Getting fired for fucking the hologram may make the employee ineligible for unemployment benefits, which the employer would otherwise have to reimburse the state for.
I live in a “right to work” state, there are no required unemployment benefits. I got one paycheck as severance and everyone I told within the state said, " well at least it’s not nothing"
This is why there’s often point systems and other arbitrary shit that can be used against low level employees to fire them “with cause” very easily should it be time to downsize. Many people in that situation have found that, all the sudden, their managers are starting to care a lot about things they usually let slide (because they’re ultimately meaningless). You’re getting warnings, write ups, points, etc, when you’re doing nothing different than you have been since you were hired.
Amazon basically works this way by default. They think their employees as so disposable, their discipline and point system effectively creates a countdown to firing for virtually every low level employee, and it’s all but guaranteed they will never be able to get any sort of unemployment. Even the ones that can manage to meet the outrageous expectations will not be able to maintain it forever.
Unemployment. It’s what keeps most companies from actually firing people indiscriminately. I’ve had employees that needed to be fired, but since “Don’t be a toxic asshole that drives good people to quit” isn’t in the employee handbook and they showed up on time in compliance with dress code I couldn’t fire them.
What and you think the self-driving trucks will be able to drive themselves just because some humans are fighting over water again? Some will go and die so that billionaires can keep their fountains going, others will drive self-driving trucks to keep the rest of the machine going.
I just googled “words you can’t say on the Internet,” and one of the top results was a reddit post about words banned on TokTok. I wasn’t allowed to view it because Reddit hadn’t reviewed the community, so… You can say ‘fuck’ for now.
Nothing makes me want to wring spez’s little neck (nonviolently of course) more than seeing that stupid “this community hasn’t been reviewed yet” message. You can instantly fix it by using old.reddit… for now.
I’m convinced all of you people only ever went to /r/popular. Conversations are still plenty good on my front page
I mean, I literally cannot find another English speaking forum actively discussing the end of Land of the Lustrous. I guess I could try MAL, but talk about raising your blood pressure
I think the only part of that which I’d change is that it’d be 0% alcohol. On the plus side, it may make some of them taste better. I tried Captain Morgan’s 0% Spiced Rum and it tastes fucking awful.
On the other hand, I’d say Brewdog’s Alcohol Free Punk IPA tastes nice, and Guinness have done a fair job with their 0% cans.
I’m assuming people downvoted me to oblivion because LoL nOn AlCoHoLiC bEeR sUcKs.
But assuming we actually have a future in which clean drinking water is completely unviable and beer becomes the only option, I don’t see employers suddenly being okay with people being drunk at work. So it’s either alcohol free beers, or some other way of staying hydrated. Again, this is assuming we have no way of purifying our water.
And unfortunately beer won’t save us from the things most likely to make modern / near future water impotable. Except to the extent it makes us not care.
I believe the gist is that back in ye olden times when everybody was just throwing their sewage into the river, that beer was less likely to kill you because it’s boiled before it’s fermented. I don’t think they made the connection to boiling, but rather knew beer was a safer drink.
I’m spouting this off from memory without looking it up, so no guarantee I’m correct.
Here’s a good write up about it. Peasants had clean water and knew coming their water and sewage would have been a problem. www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/…/ce1r5xw/
In the case of sailors, where water was needed for extended voyages, transporting water in casks was impossible as it developed algae and would spoil quickly, becoming a health hazard. They added alcohol to make it not only more palatable but to prevent spoilage.
That’s the definition of drinking alcohol because it’s cleaner.
You’re going to get downvotes for not citing sources. You’ll also get downvotes for citing a reddit comment. People who are here tend to not want to go there, and people commenting there aren’t considered experts, which is why sources are required.
I clicked through and that person does cite references, but they use two books, and zero links. This is largely seen as not credible enough on the internet. People like citations, but want to be able to review the data themselves, thus disliking “trust me or buy this book.”
As an effort to demonstrate how you can do the thing without making people downvote you (and definitely, definitely never complain about or mention the downvoting or you’ll get more!) I have a reply.
I did a quick Google search for “did people in the middle ages drink beer instead of water” and got this articld which has several citations and says, “many did. Probably not everyone, and probably not all those who did were doing it because they thought it was healthier.” Which I personally liked, because it’s not the kind of absolutist view of huge populations I tend to find difficult to believe.
Normally I wouldn’t cite reddit. But askhistorians has a higher threshold for their answers. The links idea seems to be a catch-22 because you fall into “trust me or this random guy on the internet.” But alas, thank you for the reply.
It’s not just the boiling process. The alcohol in beer is anti-bacterial which allows the water to remain safer to drink for longer.
It wasn’t beer in many cases. Grog is basically rum, water, and limes/citrus which help sailors prevent scurvy whilst also protecting them from bacterial infections. I don’t believe they boiled the water at all in that case. I believe it was just mixed all together.
Is that proven about the alcohol level being antibacterial? Beer is pretty low on alcohol, even if they did strong beers back then, it would land around 10-12% or so. I am not sure that is enough to do anything to bacteria. Rum or other strong spirits, definitely yes.
To be fair, that beer was also generally much milder than modern beer, between 1-2% alc per volume (in Europe) , at least per historians and research papers I’ve read.
Edit: also most of those historians whose books I refer in this context are mostly Finnish, Swedish or German, so that should give some idea about my biases/sources. Its different in the Pacifics and Western Africa, I know.
Add comment