drphungky

What @[email protected] said below, but instead I’d recommend You Need A Budget (YNAB). YNAB is amazing, and despite not liking paying for subscription services, I keep using it and not getting firefly (and I do self host my own things). It’s like $100 a year and will save you far more than that if you use it correctly. Check them out: http://www.youneedabudget.com

Make sure to read their intro stuff on why they recommend doing things the way they do, as active budgeting isn’t for everyone.

Oh man, Street Complete is very cool, thanks! I always wanted to contribute to OSM but found it a bit daunting. This is like Pokemon Go but useful!

SAS so I could get more work. Plus it’s crazy fast and great for statistics and economics, which is my field. It’s also easier to learn for non programmers than Python. It’s a great language, and its only real fault is terrible naming constraints. It sucks to be the guy pushing for more C# and Python because no one knows SAS, but at this point the cost is just prohibitive.

This but FreeCAD!

Yeah, based on OP saying low WAF, I’m guessing maybe he didn’t set up the content server? Ours is great, and I can read on my phone or 2-in-1.

Totally hear where you’re coming from, and I think in a perfect world, a journalist could recuse themselves of reporting on things where they are hopelessly biased (see Cuomo incident before the later revealed stuff), but I still argue the goal should be to examine and eliminate biases as much possible, and avoid the appearance of minor ones unless they are somehow damning. The introspection necessary to examine your own biases rather than just avoid them helps make you more capable of being more impartial overall, in my opinion.

I think there’s real debate on if through such a concerted effort to not give into to one’s own biases, you swing too far and start favoring the opposition, but that happens with anyone trying to avoid appearances of impropriety. Not giving your kid the starting pitching slot even if he deserves it because you’re the coach, a judge not accepting a free ride to a conference everyone else gets, etc etc.

You’re literally advocating for what is essentially approved propaganda. That you think there is an objectively correct bias terrifies me, and if you had sense, it would terrify you too.

No, there is no “correct bias”. No bias is the goal. In fact, the goal is to be beyond even an appearance of bias. That’s the only way you can be trustworthy. That’s why the Times doesn’t let their writers sign open letters. That’s why they can’t join lobbying orgs and don’t give money to political candidates. These are just sacrifices you make if you want to be a hard news journalist. Same as having to watch what you say if you’re a spokesperson or CEO, same with having to stay fit if you’re a firefighter, same with a ton of jobs that have requirements that you may find unreasonable but are widely accepted because they’re good for the job and the industry.

There is no such thing as objective truth, just perception and bias, and you truly believe it’s not okay to speak out against genocide?

You wanna talk about terrifying. This sentence is terrifying. No such thing as objective truth?! You’ve bought into the fake news, alternative facts propaganda being pushed for the last decade.

-Trump said x.

-Israel did Y.

-The president released a statement saying Z.

-A rocket exploded at a hospital in Gaza, it is unclear at the moment who fired it

-Here is an investigative report featuring video highlights, statements, and photos piecing together what likely happened in that rocket explosion

These are objective, unbiased facts. It obviously gets stickier when you start talking about what facts to report. Then you start talking about reporting on commentary on facts by people and orgs with clear biases themselves. Usually (or at least historically) journalists could cover their bases by finding both sides of an argument , and letting those players describe and clarify the facts themselves.

This is where the whole modern argument comes in over modern journalists giving too much weight to countervailing theories or crackpots in the interest of appearing unbiased. You may have heard it described as “both sides” reporting. For a long time, this was by far the best way to report facts, appear unbiased, and make sure everyone was heard and reported on. But recently there have been HUGE debates within journalism over how to report on say, climate change, when the vast vast majority of scientists say that it’s happening, and it’s man-made, and offer more and more conclusive studies supporting that. You can still find a few crackpots, but at what point are you choosing facts (“this crazy org said this about the new study”) that themselves create a bias? Since climate change has been seen as a political issue for years, journalists have been worried about appearing unbiased, because a sniff of impropriety can drive people away from mainstream media and to the newer, very biased, lacking in ethics orgs. They started shifting away from this, and now people are both leaving unbiased news and those unbiased sources remaining are STILL getting hammered by media critics and commentators on the “both sides” narrative issues.

The point, though, is that people deeply care about and deeply debate this stuff on the margins. How do we best remain and appear unbiased? How do we best inform and explain current events? And then they debate this stuff at the margins because there are different opinions on it. But no one is saying news journalists should be able to sign petitions and open letters. It is so far outside of acceptable that I bet you could poll newsrooms at the Times, Post, Tribune and not get a single journalist who thinks going on public record about current events should be A-ok.

I hope the history books of the future describe the atrocities of the present, because clearly we can’t rely on the news.

If you’re not aware of these very basic ethical and functional debates in journalism, that are covered and discussed ad nauseum in papers of every slant and those in the middle, my guess is you’re just not consuming much news. It’s impossible to miss this stuff. So I can’t imagine you’re going to pick up history books if you’re missing this stuff as it’s happening.

Thank you! It’s crazy to me that people can’t understand appearance of bias and why a paper would want to avoid it. Do people not work in industries with professional ethics? There are whole courses taught in this stuff when getting a degree in journalism, it’s debated in newsrooms and by editors, even in op-eds writing commentary about the news. Did people just fall asleep during the Trump years as people were figuring out how to handle that?

You know what terrifies me? Someone saying, unironically, “there is no such thing as objective truth, just perception and bias.” Russian disinfo and the Trump campaign appear to have won - we live in a post truth society where not only do facts not matter - they don’t exist. Why bother reporting only on them?

