Yeah but big tech is also the customer. So it doesnt make sense. How will they make money if the only way to do so is to trick other giant tech companies into buying and using your product?

Read the article. Maybe half or more are voting third party, they hate trump and kamala.

The other, from one of the interviews, the last four years of Democrat led politics has literally been the worst in their lives for both themselves living in america, and for their friends and families who live in the middle east.

Assuming a democrat leader is best for everyone is part of the problem. There are groups of people who suffer under Democrat leadership, and ignoring them is just frustrating them.

There have been no limits on us support to israel so far. They have gotten all they asked for. How could trump possibly give them more? Even if he did, they won’t need it, it won’t change anything.

Can you show some example of where we have limited israel in anyway? Why wouldnt that continue under Kamala? She won’t say she’d do different, in fact she said Israel has a right to defend itself on a national talk show.

Because it was a trick. You are being tricked by the voice that you are responsible for minimizing the harm they choose to inflict on the three people in the room, if that threat is even real in the first place.

So to choose to murder anyone or kill yourself is a ridiculous position and most wouldnt take it. The voice will have to be the murderer here if thats what they want.

Or you can believe the voice without question, and kill one of the people based on some arbitrary metric you come up with on the spot to justify you choosing to kill someone.

So in this case, people are believing the lie, then choosing “the lesser of two evils” based on some arbitrary metric like “which ones better for the economy, since they both are genocidal”.

Ive yet to hear someone explain any details about how it could be worse under trump.

Israel is not being held back in any way by the democrats now. How could trump make it worse? Send them napalm? Fucking think about it for a second man. Do you know what’s happening over there currently? What would worse look like to you?

There is a perspective that the genocide will be the same under both. Maybe a few months ago, but bidens since stopped asking for a cease fire, and has literally sent troops to israel to defend them already.

Its less about voting for trump and more about how increasingly unpalatable its become for some to endorse the current administration. For example in Michigan, a lot of people in the third party movement have family overseas, and its hard to argue to them that they should care more about the theoretical distopia being shouted at them versus the very real one they have been living for a while now.

Put yourself in someone else’s shoes for once.

Thats a pretty good figure, I’ll have to remember that for when its relevant.

Is there a good way to estimate how many cases of fraud don’t get caught?

Well one of us is triggered thats obvious.

Thank you!

I’d be interested in seeing that study or report. I wonder if they identified likely factors.

This usually bears out in large workplaces too, most of the employee mistakes are genuine, about 5% are deliberately done by psychopaths. I mean real mistakes like HIPAA violations, not clocking in late from lunch.

What helps me is having the perspective that people change from moment to moment, and we don’t see enough moments in a row to pick out a pattern generally. Even if I see the same names, it helps to treat them with new eyes everytime. Also makes it easier to catch someone on a bad day but then have a nice conversation the next.

You know the part you quoted is specifically talking about negative comments coming from people who work in the gaming industry right? Not the people who buy the games but the people who make them.

The rest of your reply is irrelevant because you are attacking a strawman.

It depends, in some areas that part where you either accept by default or choose another option is part of court. In my area they clear out everyone who is taking the default judgment at the beginning and then go through the rest one at a time.

Oh you are in for a treat. I spent time in the local jail when I was much younger, and was surprised that some of my fellow inmates were in there for some absurd things. The two that stick out are:

1. Driving without a license - apparently if you do this more than once, good chance they will just take you jail and impound your car, and if you can’t afford bail you wait until court, which is weeks or months.

2. Unpaid child support - I actually have no idea the logic here. You have unpaid child support, so we will put you in jail, charge you 30$ per day to be paid upon release for “housing”, and guarantee you have no way to earn money.

The bail and housing fees are not actually specific to those crimes, it applies to all crimes but really compounds things in some situations.

Depends what your goal is.

If you are trying to change that persons actions specifically, it likely is a lose lose, because they will make more of the same content about the response.

The goal here isnt to actually stop the youtuber from doing anything. The goal is to offer a different firsthand perspective from inside the company, and I think this message does that.

Now anyone that hears about the initial YouTube video, will also hear about the response, and the average person is likely to believe the studios version over a youtuber.

I think saying nothing would distance the company from its fans to some degree, and putting out some PR spin would backfire immediately.

No, but nearly everything grown in the ground has some level of toxic substances like that. This came up recently with baby food and lettuce and a bunch of other stuff.

I’m not really an expert on acceptable levels and most companies don’t have data available anyways, at least not completely, so I figure put my eggs in as many baskets and hope I don’t end up with too much of any one thing.

Maybe we should all be tested yearly for toxic metals or something.

A diverse diet reduces the chance you inadvertently poison yourself or cause disease though.

I suppose you could argue though you should just eat different chocolate brands consistently though, thats sort of like having different varieties of the same fruit or vegetable.

I’m pointing out that I already thought that was a “dangerous” amount of chocolate to begin with. I don’t understand the concept of doing something unhealthy consistently but not expecting any negative consequences.