In Germany, people wish you a happy close as a business, or a happy end of shift. Every time I work nights, I wish customers a happy close of business š¤¦
It really is. Iāve asked all of the immigrants I know if thereās a word for āend of shiftā and an accompanying common greeting in their language, but so far, nobody except Germans does it.
I always thought it would would be nice to put an array of leds behind a diffusing panel in each of my walls/ceilings. With as much control as reasonable over color/brightness and if it wouldnāt be insanely expensive with individual or at least regional control over them. Basically instead of drywall, panels that can be individually removed for maintenance.
But I donāt know what property of dry wall I would need them to mimic, would it be better to mount those panels in front of and still have dry wall rather than replace it?
Iām sure it would be pretty expensive, though not sure exactly how expensive. But it would make for some pretty nice options for ambience or mood lighting. And you can always turn the wall ones off or leave them super dim if you just want the room to look mostly normal. But you could program it to have like clouds rolling by over a green field, super diffuse of course, like you had your eyes unfocused. Or just pick a new wall color every day.
I guess youād need acrylic or glass panels, but that wouldnāt feel or act like a regular wall. I think your biggest problem would be power consumption. Youāll probably be surprised how much power those LEDs can consume, especially on high brightness
Well, I suppose itās about distribution and power levels. I mean currently my whole house is lit by LED, just in traditional sockets. But they arenāt expensive. And LEDs are more power efficient at lower power than their max. So having 10ā000 leds that are rated for 0.5 watt each, running at 10% of that, wouldnāt be that expensive to run. About 500 watts plus the inefficiency of the system as a whole. But would be a similar or greater total amount of light as my current bulbs.
The initial upfront cost will certainly be the main cost issue. And yeah, acrylic panels is what I was thinking for diffusing. I donāt need it to feel like a wall, but I would need to know if drywall has some immutable property I would need to replicate, or at least make sure is still something that acrylic would take care of.
Edit: it looks like drywall is primarily used due to itās flame resistance. So I would probably want to keep it. Acrylic is technically tough to ignite, but once it does ignite, it burns vigorously. So that is probably the main problem. Even keeping drywall behind it, acrylic covering every wall could be a very bad idea in the case of a fire hot enough to get it started.
Edit 2: Frosted tempered glass would be fine in that regard, but significantly more expensive. Ah wells, my VR house will have to have it instead. Much cheaper to do in VR, lol.
Dudeā¦as in they peed the bed, themselves, the floor, or have thrown up, or somehow made a giant time-sensitive mess that they feel they canāt clean up themselves. Grow up.
I fell off of keeping up with them after flying microtonal banana. They are a blast to see live, but when they drop 5 or so albums in a year there is no time for me to fully process everything they are doing.
Mine always have the ReplyTo field set to the email of the senior security analyst, so I always say hi and tell them that maybe the higher ups need some training on how to not send sketchy as fuck emails that train people to click on phishing links.
I created an inbox rule for these. The 3rd party phishing shame-and-train company my employer uses always has a certain domain in the email header (even though they always change the āfromā address). Has worked perfectly for over 6 months. Iām generally not dumb enough to click on them anyway. But anyone can have a bad day and/or get into a rush and make a mistake. And my boss is a sadistic prick who delights in making workers feel dumb. Yet Iām 100% sure he exempts himself from the phishing shit tests.
The point isnāt to be so tricky to make it too hard for end users to catch it. Itās to train them to start looking at things such as senders domain and to report messages and avoid the link, etc.
Iām ignorant, and maybe I shouldnāt ask this in a meme community, but wouldnāt a UBI become the new $0?
Like all the corporations now know we get x-amount more so now prices are adjusted to take a portion of that across all sectors, and now Iām back to not being about to afford the same things as before? Idk I donāt have an econ degree.
I think one of the most common sources of confusion about economics these days is not drawing the line between a market corrupted by some price-fixing cartel, and a free market where actual competition takes place.
Lots of people just assume collusion in all markets. I think thatās a cartoonishly simplistic view of the world, but you gotta remember lots of people assume ācapitalismā refers to the thing better called āa price fixing cartelā.
They will, but then there are landlords who can jack up prices for no reason and youāll pay them because you donāt want to be homeless. Landlords win, everyone else loses.
No because taxation would be adjusted so the average person is no better off.
Itās about raising the lowest earners to a minimum level that theyāre able to live on, without making them jump through hoops or prove they are poor or prove they have been looking for work for 40 hours a week or some bullshit.
The way I think about it is by creating a scenario. We give 100% of people $1000 dollars (just for sake of argument). Some people use this for groceries, others for car payments, others for investments. Some people donāt even realize they got that money bc they were so rich. Some people can afford to pay for school supplies for kids. They key point is not everyone is using it for the same thing.
The reason it sounds like it should become the new zero is bc it does happen in some situations. If the government gave everyone that rents $100, then landlords will raise rent by $100 a month later. The main difference between the two is how specific the scope of the money is.
Yes, there would be economic changes (not necessarily downsides) such as higher inflation due to government spending, but also increased GDP which will stimulate the economy drastically. It will lead to higher unemployment, not bc people stop needing to work, but bc they can quit their second job or focus on taking care of kids full time (which that actually doesnāt change unemployment, but it would change the workforce numbers).
