But Russia wasn’t. That’s the point.

Russia was invaded by Germany after Germany was fighting the allies. Russia joined the allies in the fight against Germany.

Russia requested in that joint fight that the allies attack the same enemy from a different location

That is very different than asking them to declare war on another nation.

Like there is so much criticism to be shared about the USSR in WW2 from raping and pillaging Germans after the war to allying with Hitler to invading Poland so no idea why you are insistent on trying to make the phrase “dragging their feet” be the own on Russia

That “ second front” was against the same Nazis the allies were already fighting it wasn’t starting a war in an entirely different theater.

But that’s not what happened…

USSR didn’t convince the U.S. to get into a two front war, the USSR got invaded when they were unprepared because Stalin originally wanted to ally with the Nazis.

They were then pushed back into their own territory with such bad logistics that they couldn’t even give all their soldiers guns. Once they finished fighting their own war they asked for a little bit of time to mourn the deaths of millions, reestablish their territory, and mobilize millions.

Nothing about that is dragging their feet, I personally think Stalin was a raging cunt and you are making me defend them because of just how shit your take is.

Plenty of depressed kids with good parents… a child died and you are, with no knowledge, choosing to blame the grieving family. Like just stop reading for a moment and think about that.

It really is not that hard to make it so if a person asks the LLM if/how to kill themselves it just gives the generic break from immersion “suicide is wrong please speak with a mental health professional”

If a person applies for a job and says they will be able to start in 2 months and then shows up in 2 months that’s not dragging their feet. If they keep pushing the date back until the employer says “ if you don’t show up on Monday you’re fired” that would be dragging their feet.

That’s why I at least attempt to provide good sources of information when possible but in the past 10 years I have found less and less people who are interested in conflicting information and just want to live in their own echo chamber. I have found Lemmy is at least better than most forums at least

Just to give a different perspective than everyone else here but I have asked for sources before when people make claims like the water powered car, and then when they show a source that is a YouTube channels that breaks down to “trust me bro” I will usually reject their source.

I am not saying that’s what you are doing but if a person is criticizing your source, you should at least take a moment to consider “is my source valid”. It’s very common that people do just ask for a source and criticize regardless of validity as a way of wasting your time so don’t take it personally if a person does it

If photons and therefore likely all molecules stopped moving then you wouldn’t really have a way of losing heat as that eliminates conduction, convection, and radiation. But if we assume our body still works completely unfrozen then we would still need to burn calories and generate heat and without a way of shedding that what we would probably overheat and die, or depending on the limitations suffocate from lack of air if it’s all “frozen”.

Also if like everything just stopped suddenly like for example the planet earth stopped moving you would also get thrown pretty far from the rapid acceleration which could also kill you.

Basically what I am saying is it’s a much more useful question if you make the assumption that all living beings freeze but the universe doesn’t and maybe can be even better thought as plants and single cell organisms don’t freeze as that also limits the question a lot

If they are going to be in a car lane and treated as a car they should have at least some form of regulation. If they are going to be in a bike lane then they should conform to bike standards

The average rider isnt able to go 25mph on flat ground. A brand new rider who just purchased a new bike and has no prior experience with proper bike etiquette will find it basically impossible to go 25mph without a decent hill.

Which is just a long way of saying that cutting off a motor at 20 mph isnt a crazy concept. In Europe it’s common to have a top speed of 20-25kmh or 12-15 mph as that is a more typical speed of an inexperienced cyclist in a city environment

Saying that we should be able to do things because a CEO does is a shit argument.

We don’t need more people acting like CEOs who terribly pollute the planet…

The money that is going to the workers is fixed it is a zero sum game if they pay people more for commuting they aren’t going to just take a loss on their income.

In the case of the pilots and the flight attendants the difference is not them commuting from home but that they can be stuck waiting at an airport or even on a plane that isn’t departing that is completely out of their control. So if they normally get paid $50/hr for a 5 hour flight that under normal conditions involves 3 hours of unpaid airport time currently they would get $250 if they instead got 31/hr they would get paid the same for a normal flight but if there was a uncontrolled 2 hour delay they now get 310 instead which is 100% deserved

In the case of engineers if they have 10 engineers who have a budget of 5000/day why should the 9 that live 30 minutes away get paid $484 and the one that lives 2 hours away get paid 645 for not contributing anything extra?

Compensation should be increased! Work life balance should be increased! Doing it through paying commuting costs for office workers is a dumb way of doing it.

All your reasons for it are coming down to ad hominem attacks that I apparently just hate workers and I have said multiple times now that it has nothing to do with that and I want workers to be paid but the mechanism of paying them for commuting just doesn’t make logical sense

If you want to have a real conversation where you give real reasons why you think a commuting compensation is useful I would love to hear your reasons but if you are just going to keep insulting people who disagree then you can talk to yourself

I am literally not mad at the rules of the game… I am saying the rules are fine which are already codified for when your are “on the clock”

I am not opposed to changing the rules to make the game better for everyone but giving Carlos an extra 2m/ game because he lives in Wyoming when everyone else lives 5 minutes from the stadium is just bullshit.

