I'm sorry to hear about all that. I hope you and your union can win the case, if not find a path for you and your wife to go through the ordeal in one piece, cause it sounds like you're basically trapped financially because of the repayment clause of the subsidy.

I imagine this is also partly the responsibility of the local government, given that they would be responsible for building the town to properly support the expected population growth? Though it also seems like it would be difficult for them to do much in really rural places in the short term, where there already is a lack of the necessary structures to provide these jobs, not to mention sustain these structures themselves.

And it's fine not to dox yourself by naming your employer. This sort of rug-pulling move is reminiscent of companies here in North America though. To be fair, given that remote working is a fairly new phenomenon, it's understandable that there simply isn't a lot of protections in place against such nasty behaviours. If the different levels of governments want to decentralize to better spread the population around the country though, perhaps I'm being naive, but actually encouraging remote working, and making it a safe route for people to take, would be a really good path forward for that.

Thank you for sharing your story and perspective. I'm sure it's been quite hard on you, so hope the conflict will be resolved soon, and satisfactorily.

I can't day I'm very well-informed on the issue as an outsider, but I've heard that the central government (at least in the recent past) have tried to encourage people to move out into inakas in an attempt to slow down or even reverse the migration trend. Some carrots, like housing subsidies if I remember correctly, are even offered, but there hasn't been many sticks, eg actually encouraging able firms to keep their jobs remote, from what I know.

So I guess my question is, has this sentiment / tone changed from the government (esp since the LDP has had a few leadership changes in the last few years)? I did hear of the intention to have a second capital, likely in Osaka, but that seems only tangentially related.

An individual switching is certainly ineffective, but if the switch affects other people in their household, especially children, then they will grow up knowing that there's a better alternative out there and potentially bring that to their workplace, especially in smaller companies. And it doesn't have to be a complete replacement at the workplace to start with either; it could be the adoption of a standard that doesn't require the use of big tech products, where people can use open products that support the open format.

This line of thinking is why big tech has a strong interest in putting their products into schools, as it shapes the expectations of schoolchildren of what tools are available.

I can do fullstack but only do backend at work. And that one time I said useState feels like a really dated solution, which was a really recent comment I made, the gasps I heard from the room was palpable and people had to calm themselves down.

It's a bit of an need-this-off-my-chest in making this comment, but I really abhor the thinking that we live in a world where it's every person for themselves, and so we should focus on just taking care of ourselves and others will sort of just take care of themselves. Those who step out of that lane are bound to be taken advantage of, and end up bringing ruin to themselves and those they love, and so anyone who does so are naive, idiots, or both. Honest and kind people never get what they want or need, and never achieve anything meaningful in life, because they'd be spending time for others when they could be spending those times on themselves.

And these sort of thinking seems to be pretty universal. It doesn't matter it's America, some country in Europe, or even in Asia.

To a lot of these people, this is the truth of the world and its rules. Anyone who doesn't follow are simply unaccepting of the truth, that the world is a cruel place and so we should be ruthlessly focused on the self. When a friend is about to make the wrong decision, it's their choice and that it should be respected, and they shall deal with those consequences, and maybe I'll help if I decide that I have the time and energy for it.

I... just hate such a world. Why must we go at the hardships of life all alone? Sure, we can't solve the world's and everyone else's problems, and especially when our own plate is full, and the feeling of just watching someone else suffer and not being able to do anything gives us a strong feeling of guilt and shame, and that sucks, and it can ruin our day or week and thus make it harder for us to solve our own problems. But it doesn't mean that each person should be the sole person to be responsible for their own happiness; we should all share an amount of responsibility in everyone else's happiness. Maybe that way, we'd all feel a lot less lonely in this world that's chock full of people.

A person decided to go on a murdering spree. Retribution as justice may help some victims find peace, and serve as a warning to others who dare emulate, but it doesn't address the root of the problem: why did they decide to kill? Some news coverage will end up digging up some tragic backstory, but we rarely seem to try to do things to prevent those tragic back stories to exist in the first place. Restorative justice is a good direction for future prevention, but I believe we need to be able to recognize the seeds that lead to tragedy and find ways to minimize their reproduction. Law and Order enforced through an iron fist will only hold for as long as the fist is still held. A society that knows how to reach out to others to help others before they succumb to hopelessness and crime, by fostering trust between people, seems fragile and reliant on honesty that's difficult to prove, but would that not maintain Law and Order for longer, given that embers are generally identified early on and be safely handled?

