Yeah, can we just agree to stop using unexplained acronyms? Even as a terminally online person, I struggle to keep up with the new ones that keep popping up daily and it’s exhausting. Some time ago, I also had to look up what CSAM meant because suddenly everyone was saying it out of nowhere and it was critical to the context.
Some time ago, I met an HR person at my job. She wasn’t actually part of the workplace HR team, rather, she was more like a classmate of mine, but she had worked as HR in the past and wanted to continue to do so in the future. She was kind and polite, so I never had any beef with her, but she consistently had the shittiest, most inhumane takes on how to manage and interact with people I had seen in a while lol.
Meeting her made me arrive at the conclusion that you just said. Empathetic people that get into HR with the idea of helping make the world a better place would eventually resign or, at least, be very ineffective as HR. The only people capable of staying in HR for a long time are sociopaths who don’t mind lying and being obtuse in job offers, and ruining someone’s life so their boss can squeeze a couple of extra cents. The profession itself only serves to make companies more ruthless and adds nothing of value to the world.
Out of curiosity, is there a reason why your machine is called Pearl-II instead of something like Peridot? I also like your names btw
Just chiming in to say that this is the kind of thing on Lemmy where you just know that OP is from the US, even if they don’t state it directly. Most electoral democracies have a lot more than two options.
In my country, the current Parliament formation is representing 11 distinct parties, including those that only get like one seat. The electoral race always feature like 5 major parties and then some, and they are definitely not the same 5 parties from 40 years ago. It always baffles to think about how the US has only ever been governed by either one of the same two parties, and I find kinda sad that third parties aren’t viable there.
I find kind of funny when a Lemmy user from the US attempts to be generic but their assumptions that the US is the norm are very telling. I don’t think it’s ill-intended or evil or anything, but it’s still funny, and I see it often in here.
I mean, he did recreate a cataclysmic event in the process, and the projected crisis was bound to happen in 1000 years… One can never be too prepared I guess.
What is that even trying to say? That there is such thing as going too far when fighting the energy crisis? lol
Formally, “hubiera”/“hubiese” is only used within subclauses, i.e «si lo hubiera visto, habría hecho algo» etc. They never stand as the only verb and don’t appear in simple clauses. You can’t say “hubiera hecho algo”, it’s “habría hecho algo”. Here, the subjunctive (hubiera) is doing the same job as “were” in english, and the conditional (habría) is equivalent to “would”: «if I were luckier, it would have worked out». This is the case with subjunctives in general, they mostly only ever appear in subclauses other than very specific exceptions (such as negative imperative or vestigial expressions like «Dios quiera que…»). The trick is learning which subclauses use indicative and which use subjunctive :)
Informally, though, natives will tell you that it doesn’t matter because it truly doesn’t. The formula “if (subjunctive) then (subjunctive)” is understood by everybody with the same meaning as “if (subjunctive) then (conditional)”, and you can even use it in formal settings such as when talking to your boss, at least in Spain.
Source: Am native, from Spain. Good luck with the language learning!
For me, it changes every few days.
Right now, it’s “Like Chimeras” from the Cassette Beasts soundtrack. Well, to be honest, I’ve got a bunch of songs from the game stuck in my head, but my brain keeps ending up on that one always.
Not to be rude, but I’m struggling to believe half the comments in this thread are legit. Do you really mean to tell me that Lemmy, a platform notoriously populated almost exclusively by anti-corporate tech people that really value FOSS and privacy –hence the reason why all of us are here instead of Reddit– has this many users thinking it is a remotely acceptable idea to pay for a Premium service for one of the most invasive companies online?
I think most of us understand the many underhanded techniques used by Google to achieve an almost monopolistic control of some aspects of the internet, but when talking about YouTube, suddenly all the logic is reduced to “if you use a service, pay for it, or else let them show you ads”?? what??? Also, what’s with comparing adblocking to stealing???
My own answer to the topic of this thread is that no, I won’t be paying for YouTube Premium anytime soon, possibly ever. Google has betrayed my trust many times in the past, and on top of that I don’t consider adverts as a legitimate source of income, so I will block any and all ads everywhere without paying an extra cent.
“But if you keep using their service, so you need to give them some form of revenue! Otherwise you just want free stuff!” I only keep using their service because Google has spent many years dumping on other platforms so that YouTube is –almost– the only platform that still exists where all the good creators are, so I will begrudgingly watch them on YouTube because there aren’t any options. But I will resist Google’s many insidious attempts to monetize me to the best of my ability while doing so.
That said, it’s really dishonest to claim that people who block ads on YouTube just want free stuff and don’t understand that services have a cost. Personally, I pay for Nebula because I do support the project and the creators involved. But YouTube won’t see a cent from me, not with my consent at least.
One of my favorite meme jrends. I miss it so much