This post shows a lot of the "tribalism" I'm referring to.
I don't believe the rioters represent "the left" and I don't believe the capital stormers represent "the right". And most of all, I wish people didn't tend towards exaggerating one and excusing the other based on allegiance to a two-party system.
You might want to try to find some better sources of information than the ones you're relying on now.
The good news is, nothing in your second paragraph is true, that's all QAnon-style made up stuff, no different than stories about pedophile rings hidden in pizza shops or the Earth being flat. The bad news is, you probably need to find some new websites to get reliable information from.
> I also notice you just vaguely referred to various animals in instead of humans, which is curious
Intentionally so, because humans are animals and that's an imaginary distinction. Modern western society likes to pretend like we're these abstract minds that are attached to bodies. We're not, we're primates, only a tiny bit different than our ape cousins.
If you want to stick to humans, for about 99.9999% of the 315,000 years humans have been around, no mother was pumping breastmilk and sticking it in the refrigerator so that the father could do the 4am feeding.
Your comment is essentially putting a causal arrow backwards. Biology and nature would have us behaving in far more strongly differentiated gender roles. Contemporary western social norms and modern technology allow us to go against that nature. "Maternal instincts" are as real and fundamental as any other survival instinct humans or any other animal experience.
Two other factors to consider: 1) people grow and change and 2) working a job is very different than doing "the same" activity as a hobby.
I enjoy gardening and cooking as hobbies, but I don't want to work a job as a landscaper or line chef. After 20+ years of coding, I absolutely hate it despite having started out loving it, but I recognize that my cushy job is less hours for more pay than I could get doing anything else.
What? Of course maternal instincts exist and are distinct. The differences in reproduction are the most fundamental basis of sex differentiation in animals.
In some mammals, fathers have literally no contact with their offspring while mothers care for them for years (eg, bears). In others, the mother and father both remain as part of a pack, but the mother does all of the direct care and the father is doing hunting or protection. In some, the father may have a minimal role in early life but then become more involved later as their offspring learn to hunt or fight.
The social construct of both parents having equal and identical roles in parenting at all stages of child development is very new and very culturally unique to Western, industrialized and affluent societies. Across all primates and all evidence of pre-industrial humans, maternal and paternal roles were very different.
These sorts of vague, slightly conspiratorial and cynical comments aren't helpful. "The system" isn't designed by some secret cabal of sinister tricksters who are intending it to fail specific people in specific ways.
"The system" is a hodgepodge of thousands of different laws, programs, agencies and organizations under a multitude of federal, state, county and city jurisdictions and operating under rules and budgets that were approved over numerous different sets of elected and appointed individuals over decades, each of which had to strike compromises and try to work within the existing system.
If you don't do enough to prevent fraud, you get a lot of fraud (see recent issues with covid payroll protection and other related measures, or homeowners insurance issues in Florida after hurricanes). If you do too much to prevent fraud, you get legitimate cases not getting the support they need.
No matter what the system is, you're going to have some amount of both "false positive" and "false negative" outcomes from it.
This isn't "context" this is literally the definition of an ad hominem attack. "Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument"
If universities have a massive, bloated and overly expensive legion of administrators, does it matter if the person pointing that out is doing so because they want to reduce the burden on students who are forced to take out massive loans or to reduce the burden on the taxpayers who ultimately pay those loans when the government "forgives" them?
I quit eating meat a few years ago for ethical reasons but I still like to have a burger or brat or have a meat-like product in a pasta sauce or whatnot, and Beyond meat fills that role well.
It looks like there's a disconnect here on what we're talking about for "freedom to roam". If you read through the Wikipedia article linked in the comment I was responding to, you'll see that it's about private property, not public parks.
The issue of land being inaccessible by virtue of being surrounded by private land without roads is solved by the unrelated, separate legal notion of an "easement" to allow access. Easements are used regardless of if the landlocked plot of land is publicly or privately owned.
I agree with you in the general notion of "It's bad that this public land is inaccessible and that should be fixed". But just clarifying on the terms.
