ObjectivityIncarnate

That’s why I said “looks like”

Neither gender identity or sexuality is defined by appearance. That’s not any better. All you’re doing is prejudicially perpetuating stereotypes.

I have a feeling if someone said that a person “looks gay” or “looks trans”, you wouldn’t defend them responding to being called out for saying that with ‘I didn’t say they are, just said they look like it!’

Regardless of biology, the mental age/maturity is usually somewhere around there for those who continue to use it unironically, in my experience. It’s just one step away from “yucky”, lol.

A walking man is also a moving object.

We’re all slabs of sapient meat. Get over yourself.

How progressive of you to assume gender identities and sexualities of strangers via a single still image.

women must be the ones to bear the inconvenience in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Women are the ones who get pregnant. Take it up with evolution.

This is like complaining that you’re the one who’s expected to lock your doors to prevent unwanted people in your house. Sure, you CAN choose to trust someone else to lock your doors for you, but ultimately, it IS your house, and YOU’RE the one who suffers the consequences if there’s a break-in, so when it comes down to it, it makes perfect sense to consider it primarily YOUR responsibility to take the precaution against the outcome that YOU (at least, you more than anyone else) don’t want.

Used correctly, condoms are about 1% off from hormonal birth control in effectiveness. But I guess headaches, nausea, and other side effects for women aren’t all that bad compared to some reduced sensation for the penis.

Don’t pretend women don’t also prefer sex without a condom, lol. Condoms are never wanted, by either men or women, when their STI/contraceptive ‘abilities’ aren’t needed.

After all, women are already used to it from their cycles, right?

The biggest irony of this is that women can stop having periods altogether with the right contraception, and that’s one of the many reasons women (especially those who have especially-unpleasant/painful periods) go on them, aside from actually needing to prevent pregnancy.

Uh, yeah, as an idea, lol:

Since spring 2016, we have had the OK from an ethics committee of a renowned clinic in Germany for the clinical study on the Bimek SLV Model 4. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to find the financial means to start the clinical study.

For an investment of 600k € we could at best have the test valves manufactured. But then there would be no money left to push the study forward in compliance with all medical device laws. If no further investments were made then, the validity of the sterile packaging would expire.

It is not easy to find investors for this project if one is honest and openly communicates known risks.

Seeing “© 2018” at the bottom of the website doesn’t exactly inspire confidence either, lol.

In fairness, I’m pretty sure the vast majority of people favoring the incarceration are not aware of it being more expensive. They only see the dichotomy of punishing the crime vs. allowing the crime.

Mailing someone more letters than they’re capable of replying to is not equivalent to, nor a component of, gaining access to the inside of their home.

Reread what I wrote, I didn’t have a protracted auto loan. I actually paid the car off a few months after I financed it, because I didn’t want to pay any more interest (even at 0.9%) and I could afford it. I don’t even remember what the original term was.

So if you have a history of repaying debts, on time, you get offered lower interest on loans because you’re less of a risk to lend to.

Fixed.

The credit score system wasn’t invented to oppress, period. It was invented to keep lenders from having to guess whether someone they lend to is ‘good for it’. Before that, it was all based on assumptions, which naturally led to conclusions being drawn based on things like appearance, race, sex, etc.

I’d rather be judged based on the fact that I can prove I repay my debts, and nothing else. A credit score system is the means of proving that.

Also if you repay your loan early is somehow bad for your credit score.

1. The tradeline doesn’t disappear from your credit report when you pay it off. It continues to benefit your average age of accounts for up to ten years (note that credit score estimates like Credit Karma do not work this way, and stop considering the loan the instant it’s closed, which is not the way it works at the three credit bureaus—more info on the differences between Credit Karma’s system and your actual credit score here).
2. It’s trivial to have and maintain a good credit score with a revolving credit line (e.g. credit card) you’re using and paying every month; installment loans are temporary by definition, and considering that loans with 0% interest essentially don’t exist, they are not the way to go about building your credit score; they’re what you use your good credit score to get as good a rate as possible.

With regular credit card use only, my credit score is well over 750 (and 750+ is top-tier from the perspective of basically 100% of lenders). And the last installment loan I had (car purchase over a decade ago), I coincidentally DID pay off early. Also, my average credit age, just checked, is 7y 9mo, less than the ten years mentioned above.

To scam citizens out of yields while minimising the chance of nonperforming loans?

Credit scores can only benefit good borrowers. Without them, everyone gets treated the same as people who have never borrowed, and lenders are obviously going to err on the side of caution (read: higher interest rates) when lending to someone who’s a big question mark. But with credit scores, lenders can know who the ones who do make their payments regularly are, in other words, who it’s least risky to lend to, which leads to lower interest rates.

In short, without credit scores, everyone gets shitty rates. With them, only shitty borrowers get shitty rates.

To reiterate, the bottom line is that you don’t need to pay a single penny of interest to have a superb credit score. Just use a credit card and don’t borrow more than you can pay off every month, same way you’d be limited if you were spending cash on the spot each time. That’s literally all it takes.

The minutia of the algorithm is private, to prevent gaming it, but the major factors are very well known, and make perfect sense.

• utilization percentage (if you’re maxing out your credit line(s) all the time, that’s a bad sign)
• payment history (if you don’t make payments by the due date consistently, that’s obviously an indicator that you’re risky to lend to)
• age of account(s) (having made consistent payments for 6 months naturally isn’t going to look as good as having done so for 5 years)

You don’t have to actually “take on debt” to establish a good credit score, though. If you use a credit card whenever you’d otherwise use cash you have on hand, and instead use that cash to pay off the card’s statement balance every month (essentially just paying your month’s expenses all at once instead of on demand for each expense), you’re never truly in debt (read: you’re charged no interest), but a credit score is established and continuously improved, via both the consistent payments, and the aging of that line of credit.

And it determines where you can live, what jobs tou can hold, and wheree your kids can go to school.

How? Wealth determines that, not your loan repayment history. You can be barely making ends meet (and therefore very limited in the above stuff) with a perfect credit score, and a millionaire (and therefore practically unlimited in the above stuff) with a shitty one, or none at all if you inherited enough wealth that you never had to take any loans.

Yeah, that is the key question. Not to mention that the headline is giving 100% of the ‘credit’ to the psilocybin.

Smells fishy to me.

I’d ask you if you rent or own your property. Are you able to buy as many groceries now as your parents could on similar budgets, inflation inclusive?

Gotta say, I’m not impressed with seeking anecdotal evidence being the go-to response.

What if I tell you “yes”? Somehow, I doubt your response will be to concede the argument.

I’d suggest you look past statistics at this point

Speaks volumes, that.

What do you have to say about this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/6rtoh4/productivity_pay_gap_in_epi_we_trust/

These bits particularly stood out to me:

The graph only includes the lowest paid 80% of the workforce production/non-supervisory workers. When using all workers, which is what you want to know if labor is lagging productivity, you must use all workers or else you aren’t measuring pay vs. productivity! In fact, EPI uses all workers in another graph and shows the gap decreasing significantly. Strangely, that’s not the graph that gets passed around. The headline and wage-inequality graph gets passed around. Savvy move on EPI’s part, I have to commend them.

The graph uses average hourly wages which does not include overtime, bonuses, shift premiums, and employer benefits…The graph provided ignores (better said, partially reflects) the growing share of compensation in benefits, not wages.

The graph uses the slow moving NDP to deflate output, while using the fast moving PCI to deflate compensation. NDP is chained, but CPI is not.

Probably because they qualified it by making an excuse for themself instead of just owning the error without ‘strings attached’.

I haven’t seen a consensus, have you?