231–240 of 262 posts
The study doesn't make any mention of doing tests throughout their lifespans so it's hard to claim that income stability impairs brain function.
At best there is a correlation and it makes more sense to me that impaired brain function leads to income instability, not the other way around.
Oh how I can relate. It's been about a year now since I closed my failed startup, and still no webdev job after many interviews. After a year of countless applications, interviews and networking with no result (insanely repetitive and people can sense the desperation) things start to spiral. I get this sense from friends and family that they begin to think something's wrong with me and distance themselves - not to me…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best thing to do when you see a study that counters your opinion on the causality of something, just swap the causality, and move on. Many association papers are just written to confirm the investigator's prior beliefs.
"The best thing to do when you see science you don't like, is pretend it reinforces your already existing biases" What?
Only 62% of articles published in Nature and Science actually replicated: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06075-z About a coin flip if you can believe a given headline at all.
A single article is a data point, not ironclad unimpeachable argument-ending fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In such situation paying 89 days late is perfectly reasonable. Nothing bad about it. huh? What about the contract you agreed to when you took on the service that says you'd pay within 30 days (or whatever). I really don't understand the logic that says as long as you're willing to accept the consequences, it's ok/moral. It's one thing to have extenuating circumstances that force someone to choose between two bad ch…
I agree with you. But, the terms of the contract are the terms. Pay late, pay a fee, or not, they’re still abiding by the terms. If we want different behavior, we need to make those desires known.
The fees and penalties at 60 and 90 days that are common in contract terms like we're talking about are there for when the client doesn't pay by the agreed 30 day term, aren't they? 30 days payment is the behavior that the company wants, pretty clearly. Yes, they're also agreeing to limited penalties if they don't meet the original terms, but those penalties don't apply until they've not meet the terms they agreed to (pay in 30 days). It's not a sliding interest rate scale - it's limited penalties (likely as a result of consumer protection efforts over time). Yes, of course paying by 89 days is handled in the contract. Likely so are additional penalties/repercussions for payment after 90 days too (ie the debt will be sent to a collection agency at 120 days), but that doesn't make paying on those terms 'okay', because they were covered in the contract.
I'm calling out the idea that there's nothing bad (immoral/unjust) going on if someone doesn't pay within the ordinary term expected unless it's been explicitly agreed to otherwise (not as a penalty, but as an acceptable payment schedule), aside from other moral arguments about extenuating circumstances, etc that might mitigate the responsibility for payment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is malnourishment a problem among the poor in the US? Looking around, it seems the problem of the poor in the US is obesity.
I dropped multiple dress sizes by improving my nutrition. I also got my younger son to drop weight without dieting by buying him dark chocolate as a means to discourage him from eating chocolate pop tarts. I learned he was eating chocolate pop tarts all day, concluded he was specifically craving cocoa and found him a better source of cocoa so he could get enough cocoa with fewer calories. I suspect obesity is frequen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you. But, the terms of the contract are the terms. Pay late, pay a fee, or not, they’re still abiding by the terms. If we want different behavior, we need to make those desires known.
Not sure what part of my statement you're agreeing with, as the two points seem contradictory :) The fees and penalties at 60 and 90 days that are common in contract terms like we're talking about are there for when the client doesn't pay by the agreed 30 day term, aren't they? 30 days payment is the behavior that the company wants, pretty clearly. Yes, they're also agreeing to limited penalties if they don't meet th…
When I first founded my startup, I was vigilant about paying all of my contractors and vendors perfectly on time or early. As a business owner, I wanted to provide a great product and didn't want to chase people for money, and tried treating companies and people I worked with similarly.
What nice thought, and so utterly silly.
My company was largely geared towards large enterprises. When I started, I naively assumed that our relatively small fees, with easily cancelable month-to-month terms, would be so easy to stomach that these large enterprises would pay without issue if they found value, and would simply cancel if they did not.
But I found that the bigger the company, the more difficult it is to get them to pay anything. Big companies are more likely to wait until the day to pay, pay late and ask forgiveness, pay late and then ask for a discount to continue the service, or drag on a free trial as long as they can. These companies negotiate harder, spend more time going over insignificant line items, and generally create far more friction than much smaller companies.
I've had a relatively small $10k/year deals with big companies, where multiple attorneys negotiated agreements and haggled over price, their fees earning them multiples of the total contract value. Pushing folks to the limit, using disproportionate force, begging for leniency, and just generally playing dirty is the norm for large companies. Assuming morality plays any part in it is laughable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All this tells me is the real percentage of people on this Math and Science Forum who don't read the article before making some politicized comment. It shocks me. Actually, we could remedy most of these comments by thinking about the title for a couple seconds.
> people on this Math and Science Forum This is not a “Math and Science Forum”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can sort of understand these homeless guys that walk the streets talking to themselves Good for you man. I honestly believe that every person should lose their mind at least once. Once you've built up some insane reality, it'll always be there, and the space between is (IMO) kind of special. It's amazing how one can hold two completely contradictory storylines of the world in their head. And for me it helps with…
You are describing what is known as the "dark night of the soul.". (though traditionally this is a spiritual sense I think the deepness of what you're describing could be spiritual as well.)