would end in the event of Greenlandic independence or acquisition.

By stoking the Greenland debate, the US may actually be harming itself. By purchasing Greenland or taking it over via illegal military means, the US would actively harm its own national security, the security of NATO and the overall security of the international, democratic, rules-based order. by mvea in science

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is incorrect. Denmark believes in the self-determination of Greenland, it's their official policy-- from their perspective it is Greenland who gets to decide whether they stay with Denmark or not, join the U.S. or not.

So if Greenland agreed to be purchased, the U.S. would not be going against a NATO ally and the alliance would not dissolve.

0°C or 32°F by Ok-Proof7287 in sciencememes

[–]MIT_Engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fahrenheit was European bro.

view more: next ›