Equity is a very important issue with uncontrolled circumstances but commuting distance is mostly in control of the employee in which case equality makes more sense

It’s literally just not a logical thing to do and the article you linked highlights exactly why it doesn’t make sense.

It encourages people to live further away from their jobs which increases commute time, increases traffic, and increases pollution

If your goal is to pay employees more then just pay them more but paying the employee who lives outside the city more because they chose to have a 2 hour commute when another coworker pays a premium to live 5 minutes from work is clearly unfair

If your goal is to have employees work less hours then just have everyone work less hours again why should some people work less than others just because they want to live far away

I think everyone should be paid more but this is the dumbest way to do it

It depends, where is your designated work site. If your main office is the one at work then being able to wfh is a privilege that if feasible should 100% be allowed but if part of your job is not able to be done remotely and once a week they require you to go the office there is no reason the company should pay for that

On the flip side if you are a remote employee who does not have a designated work site that’s asked to come to some random office to pick up a new laptop that should be on the clock.

The difference is control of the situation if you know where your designated work site is and choose to have a long commute to get there that is a personal choice, you don’t however have control over the random places that your work sends you like secondary job sites or another state.

Obviously there is no right or wrong answer to this as it’s all opinions but the way I see it is it’s bad for morale if a coworker got to work less than because they lived further away and others had to pick up their slack. Environmentally it’s worse because it encourages people to live further away and be even more car reliant.

There also are just better options.

If the goal is to reduce the total hours people have to work because 8 hours + 1 hour unpaid lunch + 1 hour of commuting eats away at people’s day then you could just lower everybody’s required work time by the average commuting time

If the goal is to pay people more you could just use the extra money you would use for paying for the commute and just pay your employees more

But you could add extra incentives like anyone who bikes/walks/takes public transit to work gets to leave extra early

As I mentioned before pay people more if they live within X distance from work so they don’t have to commute as much

Neither they are driving to work. If they were visiting a client that would be driving for work but the time you spend outside of work is not for work.

So your employer can choose where you live?

Can they also prevent you from biking to work or taking public transit since those would be slower?

If you get in an accident is the company liable since you are on the clock?

How would they check your time?

What if you were running an errand before work does time start when you get in the car or when you finish the errand?

At the end of the day it’s just easier for the company to pay you whatever money would go into the commuting budget and evenly distribute it to everyone’s salary.

Clocking in when you start your commute is a bridge too far in my opinion. If the company has no say on where you live then they could end up paying a person astronomically more just because they wanted to live far away. Like imagine an engineer who wants to live out in the mountains and commute 2 hours each way to work why should the company compensate them for that? Especially when you have another employee who is paying 2x as much in housing costs so they can live near work. Long term it would encourage people to live further from work which would just worsen traffic and suburban sprawl that nobody should want.

I would much rather see a housing incentive if a person lives with 3 miles of work so that people can have shorter commutes and the idea of walking/biking to work wasn’t unreasonable

It wasn’t a single issue vote or Congress would have just approved it.

It also didn’t break U.S. laws, it’s the bullshit emergency bypass that Trump keeps doing for everything

And then you say that Trump won’t do it unless Israel pays him but the way he is behaving makes it seem like they are considering he is taking funding from school over not crushing pro Palestine protests and is calling it anti semitism

Biden fucking sucked for the people of Gaza but it’s only gotten worse since Trump was made president

11.4% take anti depressants and between 40-65% experience some degree of sexual dysfunction so even using the highest numbers and assuming that the sexual dysfunction completely eliminates interest in sex (it doesn’t) that would only be 7.41%

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db528.htm

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6007725/#%3A~%3Atext=Given+that+SSRIs+may+cause%2Ca+barrier+to+medication+adherence.

Did you read the article you linked? It doesn’t talk about saturated fats being good but instead talks about the protective effects of olive oil, nuts, and omega 3s. The best part about it is they talk about how the linoleic acid is one of the protective elements and linoleic acid is the “scary” thing about seed oils as they are our primary source of linoleic acid… as a whole though it wasn’t a study or even a meta review it was just an editorial as in no data was actually analyzed

By definition olive oil is a vegetable oil unless you want to go by taxonomic terms where it would be a fruit oil (since vegetables are not a term in official taxonomy which is why tomatoes are also fruits)

Whole grains are also by definition complex carbs

A pound of bacon (16 strips) is over 2400 calories and can be consumed fairly easily by the average person in a single sitting especially if you contrast that to eating lower fat food like chicken breast which you would need to eat 4.5 pounds of or rice that you would need to eat over 3 cups of (uncooked) to get the same amount of calories. I am not saying fats are evil but the argument that they fill you up faster is just wrong