hydrospanner

Hear hear!

When you bust your ass all year for that great review and much needed raise...only to go in for your evaluation and be told, "Great job! Unfortunately due to budget cuts and corporate policy, we can only give you a 1.5% raise, but you're welcome!"

Don't tell them, but remember that.

Remember that regardless of the work you give them, they're only paying you 1.5% more. And that's not even factoring in ~~information~~ inflation.

At the most generous, you should only give them 1.5% more productivity than it takes to not get fired. If you look at it based on value...the value of your time and experience and productivity against the purchasing power of your take home pay... you're getting a pay cut vs inflation as their way of thanking you.

As such, cut your productivity, attention to detail, reliability, and shits given by the same amount as the purchasing power you're earning.

They call it quiet quitting, but in reality it's the market economy working both ways. If they're buying less from you, give them less.

I mean, it's all very subjective, so "too much" for you seems to be what is a good amount for everyone else...but realistically, I don't think this is a legitimate complaint since you still need to be able to make all these adjustments anyway... it's just a matter of the way the adjustments are being made.

All a touch screen changes is that it can play host to multiple functions depending on context...but it loses much of the visual recognition and almost all the tactile feedback of a physical control.

And while vehicles keep getting more and more complex for sure, I feel like when I'm riding in a more touchscreen heavy vehicle, that screen is displaying the same static set of controls 99% of the time...and at that point, the flexibility it offers is largely irrelevant, and the tradeoffs mean giving up a lot to get very little in exchange.

They get really spicy!

Disagree.

Personally, I feel the problem is absolutely touchscreens.

I've only got five senses, and taste and smell aren't helpful in a driving situation.

Of the 3 left, sight is the most important for the most important task: driving.

For other tasks, sound is best used to alert or remind about something, and is frequently diminished as a driving aid by music.

That leaves touch and sight for all remaining tasks.

Touchscreens are, despite the name, effectively 100% reliant on sight, since there's no real tactile feedback to enable the user to make eyes-free adjustments. To use a touchscreen, you have to take your eyes off the road to see what the screen says and make your selections.

While some are better than others, I also feel like touchscreens are still embarrassingly and frustratingly prone to errors, missed touches, and generally not doing the things the user intended, requiring even more eyes off the road to undo whatever actually happened, get the interface back to the place you want it, and try again, hoping that this time it'll work.

My mid-teens vehicle has a mix of a medium sized touch screen for the entertainment unit but physical controls for climate, driving, and a few of the entertainment adjustments, and while I was all about the advanced new touchscreen when I bought it, I find it's my least favorite part of the controls this far along in ownership.

"I want things to be worse for everyone who isn't exactly like me."

You're the worst kind of person.

I feel like most people I have heard talking about them while supporting Trump seem to know that tariffs are taxes, but have no concept of how they play out in a real economic situation. Most fall into one or both of two camps:

A) Tariffs are taxes, but they're taxes for companies not individuals, and they're only applied to importing, so they won't affect me.

B) Tariffs are taxes for foreign companies, to level the playing field and keep American business competitive. Since the companies that have to pay it are foreign, it won't affect me.

Spoiler alert, guys: no matter where the tax is levied in the system, the consumer is the only person who ever pays for it, since they're the only ones that can't pass that cost on to anyone else.

Also, while this can make domestic competitors more competitive, it's important to remember two things: first, if it works, it's only working by making things more expensive for consumers, and second, this assumes that the domestic competitors want more business, have the ability and posture to increase their production to meet the new greater demand, and will operate in good faith. Much more likely is that they simply also increase their prices in reaction to the tariffs, so they're not producing or selling any more volume and aren't creating any jobs... they're just padding their profit margins at the corporate/shareholder level while doing nothing for their employees, all while having the average consumer foot the bill.

That's exactly what happened with the steel tariffs in the first Trump term and that's exactly what will happen now...the only difference is that this time it seems like there will be significantly fewer economic buffers between the tariff and the consumer, so more people will more directly feel the sting here...and presumably the mental gymnastics from the MAGAts will be even sadder in their attempts to somehow make it not a criticism of their orange leader's incompetence.

Implying anything needs to be proven in court when the judge is a Trump appointee.

Aaaaand those parents of those Gen Z kids probably said what they said because when they were kids, their parents told them to follow their dreams and do whatever they wanted to do, so they believed them and they went to art school and didn't work hard, then they got to the recession and lost their job (or never got it in the first place) because their degree was irrelevant for almost any job out there, and then they had to compete and improve in order to get a decent job to make ends meet as they tried their best to raise their little Gen Z kid.

