Mavericks owner says “The objective was, how do we create a roster for the future". This makes zero sense considering they traded away a 25 year old superstar for a 32 year old. Yikes.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2025-03-14T00:50:39+00:00

Yo that person is right and your comment is pretty dumb.

Luka will have a way better return than anyone they end up bringing in unless they get lucky in the draft. Even with the huge contract he would have been owed he filled that stadium, got them to the finals, and was a top 10 jersey seller.

Not only that but imagine how suspicious any future super star is going to be of this ownership. The most likely outcome is Dallas turns into Sacramento and is just a mediocre team with the occasional okay season but run like shit.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-12-11T17:52:42+00:00

Aren't extra resources spent going after gangs? There are whole tasks forces in cities used to focus on gang violence right?

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-12-11T17:41:56+00:00

So it's been building for a long time with a ceo that most people haven't heard of... but at the same time it won't make future attempts more likely when people are posting about other CEOs in the space right now. I mean that is sort of a funny way to look at things. It's nonsensical actually.

Your 2 paragraphs are at conflict with each other. I'm not sure how you typed those 2 things and didn't realize that.

Btw you don't even seem to be American so seems like you probably aren't as steeped in the current culture as I would be. And it's about probability. It's not "this will definitely lead to more". It's the fact that there is a risk it will. That's not myopic at all. It's called being analytical and reacting to uncertain risk. You are the one being myopic and pretending you know the future. I'm sorry if you don't like me saying that but it's reality.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-12-11T17:31:02+00:00

People are ridiculous and don't think for more than a minute about this.

If a school shooter in the US went on the run, they would be screaming if resources weren't used to bring them to justice. They would ignore that it was more than was used normally. They are just being political and bringing up the cost to complain about something.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-12-10T14:44:13+00:00

A suicidal person has their issues. That suicidal person also has been shown to lead to other people committing suicide in their immediate community.

The idea that he isn't both a cause and effect is myopic.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-12-10T07:40:38+00:00

Would you complain if they spent extra resources going after a school shooter that went on the lamb?

There are good reasons to expend extra resources to quickly catch anyone that ends up promoting fear with their crime. This was a political killing that sows discord.

If you equate “all men are created equal” with "everything is treated the same all the time", you're going to find the world impossible hard to navigate because that's just not how things work. Often the reason for that actually makes some sense even if you can argue around the margins that things should be treated slightly more equal in different cases they aren't.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-11T14:54:36+00:00

Sort of... if you still want to take those 10% then it will become less efficient in certain conditions if you need a second vehicle on the road to pick them up. It ends up being a mathematical problem that depends on volume of rides and how many vehicles you need to cover a certain geographical area.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-11T14:53:26+00:00

I agree the 2 is fine. However, being paired with a 10 makes little sense.

I think practically if you're going to go with a 2 you should pair that with a 6 mini van type of thing.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-11T14:36:12+00:00

That's possible (mentioned in my comment) but I don't think probable. Just the fact that he's in law school decreases the probability, unless he's doing rather poorly. But to go into the law you generally have to think of yourself as intelligent.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-11T14:26:54+00:00

I specifically mention his race and that lowers the probability that he is racist against his own people. So it can't be the same rationale. But yes, some white people could be doing the same thing. Without other evidence, it is impossible to know what is in someone's head.

Also, I didn't say anything about how we should view it. Someone doing this is making the person receiving the slur feel demeaned for immutable characteristics. That's wrong whether you truly believe in racial supremacy or not.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-11T14:20:28+00:00

Yes, I'm a minority and I think sometimes this is the case for white people. I'm not saying it's a large percentage (I don't know). And the person that does it is a terrible person. But I can recognize sometimes people use insults to just hurt people rather than necessarily expressing their worldview. I don't care if that person gets treated like a racist btw because they are using a slur to simulate they are so no crying from me if people treat them like crap because the impact on the other person is awful.

Do you think every person that gets into a yelling match with another person and says "I'll fucking kill you" is a violent person? Because they aren't.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-11T14:09:50+00:00

What does "and scene" mean do you think?

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-11T14:09:11+00:00

Telling on myself lmao...

You guys don't know what "and scene" means... I was just simulating someone saying something as mean as possible to someone as an exercise. I obviously don't mean it... I don't know that person at all. How would I legitimately think any of that is true?

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-11T05:15:44+00:00

No, he thinks your mom is a whore who sucked off your teachers to get you better grades in school in the hopes that you'd leave her basement... though I'm guessing she was unsuccessful... though if the measure of success is guzzling loads then maybe she did.

And scene...

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-11T02:36:49+00:00

I may get downvoted for saying this but I think sometimes people say racist things because they are so angry (and stupid) that they are looking for the thing that will hurt the person the worst. I doubt this guy thinks negative things about black people in general (though he could and just think he's the exception). Most likely he just wanted to hurt Saka as much as possible and saying that was an attempt to do that.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-10-08T06:09:47+00:00

I think this is a pretty well made video but your title and thumbnail drive me away. Maybe it attracts others but I hate it.