You literally can police people’s bias if they want to be a good journalist. That’s why the NYT has a clear policy on this stuff, that she violated twice! Some people can’t control their biases or don’t want to, and that’s fine. They don’t get to be journalists at organizations that have to maintain strict impartiality.

Also, if you think the newsroom doesn’t have deeply debated guidelines and rules on how and when you use the label terrorist vs freedom fighter, or how to avoid using either term, you’re kidding yourself. This is why editors exist.

It’s wild that we live in such polarized times that every single comment in this thread is talking about how this is wrong because of some variant of “she’s being fired for calling it like it is.”

That’s not what happened. She was fired (forced to resign, same difference) because she went on record with a political viewpoint and made value judgements. YOU DONT GET TO DO THAT AS A JOURNALIST. It doesn’t matter if she’s right (she is, in my opinion, before someone accused me of supporting apartheid and misses the point). What matters is she has taken away any appearance of being unbiased, both for her and by association for the paper. It’s crazy damaging and the Times should have fired her instead of letting her resign. This is like journalistic ethics 101. My parents were both journalists and wouldn’t even talk to me about who they voted for - and they weren’t even in hard news.

I know these days there are so many biased news agencies and lots of opinions masquerading as news, but for hard news agencies this kind of thing does not, and should not fly. The woman was dumb and I hope she was ready for a career writing op-eds and being a partisan talking head, because she’ll never write hard news at a reputable source again.

Yeah, my immediate thought was wondering why this manufactured content is here. Maybe a repost bot from Reddit where accounts with karma can be sold for disinfo?

That’s how it originally was in the US. I had it for years and it was absolutely useless, I used to complain about what’s the point of even having it if the only benefit was ONE return without a receipt per calendar year. You’re telling me you want to track all my purchases, but you can’t actually track all my purchases? Give me a break.

Then a few years ago they added free coffee, so it became worth it again. The 5% off thing is new enough I remember being surprised when I learned it.

Ah yes, no true gatekeeper.

Yeah but I don’t want to watch at 1080p with bad sound! It’s just annoying because they already let you download off your friends servers. You’d think it would be super easy to program as an option.

Except Plex insanely makes you stream it to each person, instead of letting people download and sync streaming. So good luck doing it with more than two people unless you’re watching a 1080p movie on a beast with an amazing Internet connection.

It’s crazy there isn’t an open source community around it. 3d printing and CNC have been democratized, it’s wild that printing and cutting vinyl hasn’t.

Did you listen to the NPR report? I don’t understand how you still have these questions.

Literally just copy pasting this places now because so many people are still claiming greedflation is a thing. Not trying to spam but links to comments don’t seem to work, and as a literal economist who works on inflation I’m tired of reading political talking points disguised as economic analysis.

I think everyone should probably listen to this great report from NPR that dissects this issue. The Tl;dr: is greedflation is not really a real thing.

The deeper answer to your question of, “can one party increase prices in a market?” is sort of basic economics, and the answer is, “Usually, no.” In a competitive market, the answer is no. In a monopolistic market (meaning one company controls most of the market, think like Google with browsers) with no government oversight, the answer is yes. Things get complicated when you add in government regulation or oligopolistic markets (markets where only a few players control the market). In those cases, it depends on how strong government regulations on price-gouging are and any anti-monopoly or anti-anticompetitive practice laws are, and also depends on how oligopolists behave. Sometimes, particularly in industries with few big players, the big players will make the same decisions independently. If they do this cooperating it will usually violate antitrust laws, but if they both decide they’ll be better off say, not paying workers as much, or charging super high markups, them that can happen. A lot of economic research shows that kind of “tacit collusion” happens in real life, like in the oil and gas industries. But other times oligopolies will behave very competitively, only uniting through lobbyist trade groups if at all (think Microsoft and Amazon in cloud software).

So that’s the facts, but here’s my economic musing: The reason it feels like greedflation is a thing is a combination of factors:

1. Inflation was very real, and very salient.
2. Corporations (as mentioned in the NPR piece) crowed about their “record profits” in the short term, and also mention them when they are absolute record profits, not just record profit margins (something not mentioned but very real - a company can make twice as much money but also have spent twice as much, making way “more” money but with identical margins)
3. In the US at least, we are seeing the highest numbers of industry consolidation and monopolies/oligopolies since the Gilded Age, so it feels like companies should be able to raise their prices if they want to.
4. Media coverage and online spaces have become extremely polarized, so “corporations bad” is a very easy refrain to find if you’re watching or reading anything remotely left-wing, and it has been parroted by many democratic politicians as well, because it scores cheap and easy political points (also, and this is just my opinion, it helps vilify corps more in the public eye to help get more support for better antitrust legislation and enforcement, the actual end goal. I don’t think senators like Bernie Sanders don’t actually understand what’s going on with profit margins, I think they’re using it to generate political will, but that may be my own bias creeping in).

I have literally never heard that described as a tankie talking point. Honestly, shouting down the fact that Russian aggression caused global prices to rise in everything (not just food, oil and gas causes ripples) feels like something their psyops people would do. Trying to tie it to US aid and calling it a tankie talking point is double plus hilarious. I don’t know where you’re reading that, but I’d be careful.

Ah yes, the US Fed causing inflation in all of Europe and Canada too. It’s crazy how the Fed made inflation lower here at home though. I don’t know how they do that without there being some kind of series of global supply shocks.

I guess we’ll never know.