pixxelkick

Fundamentally good CEOs expect a wage based on the market.

There's tonnes of high paying positions so, no, non profits truly will struggle to find an actually good CEO if they dont offer a competitive wage.

It's not their fault, it's the lack of regulation on all the for-profits and the fact they can funnel so much money up to CEOs unchecked.

If for-profits had regulatory checks that made them do that less, then non-profits wouldn't have to compete with nearly as insanely high wages.

IE if there was a law that CEOs couldn't be paid more than 10x their lowest paid worker, this problem would be a lot less insane.

It's not exactly the charities fault.

The real issue is that for profit companies can pay their CEOs this much, which means charities have to compete if they want a good CEO too.

In reality we should be cracking down on companies hoarding wealth towards to their CEOs at exorbitant rates, that way charities won't have to pay a wage like this just to function and even hire a CEO.

Historical odds of experiencing violence in the past has no relevance to discrete odds of danger now, correct.

Glad you finally figured it out.

Having experienced food poisoning 5 years ago has zero relevance to the question of "is this current dish I am about to eat safe?"

The latter is the discussion you are insisting on butting in on and trying to steer the convo towards the former.

No one gives a shit about your food poisoning from 5 years ago Karen, we are discussing if this dish right now is poisoned or not.

Don't go on Twitter... that actively funds musk.

Go everywhere but Twitter.

Do keep calling it Twitter though.

You interjected in the discussion with non-relevant stats, and are now getting mad when called out on it.

Your stats you are presenting aren't relevant to the post I made. Deal with it and go throw a tantrum somewhere else. I posted first, you are trying to talk over me

Go find an echo chamber to complain to instead of cluttering up discussions with irrelevance and throwing tantrums while people are trying to talk about the actual facts that are relevant.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

What is incoherent is someone being like “here’s factual data showing 60% of women have been sexually assaulted” and your response is “okay but 60% of women are not ACTIVELY being sexually assaulted”

What part about this do you not understand. It's not complicated.

There's a huge difference in "how many people have had their home burn down" vs "how many homes are at risk of burning down right now" and the latter was what was being originally discussed

They are entirely different conversations.

When the current actuall convo is about "what's the risk of your house burning down right now" and the answer is "quite low", but then you butt in and go "nuh uh, like 60% of people have had a house burn down in the past" you sound ridiculous.

You in that moment demonstrate either:

1. You don't understand how stats work and why your number is irrelevant to the convo. Or
2. You do know how they work, and thus are being actively disingenuous.

Either way, go figure yourself out. Your numbers aren't relevant here, go either find the numbers that are relevant, or at least stop muddling the waters with bad math.

Important context/rebuttal:

https://www.cupw.ca/en/negotiations-weekend-update

No, not really.

That logic only holds if american consumers have infinite money, which they dont. You cant just raise the prices indefinitely, eventually people just cant afford to buy the product so they dont buy it at all.

So it hurts everyone, the actual outcome is the product straight up just vaporizes off the proverbial shelves, you're supply dries up.

For canada this heavily includes:

• Automobiles, enjoy going back to having year long + waits for getting your car you wanna buy
• oil, gas prices will skyrocket because the US has its own supply, so people will still buy it but yeah, prices will just go sky high
• Machinery, including construction equipment, refinery equipment, turbines, etc etc. So this will result in massively hiked up city level taxes as your local power plants, processing plants, etc find their repairs skyrocket in costs. Also potentially a lot of refineries and plants will no longer be able to afford operating costs so they'll just shut down, so unemployment will skyrocket
• Medication, Im sure you see where that one ends up going...
• Aircraft and Spacecraft

I don't know how the US thinks this isn't just shuffling money around as the primary money for this is from federal spending, so they're literally just imposing tariffs on themselves, which is pretty stupid. Par for the course though.

completely incoherent Just because you dont understand the difference between discrete statistics vs historical doesnt mean its incoherent.

Understanding the difference between "whats the chance I get poisoned if I eat one M&M from the bowl" vs "whats the chance I get poisoned if I eat an entire handful" is something you should've learned in high school.

Representing one of those odds as the other is disingenuous, and will not win people over to your side, because people can usually intuitively tell the difference usually and go "that doesnt seem right..."

Which, in turn, is why shit like trump getting elected happens. The pattern of vastly over-inflating numbers to make shitty clickbait when the original meaningful numbers were already a big enough deal anyways has heavily polarized the landscape.

As long as people keep doing stupid shit like that, it's going to do the exact opposite of what you want. Instead of drawing people to any good causes it pushes them away, because they then just assume its all bullshit.

If you don't understand the vast difference between a discussion on discrete statistical odds vs cumulative odds, you probably shouldn't be trying to weigh in because all you are doing is just muddying the waters with bad numbers that aren't actually relevant to the core of the discussion, which just pisses people off and makes them turtle up more.

I get where you are coming from, but you just need to wrap your head around the fact the numbers you brought up have no bearing on anything I was talking about, they arent necessarily wrong, but they're just not relevant to what I was discussing, so it just came across as rude or uninformed at best, disingenuous at worst.

You do know some jobs can't be done remote right?

It's possible the two people are the two with jobs that require some potential in person intervention (IT being the main case)

If something physically fails, you can't exactly fix that remotely.

The fact only 2 people remained says to me they prolly had that sort of job, or, some people genuinely prefer working in the office.

Sounds crazy but some people don't have a comfortable set up at home and find it easier to focus in the office. I've had data where construction was right outside my window at home so yeah, I went into work to have some quiet.

Most of the time I prefer WFH, for sure.

But to pretend that literally everyone can always wfh, and always wants to, is silly and you've gone too far off the other end.

And the statement at the top implies the two people chose not to take PTO anyways. Maybe they wanted to save their PTO for christmas/new years.

Stop being so judgy lol

Ah I see, right so the key in your date is it's historical.

It's not a 60% victimization rate in discrete circumstances. It's a victimization rate hysterically.

Which is critical because there's an enormous difference between "60% of women are being victimized actively" vs "60% 9f women are reporting having been victimized at some point historically"

The difference is such:

Let's do the usual poisoned m&ms in a bowl analogy.

If 1% of m&ms are poisoned, but you grab 100 m&ms and eat them, your odds of getting poisoned are waaay higher than 1%, it's now 63%!

So on a discrete measure of "what percent of women are actively living in a victimizing situation right now" it will be fairly low, I don't know if we have that data.

But a woman moves through numerous situations in her life. She likely lives with many people, goes to many jobs, interacts with many strangers.

So while one discrete dice roll can have extremely low odds of a bad outcome, naturally living life inherently means you will roll that dice hundreds of times.

Inversely, when talking about "are women currently safe in their homes?" That's a discrete statistic, not historical.

It's like comparing eating a handful of the m&ms vs eating only 1 m&m, the numbers are wildly different and if you try and present one as the other, you will come across as disingenuous.

When discussing mortality rates, that's a discrete event, moat people typically only die once.

You either are, or are not, dead.

So when discussing whats most likely to kill you, you look at the discrete numbers and it's objectively fact that the discrete odds of being murdered are incredibly low compared to dying pretty much any other way.

While bring harassed historically is high, the odds a woman's current living situation right now is one of violence is much lower than 60%

Because if it was 60%, then the odds of being historically a victim of any type of violence would be pretty much 100%.

But the fact that number is 60% means the discrete number is, eyeballing it with rough numbers, going to be in the single digits.

There are communities of women where the victimization rate is over 60%.

I'm going to need to see some sources on that, that sounds incredibly high.