This is a good "tell me you only know life in the city, without telling me you've only lived in the city".
To anyone living in a rural area or working in agriculture, conservation, timber/lumber, mining, ranching, hunting, etc, the idea of a finding a random stranger walking across their property would be as alarming as finding that stranger in their living room. The tourists may unintentionally cause damage, disrupt operations or create an unsafe condition even if they were well-meaning. And of course, many people will not be the ideal "leave no trace" expert and many will cause problems- they'll leave litter, they'll gather sticks for firewood, they'll clear areas for campsites, they'll walk on wet grass, they'll leave human waste, they'll leave fire rings with charred remains, they'll pick flowers or fruit, they'll take fossils, they'll carve their names in trees and paint on rocks, etc.
Ethically, if we're going to start taking away people's property rights, I'd rather we force vacant urban housing to be made available to rent before we start forcing farmers to clean up rogue campsites on their fallow fields.
"Freedom to roam" laws are an archaic notion that only sort of work in very specific locations like the Nordic countries.
Even with a large staff of park rangers and a budget for trail maintenance, trash bins, toilet facilities and informational signs about "leave no trace" ethics, it's still hard to minimize the damage tourists do in parks. And even within parks, we don't let people freely roam, we ask them to stay to trails to prevent erosion and we shut down areas seasonally to protect critical nesting, feeding or migration paths. To ask private citizens to deal with such damage to their property is unfair and unreasonable.
Further, the average city dweller has no ability to assess what land is safe for them to hike on in America. Again, for parks we have dedicated staff to put up signs and set clear rules about closures and access, but agricultural lands are far more complex. What looks like "unused" land may be grazing for cattle, flowers for bees or habit for wildlife (whether for conservation or hunting). It may have been recently sprayed with chemicals which are harmful if humans come into contact with them or it may have recently been planted and footsteps will trample early crops.
"Freedom to roam" is like suggesting that the solution to homelessness is to just let homeless people choose to sleep on anyone's couch who wasn't using it. The millions of acres of managed public lands in the US, which can have appropriate usage policies depending on environmental impact, historical significance, number of visitors, etc and which can be properly managed for the long-term balance of many diverse stakeholders needs is a far better system.
Apple is absolutely not "asking you to think like biz dev folks" in fact they're counting on the fact that you won't.
They're exploiting their near-monopoly to expand their ownership and control of user actions and make more money. They know most of their users won't notice, and many won't care.
It's absolutely bonkers how much Apple gets away with today, when Microsoft got torn apart for abusing their monopoly 20 years ago for things that weren't even 1% as abusive as what Apple is doing here. Microsoft got attacked for bundling an internet browser with their OS. Can you imagine the outrage if Windows started swapping Google URLs for Bing ones or iTunes links for Microsoft-owned properties?
Google gives like 7 months for parental leave. Healthcare costs are lower than what average employee spends on coffee. 5-ish weeks of vacation, in addition to holidays and sick days, is probably about average.
European fast food workers, garbage collectors and store clerks are mostly living more comfortably than their American counterparts. American engineers, doctors and other professionals are mostly living more comfortably than their European counterparts.
Most people are putting down 20%. Even if you have a non-recourse loan that's a huge loss. Plus the hit to credit record means you probably won't be able to take out a new mortgage for years.
It'd only be a tiny percent of people who found themselves underwater, but with so little equity they didn't care to lose it, and who also didn't care about tanking their credit score for the next decade.
ADA requirements are incredibly complex, at times very specific and at times very unclear and open to interpretation. The truth is that almost every building could be found to be in violation, no matter how hard the builders tried to make it ADA compliant.
In practice, this rarely matters. 99% of people with disabilities are just trying to get around, not looking for an opportunity to sue. But, the risk is still there, all it takes is one litigious individual to make your life a lot worse.
I don't believe the rioters represent "the left" and I don't believe the capital stormers represent "the right". And most of all, I wish people didn't tend towards exaggerating one and excusing the other based on allegiance to a two-party system.