Could the Democrats do more? Sure. But they're still recovering from the fever that took the party over with Clinton in '92.

If that's true, Jesus H. Christ, Democratic party, just get out of the way and let someone else fight fascism. If you're "still recovering" 32 goddamn years later, you're not recovering. That's just a permanent part of the party identity. And the people are clearly not wild about what you've become if you lose to Donald Fucking Trump two out of three times.

So just quit.

Shut the party down and let something else take its place, because whatever happened in 92 is chronic and terminal, and you're bringing the rest of the country down with you.

I think the American middle got taken by surprise at their own apathy in '16. Then in '20 they were motivated by fear. This week, they showed that they've simply lost faith in the Democratic party, plain and simple. That they're tired of what they've been getting from the party and they'll accept a horrible person over perpetuating the arrogance and inaction of the Democrats.

And while I can't say I was too fed up to support Harris, now that Tuesday is behind us, as much as I despise Trump, I have to admit that the Democrats got exactly what they deserved at the ballot box: the same lukewarm apathy they've shown the American people the past 12 years.

Maybe they'll finally get the message and put together a cohesive, intelligent, inspiring platform and message for the midterms, but if history is anything to go by, I'm guessing that this time in 2 years, they're thrilled as fuck to take back the House (with too slim a majority to do much beyond hold up legislation), with progressives gaining slightly more seats than now, and the party as a whole will still have the same lack of focus, direction, and message...

...and I would bet money that this time in 2026 they still don't have anything close to an idea of a possible presidential nominee that gets people excited.

Agreed 100%.

If they did this, they would easily carry states with high populations of blue collar and union laborers. Stop paying lip service and actually do it.

States that have had major manufacturing centers in the late 20th century like the Rust Belt.

Like...Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

The Democratic party is just paying the price for ignoring blue collar middle class voters since the late 80s. They took those votes for granted, and they lost them over time. Just like after blue collar folks they then took the votes of minorities for granted...and now they're losing those.

All they need to do is ask what they've done for these people lately...like in the past few decades. And when they came really answer that in any terms other than what they prevented the other guys from doing, they shouldn't have to wonder why enthusiasm for their party's candidates is at an all time low.

Literally ZERO people I know personally have actually liked and actively, enthusiastically supported any democratic presidential nominee since Obama. That's twelve fucking years and zero candidates that got people excited and inspired. Most of my friends voted for these candidates, but nobody liked them.

Honestly, if it weren't for the opposition being so unbearably awful, I'd almost be happy to see the Democratic party handed loss after loss until and unless they learn their lesson and stop taking their base for granted.

There's also plenty of room in there for less malicious situations as well (not that the malicious ones you speak of aren't happening...they are...but there's other cases as well).

I think a lot of the problems arise based on differing expectations, and ideas about what a "conversation" entails.

Too often, it seems like a conversation means "let me voice my grievances, assign blame, and explain my ideas about why it's like that and what should be done...and didn't you dare to disagree with me or question anything or point out flaws in my logic, because this is my space!"

And hey, you're free to do that...but that ain't a conversation. Conversation means you don't get to dictate the terms completely to everyone else.

I feel like those who do this do know, deep down, that they don't want a conversation at all... but "everyone shut up, let me say my thing, then agree with me" tends to draw in a smaller audience. You might be right, you might be wrong, but, "Listen to me and don't say anything I don't like." isn't a conversation.

Telling a person wandering through the desert "I also get thirsty" maybe deflects from the issue at hand.

Or... That may be a show of support, in sharing of a common burden, a message of, "You are not alone in this struggle."

Rather than always seeing it as a negative, maybe allow for the possibility that it's coming from a different place.

Honestly, I feel like this whole sentiment of, "Don't attempt to bring any context into a conversation. Only stick strictly to what one person has decided to talk about." is not only counterproductive in that moment, but also in the medium and long term has a marked effect in shutting down future conversations about difficult and uncomfortable topics.

I mean, how many times does a person get into a conversation that starts with, "Can we talk about X?" or "Let's have an open, honest discussion about Y?"...only to add something to that conversation and be told, "No, you're wrong for bringing that up. We're only talking about X and why it's the worst thing ever."... before they get to the point where the next time someone says, "Can we talk about Z?" they just say, "No, sorry. Not interested."?