No disrespect perceived, you’re fine. It may be a Southern thing too - my wife is from the South and she also associates it with the seemingly endless dog whistles of her life there.

I think of it as “taking number substitution back”, or 20-14-19-2. We can’t let fascists, Nazis, and general scum bags ruin everything.

“Fiscal conservative” was always just a reputable seeming veneer for “we’d rather let poor people die than tax the wealthy at the same rate as everyone else”.

Everyone knows that geese are never silly, only hateful.

I had a high school girlfriend whose dad pulled that bullshit. I realized quickly that I didn’t like her enough to deal with that level of crazy.

Because the Overton window in the United States has many people viewing fascists as friends and anyone further left than center right as “extreme left wing socialist communist Nazi terrorists”.

Holy shit. I get it! That’s a great explanation and I really appreciate your taking the time to type it all out. I’m glad we don’t have Lemmy medallions to award but, if we did, I’d give you one. I now see how a 100% reserve requirement, i.e., all deposits completely backed in cash, would entirely change banking.

The only thing that feels weird to me is the virtual money the bank creates doesn’t seem go away once it’s paid back. For example, if a mini bank only had $1000 and lent $900 with a 10% reserve, they’d end up with $1900 once the loan is repaid (ignoring interest). Or does the $900 they lent create a -$900 for the bank that is cancelled through repayment?

I’ve been thinking about it and it still doesn’t make sense. I’m a scientist, not an economist, so it’s wildly out of my wheelhouse. Would you mind pointing me in the right direction?

Here’s where I’m hung up. Let’s assume a 10% fractional reserve and, for the sake of simplicity, just one bank and a dramatically simplified deposit/loan scenario, just to minimize the number of hypothetical people and transactions.

Person A deposits $1000. Bank lends $900 to person A which is sent to Person B.

Person B deposits $900. Bank lends $810 to person B which is sent to Person C.

Person C deposits $810. Bank lends $729 to person C which is sent to Person D.

Person D deposits $729. Bank lends $656 to person D which is sent to Person E.

Let’s stop there. So we have one initial deposit of $1000, which has resulted in an additional $2,493 in deposits ($3,493 in total) and $3,095 in loans. The bank is now receiving payments, plus interest, on over 3x the amount of actual money it was actually given. To me, it seems like the bank is figuratively “printing money” and gaining interest on it. Nothing I’ve read on fractional reserve lending has suggested this is incorrect.

Halp!

Or work for free in prison, after which you may be saddled with debt for your stay.

I learned to pick locks in my youth. I absolutely have picked my way into places and things to fuck with friends and family, but I always tell them. At some point.

One of my favorites was getting into my friend’s garden shed and turning everything upside down, then a few weeks later rearranging everything so it was a mirror image of how it was previously.

I’m always surprised how few people know about this. The banks are literally gaining interest on money they never had. It should be illegal.

I suppose they’re using the term troll to refer to a person engaging in behavior calculated to evoke a desired response while evading detection as doing such. It was actually used similarly in at least one academic paper back in the nineties: “Identity and deception in the virtual community”, by Judith S. Donath.

I was also surprised, then I read how this is based on two studies, one four and and the other six years old. Now it makes sense: this was during the good old days!

It’s not bad if you have money. Southern Italy is getting pretty toasty, though.

You just listed out the reasons I stopped at MSc! I’m all of those but only like half as much.

Obvious troll is obvious.

This is further proof that for every statement made, no matter how whimsical, there exists at least one person online who will tell you that you’re wrong.

-The Earth revolves around the sun.
-Ackchyually, they all revolve around the galactic center…

-Godzilla floats by increasing his volume.
-Ackchyualllllly, his volume doesn’t increase because lungs are on the outside… (Wtf?!)

-Cotton candy is my favorite fair food.
-Ackkkkkkchyualllllllllly, my review of the last three years of your comment history proves your favorite fair food is not, in fact, cotton candy. I have gathered and will prove this with ten points. Point one: your childhood experience with Geoffrey the Giraffe suggests…

Same! I was wondering why it made me so uncomfortable and I think I figured it out. It reminded me of the kind of things my friends and I would do to play when we were little kids, but it was done - ostensibly - by adults for adults and with high production value.

While it’s all fine and good to just say “hire the right people”, that’s a gross oversimplification. Those people became “right” through time and dedication, which led to experience. Not every employee will be a “right person” and none of them started out as one. Also consider that not every manager is a “right person”, so making SMART goals protects you from their managerial inadequacy.

SMART lays out how to both set and receive tasks, goals, assignments, etc., that are clearly defined. A goal lacking in one or more of these elements is what is commonly referred to as a “shitty goal”. Why? I’ll lay it out using the acronym from the perspective of an employee, plus an example for each of what can happen when that information is missing.

Specific: what does my boss actually want from me?
Converse - I completed the wrong task.

Measurable: how do I prove I did the task and how well it was done?
Converse - I did great work but can’t prove to the client how great it is.

Achievable: can the task actually be done with the time, knowledge, and resources available?
Converse - I agreed to complete a task which turned out to be impossible given our resources.

Relevant: how does the task relate to the job/project/etc?
Converse - I completed an unnecessary task. Now I have to work even more to undo it and complete what actually does need to be done.

Time: when does this need to be done by?
Converse - I completed the task after it was needed, putting the project behind.

If you’re missing any of those parameters, you’re either not giving your people enough information or they aren’t asking enough questions. I’d love to hear how work can be consistently done well if any of that is missing.

Those “right people” you mentioned are likely already incorporating these elements into communications with you. Dare say that makes them… SMARTer than you? Heyo!