I've yapped. Sorry for just dumping a long reply on your comment.

I'll try to ELI5 here.

Suppose you need to borrow money, with a clear promise to pay back in the form of IOUs, and of course, there'll be interest paid on top.

As someone lending you money, I am essentially making an investment. However, there are other people that want to know that I am not putting too much money into this investment, especially cause the money I have is pooled from these people, and because, for example, they may not like you, and so they don't want their money to help you.

But I know that you're most likely going to pay back with good interest on top, so it'll be worth the money. So I'm just going to get some group of individuals, spread across different countries, one of them living in Canada, where I lend them the money, they promise to purchase your IOUs, and eventually, when you pay back, I get all the payments (and these individuals get a small slice).

Thus, on paper, I've sent my money to many countries, and that's what these other people who I got money from are seeing. But in reality, they're all buying your IOUs and I still effectively control them.

That explains the setup. Now to explain why this holding matters.

There's a thing I can do about these IOUs, in that they can be sold to someone else who's willing to buy them, whenever I need to. If I sell a lot of them away at a single time, I could sell them for cheap (without hurting my returns of course).

Now, you're still trying to gather more money and thus selling more IOUs. But if I'm selling your existing ones, people are only gonna buy mine if your new IOUs don't give the same amount of interest or more. If I sell your IOUs for slightly cheaper, they effectively give back more money, so the effective return is higher. So you have to match the promised interest that would outcompete that return, in order to be able to borrow more money. But it also means you have to pay back more later on.

If that made sense to you, then you've just understood the current situation of the records high US Treasury Yield, and why people are getting worried.

Now, why is my hiding of my actual holdings of your IOU a problem? Because it means you don't know how much I'm going to try to sell at a single time, which I can leverage to drive the yield rate even higher.

Now, why is this potentially an issue for Canada? The current US administration is shown itself to be very happy to hop on any bandwagon where they can blame Canada for its problems to try and justify its actions against Canada, especially in, you guessed it, making Canada the "51st State". I don't doubt that the US gov can trace the ownership of these "IOUs" back to China, but we aren't dealing with an administration that is sensible -- their agenda is the point and everything else, even truth and logic, is secondary.

If a public service isn't safe for criminals to communicate anymore, they'll just use something else. Plain and simple.

And so all the legislators end up doing, effectively, is to trample on everyone else's privacy.

Welp

You have now unlocked a new word!

Look around for Orihime. That's the name of these robots as well as the brand. There should be a number of them on YouTube.

They don't tend to do work that requires careful motor control, eg pouring a drink, from what I know. I haven't followed the news, but they used to just serve drinks, show the menu and explain them, etc.

Before I even looked at the link and click on the article, I thought it must be Japan, cause I remember reading something similar.

And I wasn't wrong.

Good to see other places adopting the same though.

Random uninitiated Japanese trivia time! :p

It's a lot more common to hear the Japanese imagine that cats would refer tp themselves using the first person pronoun wagahai (吾輩). The most important reason is because there is a book from 1905 called I am a cat (Wagahai wa neko de aru) that's "a frequent assignment to schoolchildren", and thus one of their eaely exposures to the more archaic form of Japanese. This has thus solidified their imagine of cats using wagahai to refer to themselves.

Incidentally, wagahai, while almost never used in modern Japan, is historically used by pompous scholars / educated people, so also conceited and hollowly arrogant. This is also captured in the same book above, where the cat would speak in very high register, i.e. the way people in, back then, high society would speak, likely given that it was a house cat owned by a teacher. As a cultural note, teachers were held in VERY high regards in most East and Southeast Asian societies back in those days, and they still are held in rather high regards even today.

All this to say is that, while ore-sama wouldn't be out of place for certain cats, especially those that act like rascals, given that most cats would act all high and mighty and treat us all humans as lowly peasants that are simply allowed to serve their noble selves, wagahai would certainly be the stronger image. From my impressions, the _ore-sama_s have generally been a bit more approachable as they generally don't mind being approached so that they can impress, but the _wagahai_s would definitely shoo you off when they don't feel like seeing you.

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.

As someone who played the original version of Trails in the Sky, I thought they really did a great job with the 3D remake, and I think it's a great way to get people into the series. So it makes me happy to see that people are enjoying it.

