If the rationalist deduces what is logical based on their empirical experience then their reasoning is flawed. We have to accept the axiomatic truth that our senses are limited and cannot account for an absolute truth.
To separate valid perceptions from invalid ones, a person first must assume that the world can be known through the senses. They must also assume that the world is objectively real. These assumptions do not get along well with one other. To say the world is objectively real is to say it is independent of and indifferent to sense perception. Then what in the world can we know? We can know only the effects of the parmesan cheese upon our senses, not the cheese itself.
You jest, but some actually do often confuse objective perception with objective reality.
Fact is though, the pursuit of a perfect vessel with which to observe reality is silly and impractical, so we make due with common shared characteristics.
In other words, the cheese itself is not cheese, we only perceive it as cheese
How would you define objective perception? If empiricism is equally problematic for all humans, then what could possibly qualify as objectivity in perception?
The objectively real world may be separate from and indifferent to sense perception, but sense perception isn’t indifferent to the objective world. Sense perceptions are caused by an interaction of our sense organs and the world. Surely from repeated patterns of sense perception we can draw some correct inferences about the external world?
We experience a world through the senses. We have no other way to experience any world that may or may not exist. The world experienced through the senses is apparently consistent, and if we do not deal with it, we have bad sensory experiences, or cease to be experienceable to each other entirely. So, since this is the only world we can interact with, and how we do so matters to our happiness, all we can do is take this world on its own terms and deal with it.
congratulations! companies now have motivation to hire people as close as possible to the workplace, as well as fire those who live further than everywhere else!
those optimizing fucks would run that idea into the ground, i think
they’ll pick the most efficient option-- to them, it’s not “people HAVE to live this far away or less”. it’s “alright, who lives the farthest away and are potential new hires closer”. basically, they’d define “near” based on where employees live and where job applicants live.
it’d result in a world where the people who can afford to live closer than their coworkers are the people with more job security. it’d be more wealth inequality
In a later comment you imagine housing near the workplace to be an expensive way to boost your resume.
I imagine us one step closer to company towns. Housing thats owned and operated by an LLC connected to your workplace and housing issues and workplace issues become one and the same.
The company doesn’t control how far away you live. Why should you get paid to listen to podcasts for two hours a day because you chose to live an hour away, and I only get paid for actual work?
Why pay someone that drives an hour each way more than someone that cycles to work in twenty minutes?
In that example, based on a wage of £20ph, the driver would be earning £6,666 per year more than the cyclist, that’s nearly an additional £300,000 over a 45 year career… You’d be an absolute idiot to not sell your house and move as far away from your work as reasonably possible.
You seem to assume that I was implying that the two people in the scenario live an equal distance from the work place.
My scenario implies that the cyclist might live less than ten miles from work and that the driver lives a multiple of that away and ridicules the idea of financially rewarding someone for living further away from the workplace in terms of distance, time and carbon footprint.
I was comparing two different, but very reasonable scenarios where two employees pay would be hugely different for a very silly reason. It’s not apples and oranges.
That or go remote if there’s no productive reason why they need to be in the office and then just don’t have to pay for a non-existent commute
It’s actually kinda genius from the perspective of getting unneeded commuters off the road, because like hell are those middle managers willing to pay commute time just to be able to more effectively ride your shoulder at the office
Why not just pay the price of gas plus maintenance costs then? But I would be for the same wage for commutes because that’s time that the individuals don’t get back in their life.
Why not just live near your work place and save money and time yourself instead of making it your employers problem that you have a long commute.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the appeal of getting paid more for any reason. I just don’t think that it’s going to go down well in a workplace where some people would be getting paid substantially more for no other reason than they’ve chosen a job that’s far from where they live.
You would also account the gas and maintenance of the car that needs to drive that much. Also, now you are doing “overtime” every day. Thanks no thanks.
People always bring up this objection, but it’s extremely solvable: just pay employees for their travel respective to the median commute time for that area. Sure, people who live close get a little bonus and people who live far away get slightly less; but it removes all impetus to game the system and helps people who need it.
Germany kind of does that… When you file your taxes, you claim the “Pendlerpauschale”, which is, roughly translated, the commute lump sum. For the first 20 kilometres between home and work, people get 30 cents per km, any km after that gives you 38 cents.
