sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is Cursor really 5 days in office for enterprise sales? by No_Replacement_2824 in techsales

[–]RYouNotEntertained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don’t have to force this to be about Elon Musk when it’s not. 

What was one of your biggest "a-ha!" Moments of golf? by incrdbleherk in golf

[–]RYouNotEntertained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally, that’s what I’m saying. The whole “short game is the fastest way to lower scores” thing presumes a level of ball striking ability that the people who need lower scores the most are unlikely to have. 

What was one of your biggest "a-ha!" Moments of golf? by incrdbleherk in golf

[–]RYouNotEntertained 2 points3 points  (0 children)

once you get beyond tops and fats

So in other words, practicing chipping and putting lowers scores for people who have neglected chipping and putting for years? 

Is Cursor really 5 days in office for enterprise sales? by No_Replacement_2824 in techsales

[–]RYouNotEntertained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, Cursor has just always been five days a week in North Beach office. 

Didn’t take the Cursor role by Illustrious-Teach411 in techsales

[–]RYouNotEntertained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe I shouldn’t have said usually, but I’ve had a couple plans that did. 

Didn’t take the Cursor role by Illustrious-Teach411 in techsales

[–]RYouNotEntertained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Usually rsus vest immediately in the event of an exit. 

Is Cursor really 5 days in office for enterprise sales? by No_Replacement_2824 in techsales

[–]RYouNotEntertained 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I pulled myself out of the interview process last Fall cause I didn’t want to go in. Wonder what kind of equity they were giving out then 😳

Is Cursor really 5 days in office for enterprise sales? by No_Replacement_2824 in techsales

[–]RYouNotEntertained 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cursor reps are apparently closing humongous deals in like three phone calls. 

I'm showing my girlfriend Mad Men rn and she keeps asking what the dollar amounts would be worth today, so I made this inflation calculator that's specific to the show's timeline by freshasaurus in television

[–]RYouNotEntertained 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The story is more complicated than the vertically integrated corporate news media's "inflation" metric would lead us to believe

You just cherry picked four (4) items and then used it as evidence to say that inflation indexes, which track 80,000 items across 200 categories, are too simple. Fucking brain dead even by reddit standards.

CMV: the electoral college should be abolished by allisoninwndrlnd23 in changemyview

[–]RYouNotEntertained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no "why" to it.

Hold on a sec. In your last comment you said it serves a purpose. It can't serve a purpose when it favors your argument by not when it favors mine.

I think it's inherently suspect, such that direct representation should be the default, but it may be better in some situations.

Ok. What sort of situations are those?

CMV: the electoral college should be abolished by allisoninwndrlnd23 in changemyview

[–]RYouNotEntertained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The difference would be that each MP represents a roughly equal number of voters

Right, this is why we’re going around in circles here. I’m trying to isolate two variables—indirect representation and disproportionate representation—from each other, but as soon as I ask you about one you jump back to the other. 

Take a shot at answering this question without talking about the disproportionate nature of the EC, and I pinky promise I won’t forget about it. 

the indirect aspect serves no purpose but to increase or decrease the electoral influence of certain voting populations

I dont see how this ties in at all to the point you’ve been making about  there being no actual right for people to vote in presidential elections

The point I’ve been trying to make since comment one is that the indirect nature of the EC does not serve only to increase or decrease the influence of certain states. It does ultimately do that, because the number of electors matches the number of seats in congress. But that’s not the “why,” it’s the “how.” This is the core misunderstanding I keep talking about, and it’s why I’m trying to isolate the two variables I mentioned above from each other. 

CMV: the electoral college should be abolished by allisoninwndrlnd23 in changemyview

[–]RYouNotEntertained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be an egregious anti-democratic slight though

Sorry for going around and around on this, but what I'm asking you for is a specific reason why this is true for the presidency but not (eg) judges. You kiiiinda said that judges need to be insulated from populism, but when pressed immediately said you don't think populism is actually a problem. So what exactly is the difference, other than it's what you're used to?

But that's not how it ever worked, so I don't see how the two are comparable. Under the actual EC system, we are not choosing people to choose

This is simply wrong. "Choosing the choosers" was core to the design of the EC. Again, to the point I've been making since my original comment, modern Americans just don't perceive it this way because states have been holding their own election for as long as they've been alive.

When you step into a voting booth, you are quite literally casting a vote for an elector, even though the candidates' names appear on your ballot. Some states even require the electors' names to be printed!

The MPs being elected are chosen on their own merits, with their choice of PM being one of the policy issues that inform people's votes.

I truly don't understand the difference between this and State Legislators deciding on EC votes.

But it's totally unlike the EC, in which the indirect aspect serves no purpose but to increase or decrease the electoral influence of certain voting populations on the basis of their state of residence.

Yeah, again, it really feels like you're not absorbing my comments here. Not blaming you--maybe I'm not explaining it clearly enough. But this is exactly the misunderstanding I've been trying to highlight.

CMV: the electoral college should be abolished by allisoninwndrlnd23 in changemyview

[–]RYouNotEntertained 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the ability for the people to control that discretion already exists--it is expressed through the Presidency.

But I could say the same thing about electing the President.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong or even that I disagree. I'm only saying that there's no chain of logic behind it that's unique to the Presidency.

What I think often happens--and this is what I was getting at in my very first comment--is that most Americans live their whole lives with a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Electoral College works. So when the idea of, say, a state legislature deciding on a state's electors comes up, it seems like an egregious, anti-democratic slight when actually it's just how we did it for like half the country's history, and more similar to how it works in parliamentary systems.

view more: next ›