I am not an economics major or anything, but I tried to give reasons to explain why we would expect these changes to happen in the real world.
UK gave away a lot of money during the pandemic to support low earners, it backfired real hard.
Governments should invest into education so people can move to more productive jobs which pay more money. That will improve the lives of everyone. There should be no low skilled jobs in developed countries. Giving free money instead is always a bad idea.
I donāt think that mechanism youāre referring to automatically finds its new equilibrium right back where you started.
Letās take rent for instance. All the current renters in lowest income bracket now have $1000/mo more to spend.
Next income bracket up now has $800 more to spend. Not because the UBI is varying, but because the tax people are paying into the UBI is varying. So this next bracket up is putting $200 into it as taxes and getting their $1000 check. At a certain point, there are the people who break even. And above that, people are paying more into the system than theyāre getting back. Thatās worth mentioning.
But focusing on this lowest income bracket as if itās a little segmented, separate economy. Like a slice, to analyze it.
Town with 100 people. Letās say thereās 105 units of housing, making for a teeny bit of pressure on landlords via competition. The landlords live elsewhere; ultra simple model here. Each of the 100 people gets $1000 more to spend. Fuck it, all theyāre spending it on is rent. Itās the only thing they have to buy.
Well, thereās still competition between the landlords. If a landlordās got an empty unit, he can offer it for $200 less than the other guy and get a tenant in there. Excess supply is good for consumer negotiating power.
But also, letās say all units just go up by $1000/mo, and swallow up the UBI.
Then other developers now have a new equation in terms of the costs and benefits of building new housing.
Maybe now that you can charge $1500 for an apartment instead of $500, itās worth it to build a new apartment building. Itās become more profitable.
So someone builds a new apartment building, and thereās 120 housing units for those 100 renters. Now youāve got 20 desperate landlords (or one landlord with 20 un-rented units) willing to take say $1000 instead of $1500.
That pushes the price of rent back down.
Of course it doesnāt actually sway wildly like this. Every player thinks ahead about all the moves that can be made.
Like if your apartment building is profitable at $1500 but not at $500, whatās the cutoff? Maybe if rents drop below $1200 your new apartment building is going to lose money.
Thereās some equilibrium point, and thatās what the market price settles into, as people finding themselves far from that point find it profitable to move toward it. (You make more money renting out five units at $1000 than you make renting out two units at $1500 - lowering the price is profitable here).
So now to crack this model open again, what is this āother placeā where these landlords are coming from to invest new money in housing?
Thatās where we bring in the higher income tiers, the ones who pay more into UBI than they receive out. The money is coming from up there. In those places, the people have less money than they did before, and so it is becoming less profitable to fulfill their needs. Maybe the amount you can get for a luxury apartment in manhattan drops from $50k to $49k per month.
Ultimately, resources used to fulfill demands, get slowly and steadily re-allocated to serve moneyās new center of gravity, which is slightly lower than before.
Prices go up for poor people goods, but not enough to eat all the income. And the new amount of money flowing improves the offering, even at the same price levels, by bringing more investment overall into those industries.
Not really. Itās not magical money that just appears.
Itās redistributed money.
Things may increase in price, not because of greed, but because supply and demand jumped dramatically. Think of all the people who now have money to buy random things like treats or toys.
Thatās not a bad thing! Suddenly, companies need to hire more people to increase supply, because people have resources to spend.
Expensive stuff still exists. No matter what. But the bare minimum quality of life increases dramatically.
Iāve never seen even the slightest bit of negativity at the gym. Come to think of it, Iāve seen almost zero negativity between any strangers on the street in like 10 years.
Iām going to offer my own theory here, which doesnāt seem to be in line with the most popular theories which seem to me to be creative guesses at the origin.
I think itās possibly from twitch.tv culture. āKappaā was a popular emote with a smug face often used to denote sarcasm. Plenty of streamers have used the phrase āNo kappaā to indicate theyāre not joking, and some shortened it to āno kapā. Since it was passed on orally, it became mistranscribed to āno cap.ā People were looking for an explanation for a phrase that didnāt exist, and inadvertently invented one, which became the predominant theory that youāll find if you search for āno cap origin.ā
This was my theory too when I first heard it said. It wasnāt till later when I saw it spelled that I realized itās āno capā and not āno kapā.
I still got perfect understanding of the meaning from thinking about it in terms of the Kappa emote.
No, Iām pretty sure it came from hip hop culture, like a lot of slang recently. Iām basing this purely my anecdotal observation of the kind of people who use it most frequently.
Iāve heard it in lyrics from long before twitch existed
In Black slang, to cap about something is āto brag,ā āto exaggerate,ā or āto lieā about it. This meaning of cap dates back to the early 1900s.
My wife and I (both Xers) have started frequently trolling our son with āstop the cap!ā when heās beingā¦ economical with the truth. Somehow that level of low-grade, passive-aggressive sarcasm seems very fitting to our generation.
I estimate that it is about 100 bulbs in the picture. An overage households LED is probably about 5W. So 500W. Less than half of a typical microwave. LEDs are amazing!
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.