It kind of works in the sense that the money you spend to get to work is more or less evened out. It is also paid regardless of your means of transport, so cheaper means (such as bicycles or trams) are incentivised by potentially making you some money in return. However, this is still far from an hourly wage… We’re talking about a few hundred euros, maybe a few thousand per year if you have a long commute.
If you used the median time and would force employers to pay a wage I really don’t get how you would either prevent people to move further away (if you have worker protection laws) or people being fired for living too far away (if you live in the USA). This would also make it far more profitable for higher incomes to commute, which seems kind of counter-intuitive as they are probably the ones who need it the least and who would be able to just move to a new home if they wanted to.
If you pay everyone the same “travel allowance” then that’s just part of everyone’s total compensation and compensation will be reduced somewhere else. There’s no magic money fountain at a business. An employee’s compensation is an employee’s compensation. Simply declaring that “this portion of your pay is a travel allowance” is absolutely meaningless.
A company is not going to pay everyone more money just to help those who live far away who “need it”.
Economists like to pretend that currency is entirely rational, real, finite, and concrete, but it’s really not. That fiction only holds together as long as the bulk of people are willing to believe it.
Besides, these laws would never be two lines long like are written here. They would have addenda and provisions and such, preventing businesses from discriminating against employees based upon commute length, giving an upper limit, preventing a decrease in compensation to accommodate the commute benefit, and so forth.
And in the end would it turn out to be less than worthwhile? Maybe. But current remuneration in Western culture emphatically isn’t working. We need either one big change or lots of little changes, and this would fall in the latter category.
Well there sometimes is a magic money fountain. Like when the minimum wage goes up the money fountain just pays people more money that apparently wasn’t there before. Or when people ask for a raise and their boss tells them no so they leave and have to pay a new hire 140% of the original employee. The trick is to make the money fountain think you’re not going to work anymore because it’s only on a trickle. As soon as you stop working it remembers where all the money is. Magic
“Nate, we need to talk about your login locations.”
“What’s wrong with me logging in on the China? Why is there a clock if it shouldn’t be used?”
“Nothing wrong with that, pal. But could you tell us why it’s the gents’ room on Mondays, the ladies’ one on Tuesdays, the disabled’s one on Wednesdays, the shitter in my private apartment on Thursdays and seemingly King Charles’ private golden toilet in his fox hunting hut near Essex on Fridays?”
Haha I was looking for this video as soon as I saw the thread. For context, this is the animated music video for SMASH!, a song by video game parody band Starbomb.
(I like how you’re on Lemmy during that time (and how that gives you plausible deniability if somebody asks if your bathroom breaks need to be 30 minutes because you’re on reddit))
Goku and Vegeta don’t actually go all out and kill their opponents very often either. They like to tell their opponents to go all out while holding back as much as possible themselves because they don’t respect their opponents unless they make them go all out. Pretty much every single character in that multiverse is like that. But it does sound badass, even if it’s a subtle insult to their opponent.
Yeah! maybe they are enjoying it, and the blast off from the stage is just them climaxing. Some are able to submissively survive to the outer edges of the arena, and other characters are edge guard dominant types
Opening a purse but only getting flies flying out usually means that the purse is empty in cartoons. Here the conversation suggested that frogs uses flies as currencies and thus subverts the convention.
Another layer on top is that two flies are required, but the customer only got one, so they’re still broke, just like the conventional representation of being broke.
Technically the insect in the original gag was a moth, not a fly.
Certain kinds of moth caterpillars eat cloth. Banknotes at the time and location of the original gag were made of cotton fibre paper, (and indeed some places still do this, or did so very recently) so were theoretically as delicious to those caterpillars as cotton clothes would be.
For clothing, mothballs can be used to deter them from laying eggs wherever the clothes are, but it's kind of hard to cram a mothball into a wallet. Also, the money probably already had the eggs on it, which is too late for a mothball anyway.
Thus, if a moth flies out of your wallet, it means that the paper money is long gone because that moth had time to get all the way from egg, through note-munching caterpillar to moth before you opened your wallet.
comicstrips
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.