If they voted for Netanyahu they asked for it, and I have no sympathy.

Isn’t it more human trafficking than deportation if they kidnapped her in international waters and moved her to a different country?

I’m a straight white dude who goes to work to do work, not to find someone to party with. The common ground is having the same job.

My current team has the following composition:

• Two straight white guys in their 40s, one of whom is an immigrant
• One gay white guy in his 30s
• One straight Indian guy in his 50s
• One straight Indian woman in her 20s
• One straight black guy in his 20s

We all get along just fine. Sometimes I learn something new about a different culture or lifestyle.

Not all aspects of diversity are equally important. I’ve been in teams before where everyone else was Argentinian. I’ve had teams where everyone else was Indian. I’ve had teams where we were all straight white dudes. They were all fine.

The most important part of diversity for me is a nice spread in experience level, which usually means a spread in age. I like training people who are more junior than me, but I also like someone more senior to learn from. Having someone more senior than me also prevents me from gliding into a role where I only train people or review their work, which I’m not personally interested in.

There are more things you could ask about even if the job description is good, though.

As a software engineer I like to ask questions about the team dynamic. I’m not interested in working with a bunch of bros, so having some diversity in the team is good.

This response is also too vague. You need to at the very least ask what kind of position OP is interviewing for.

Dude, most other countries, bar the dictatorships, have more changes happening than the US. Most other countries don’t have two-party systems with filibusters, debt ceilings disconnected from the budget, and whatever else.

Any country implementing parliamentarism, especially those not implementing first past the post, will have a lot less stalemates, because there are multiple other parties to make horse trades with. Do you have experience with any other country’s system of governance?

You can say what an increase in funding is meant to finance without earmarking the funds. Other countries do that just fine. In this example, you’d run on lowering property taxes, because campaign on the tax you’re increasing is never a good plan.

I get that there’ll always be some taxes collected at different levels, like some federal, some state level and some municipal, and that does to some extent direct how the funds can be used, but earmarking the funds beyond that just adds complexity and fucks up budgeting. It’s how you end up with stuff like every other thing on the budget borrowing from social security.

The real thing hindering these kinds of reform is that American politics are inherently resistant to change. With a two-party system in near equilibrium there will rarely be any opportunity to change big things, and in practice most big changes in the US happen at the judicial branch as a result. For example, WA doesn’t have income tax due to the WA supreme court declaring it unconstitutional, and changing the constitution is nearly impossible to get the votes for in the current political climate.

Why? Knowing that my property taxes pay for one set of things and my income tax pays for something else does nothing for me. In the end, all that really matters is how much my net pay is, and whether the government is spending its income reasonably.

In the school example, my area also pools it, I believe statewide. The schools also receive federal money from my income tax. I don’t care, as long as the schools have the funding they need. Which they don’t.

I don’t get to choose what kind of taxes I pay or what they go to (except that dollar to the presidential campaign fund), so how do I really benefit from knowing which goes where? Just pool it all and make a budget! It’s like Americans are addicted to overcomplicating things.

I know that’s how some places do it now, but why do specific taxes need to pay for specific stuff? Earmarking the funds just makes it harder to allocate them.

In some cases it makes some sense at face value, like having road or fuel taxes pay for road upkeep, but even then it results in having to scale the taxes to meet demand, in possibly untenable ways. Also, you don’t need to drive a car to benefit from roads and related infrastructure, so even the seemingly obvious connections aren’t necessarily fair.

I especially object to using local property taxes to pay for schools, because this just means affluent areas get lots of school funding (in addition to the donations they surely get), while schoold in poor areas get scraps. Which in turn makes it even harder for students to escape poverty.

These people don’t care about ethics, but scamming the billionaire is probably bad for future business. I imagine word gets around.

I’d rather pay income tax than property tax. The problem with property taxes is that lots of elderly people in old homes with no plans to sell are getting taxed as if they have million dollar house money. They’re basically getting punished for the gentrification of their neighborhood.

If we collected that money from income taxes and capital gains taxes instead, the results would be more equitable. This would likely increase my own tax burden, but I can afford it a lot better than my elderly neighbors. They can pay when they sell their house, which is when they have the money.

People rich enough to pay for black market organs don’t need to worry about health insurance.

No, the reseller installs the organ for you. When you’re that rich everything you buy comes with white glove installation included.

Rich people sometimes have bad organs and need transplants. They’re willing to pay a lot for a new one so they don’t have to wait in line with the plebs. Organ trafficking is how they achieve this.

Didn’t GIFs load from the bottom?

This is what the kids are referring to:

I don’t think you’re disregarding me, your concerns are valid and natural. It sounds like you’re having a tough time emotionally right now, just in a different way than before.

It honestly doesn’t sound like it would be healthy for you to pursue a relationship right now. You clearly have feelings for your friend, and while you logically know it can’t happen, you’re not quite over her emotionally. Getting into a relationship, or even dating, someone else at the moment isn’t healthy for you, and also isn’t fair to the person you’d be dating. You need to work on getting over your friend first, before adding more people to the mix.

Do you have a therapist? You hopefully do, considering your history of suicidal ideation. If you have upcoming therapy sessions, I suggest bringing your crush on your engaged friend up to your therapist, and they might be able to help you process things. You might also want to dial down your interactions with that friend for a while.

When you feel ready to put yourself out there, I would personally not try to approach anyone at work. If it happens naturally that’s okay, but I would personally prefer not to mix my dating and professional life if I could avoid it. Maybe there is some activity you could do once or twice a week where you’d meet people? I met my wife at an event at a local climbing gym. There are also dance classes, mountaineering clubs, art or pottery classes, and other activities which you might enjoy while meeting women with similar interests.

It’s not you, dating is just awful. I suggest not doing it. You’ve entered relationships before without dating, you can do it again. I have personally found that I’m a lot more attractive when I’m not actively trying to woo someone.

Is it still a cover if the original artist agrees to let you adopt the song? Dylan said it’s Hendrix’ song now.

From what I hear it’s best to avoid Broadcom-based routers if you plan to install OpenWRT.