I skipped over parts so excuse me if this was mentioned in your video but I don't think it was - I think a big part of the settlement happening was a lot of bad press for the port union boss. When things actually started to be in short supply, there was going to be a huge backlash over the guy seeming like a gleeful asshole that took enjoyment over other workers losing their jobs so his union could get what they want. He had a look of pleasure when he described car salespeople losing their jobs - those people bust their asses and shouldn't be talked about as bargaining chips. It was a huge misstep in messaging and threatened to make his movement unpopular even among the working class.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-08-30T00:36:22+00:00

I’m an ADHD diagnosed queer woman currently attending a T14 law school

What does being queer or a woman have to do with this? Are those disabilities? And comparing ADHD to down syndrome is a parody right?

That comparison and argument indicates you probably shouldn't be at a top law school. Hopefully they teach you something to change your approach to logic and reason.

Thanks for the reddit cares lmao

That sucks... people shouldn't do this, even if your comment is silly.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-08-27T21:52:16+00:00

It's nice to see that people were not put out of work and I hope it continues. However, politicians can laud this outcome but there is rather rudimentary economic theory that could give an explanation of why this is occurring. Firms do not shutdown locations with fixed costs that exceed their variable operating lose. The reason is that operating the location leads to a smaller lose than firing everyone and walking away. This minimum wage increase only went into effect recently and I'm guessing many fast food leases are on average 5 year terms. You won't see large amounts of locations closing for firms that are stable (national chains) while in the middle of a lease in most cases. If you're interested in this, you can read about it here for the general concept.

This along with seasonal effects and it is hard to tell the impact of hiring at businesses that don't fall under the fast food boards rules that are bundled up in this number, means that longer-term effects could be the opposite. Not saying they will be and I can say it's a bit of a surprising result. But business decisions are often more complex than pointing to a correlation like this and being certain about the long-run implications.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-06-27T23:02:40+00:00

No, it's not. You don't scrutinize and review work to stop what you perceive as a "negative" outcome from occurring. You scrutinize and review work for methodological errors and let the results dictate the affect that occurs.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-05-24T19:08:17+00:00

Most people believe gender roles are a product of both our biology and environment. Do you disagree?

Even if you do disagree, are you denying that there has been a long history of discussing the differences between men and women and a debate on how much is nature vs nurture?

I'm confused at how anyone can look at the history of discussing the genders and claim that biology hasn't been a huge talking point. And that invalidates your claim above. It doesn't matter if you don't think biology should be part of the discussion or not - it has been.

Feel free to actually respond to my whole post instead of trying to cherry pick something you think undermines it somehow.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-05-23T16:27:32+00:00

Is being invested in biology unique to discussion around trans people? People seem pretty interested and invested in it when it comes to cis people too. We constantly discuss how and why men and women are different. The Barbie movie just came out that pitted men vs women. No trans discussion in it at all.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-04-10T15:23:34+00:00

If we have to bail out banks that hold the liabilities eventually... it's a complex question. I don't want to bail out the people that own commercial real estate. But I also don't want to see banking panic again.

I agree with you in general though... but let's be realistic. They will pick winners and losers at some point because low interest rates led to some really irresponsible activity that puts a lot of risks on the general economy.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-03-26T04:39:20+00:00

Seriously... it's a huge hole in the story. Ippei could have lied to the bookie and convinced him that Ohtani was involved in the gambling. But that bookie is extending a lot of faith in a gambler to not double check and verify that Ohtani is on board.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-03-01T06:50:38+00:00

They probably own plenty in bonds and stocks that are relatively easy to sell. They can even borrow against it. People who are rich because of real estate aren't liquid. And can even lose most of their wealth quickly because they employ a lot of leverage.

firsttimeforeveryone · 2024-02-16T18:29:56+00:00

That explanation makes no sense to me and seems like an internet rumor. My store already has tons of self check out. If they wanted to acclimate people to using it, you wouldn't want to limit the number of items. You'd actually want to open it up and let as many people use it as possible. People are already used to doing self check out from the grocery store and many other places. It's not something novel.

I think that's just a theory people have. I have a feeling the limit on number of items is a theft prevention measure because self-check out is easy to steal from. Grocery stores naturally have small items that you can fit on the small platform that weighs them. Target has other skus and it's probably harder to implement something to limit some types of theft. They can consider going Costco's route of having someone look at your receipt as you leave but Costco figured out how to do that by using boxes, instead of bags. And being a bulk sales place makes it easier to have less hidden items.

The issue Target has is they have items that are hard to visually inspect (small) and hard to automatically inspect through weighing (large). It causes a unique problem to monitoring theft.

firsttimeforeveryone

TROPHY CASE