Yea, but I'd imagine it'd be hard to even bring all 4 out by themselves, that even before you get into the supermarket, it'd probably already be tiring. So I'd imagine they'd usually be out with their partner when they have all 4 kids with them. And I'd imagine the oldest would be at least a 5 year old in that scenario, 4 if the parents try really hard and get really lucky, and that's old enough to understand basic instructions and walk on their own. Tough luck if the eldest is playful, but, I mean, you know what you're getting into knowing your eldest is playful, but still deciding that bringing 4 young kids alone to a supermarket is gonna work out safely in a car-centric place (yeah, I think having people to push large carts to a car implies that the place is build for cars, which are inherently a dangerous for kids).

And heck, I grew up in such a family, though to be fair, I grew up in Asia, where it isn't uncommon to have extended family members all live in the same town, and help share the work of taking care of children. I understand that it simply isn't the culture in Western countries, especially North America. But we can make friends, and have them help watch the kids while we go get groceries, or have them help us get groceries, and either way pay them back in some way, right?

My whole refute isn't targeting any specific circumstance a person may have with how many or how naughty their children can be. The point is that the circumstance doesn't matter. Regardless of the circumstance, if they can't even consider the fact that they cannot take care of all those children on their own, but they have to bring the kids along anyways to a supermarket, and struggle to keep tabs on them all, then it tells me that

1. they don't have a stong or reliable enough social circle to help them with children when they need it,
2. they have bad decision-making abilities,
3. they may not understand their own circumstances.

All these suggest to me that they lack the ability to be an adult who is well-equipped to take care of their children, and putting the cart back is simply the manifestation of all these deficiencies.

In 2020 an eagle was found floating lifelessly in a Maine lake. A necropsy confirmed what experts suspected – the eagle threatened a common loon and its chick.

“It stabbed the eagle through the heart with its beak,” said Bird, adding that given the current political climate, the symbolism was “hard to ignore”.

Before reading the article: Lemme guess, it's the inability for developers to make enough affordable homes?

After reading the article: yeeeeaaaaapppp

Exactly. And depending on the kids, you could also make it a small, fun activity for them: help daddy/mommy/whatever you have your kids call you bring the cart to where it should be. It'd be no different from having the kids put their toys away, but just with something that may be beyond their strength, but you're an adult, so just pull the cart from the side enough to help the kids move the cart and steer it to avoid hitting stuff.

If the kids are tired, have em just walk like 30s more? If you can't even do that and your kid starts throwing a tantrum, then you have other problems with the kid and so you deal with it like you're supposed to anyways. The kid isn't going to just turn responsible without the parent doing something after all.

TIL this exists

But I must say... "can't leave a child unattended" is such an ass reason. Like, just bring the kids along? It's good education for the kids too. If they're a baby, well there are ways to carry a baby without using your hands. If you don't have one, then fine, but I also tells me that you have no one to rely on to take care of a baby for an hour or even two when you need it, and it makes me wonder what your relationship is with those around you.

You mean like Alto?

I'll assume you are asking in good faith / out of innocence, because this isn't a question that typically needs to be asked if you've lived with any group of people for some time.

Let's put laws aside for now, cause they can make this explanation more complicated than it needs to be.

Suppose you like jumping off cliffs for fun, and you've been skillful enough to not fall to your death. You jump off, feel the thrill, and you land safely — nothing bad happens. All is good.

One windy day, branches were flying around, and it was dark out. You wanted to jump anyway because, well, why not?

You jump.

A branch hit your face and scraped near your eye. You winced. And because you couldn't see well enough, you couldn't land like you always would. You didn't die, but you certainly got hurt, bad.

So you thought to yourself after that incident: maybe I shouldn't jump when it's windy and dark out, or maybe I'll wear eye protection when I jump.

You'll tell others not to do the same. Not everyone listens to you, because they thought, well, maybe you just weren't "careful enough". Maybe you don't care enough if they would believe or listen to you. But some people that you do care, say, your kids, also don't seem to listen to you. Despite your warnings, they'd still sneak out at night, on windy days, to go jump off the cliff for fun.

So what would you do?

"Poaches"? Who uses that word? Like researchers are animals for poaching?

Sees URL

Ahhh

FP, if you don't like what you're seeing so much, go back and tell your masters to properly support researchers, like they're humans with lives, and not fuck em over.

But oh wait, your masters fucking hate that!

Well, go pound sand then I guess.