Those are rookie numbers, e621 has way more fapping material I mean posts under those tags

what do you mean you don’t want that duckussy

I think a more apt description would be that one of the buses doesn’t move while the other will drive you off a cliff. Neither are good, but one is clearly much worse.

Sadly seems to be a common problem in social media platforms. Twitter became way worse at dealing with CSAM under Musk, and Instagram looks like it’s putting in no effort at all to combat it either.

I used to mod some fairly big communities on one of my Reddit alts and every now and then the spam filter would remove some post or comment linking to CP. Possibly the only compliment I have of Reddit at this point is that their spam filtering seems to work decently well (at least when it comes to posts and comments, not sure how it might be for DMs).

he’s ANGY

I’ve seen discount Kermit Peterson try to pivot to the idea that climate change actually saves lives because more people die during winter. I wonder if he’d be willing to say that to the face of people who have lost everything because of the recent Hilary storm.

Oh well, it is what it is, guess I’ll add the /s

haha I just put “theocratic fascist” in my bio as a joke guys

isn’t that funny guys? I’m so edgy haha

/s

Honestly not enough furry artists have joined Mastodon for me to care to make an account. I heard there’s a lot joining Bsky though so I’ll check it out if I eventually get an invite.

But that will teach them that free stuff is good which will make them communists who love big government!!1! I want children to hunt for their own food like in the good old days. Didn’t catch anything? Too bad little Timmy, guess you won’t eat tonight because we don’t got no welfare state!

Also I believe in protecting the children and am pro-life.

/s

deleted by creator

I’d guess it’s one of those “make people dependent on our free/cheap product then increase the price later” kind of deal

There’s a few reasons. From a substack I wrote a while back:

A 2014 study analyzed the data of more than 7400 people and found that “perceptions of preborn humanness explained very little of right–left differences in abortion support, and the association between preborn humanness perceptions and abortion opposition was no stronger for those on the political right (vs. left).”4

By contrast, a 2017 study found that sexism accounted for 30% to 70% of the left-right difference in abortion stance even after controlling for other relevant variables.5 An earlier study found that authoritarianism had a significant correlation with an anti-abortion position and aggression towards women,6 and a 2019 study found that right-wing authoritarianism had a significant correlation with anti-abortion stigma both before and after controlling for other variables.7

A Pew poll also found that 33% of Americans simultaneously believe that a fetus is a person with rights and that the decision to abort should be up to the woman, so the idea that life begins at conception explains only some of the difference in abortion opinion, with it mostly being determined by factors such as sexism, religiosity and sex. It should go without saying that Republican politicians are mostly conservative religious men, and there’s far less diversity of demographics and opinions among them compared to their constituents, and the Republican party takes sexual abuse far less seriously than Democrats.

In that same Pew poll they also found that while a significant chunk of Republicans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a majority (60%) still believed that abortion should stay illegal in most or all cases. So Republican politicians may also believe that this is still a winning issue for them in the culture war (although the “red wave” that never was may suggest otherwise).

The GOP also gets a lot of donations from anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion religious groups, so they are undoubtedly motivated to please said donators to keep the money coming, even at the expense of their voters.

Child with jaundice is possessed and kills an entire race. Unless you decide to flirt with them, in which case you get to save said race and also get a new mommy.

Also there’s lore or something? I’m not sure since all the puns distracted me.

Edit: As u/Semi-Hemi-Demigod pointed out, one of the authors of this paper has his own connections to pro-business/anti-worker groups, which may have biased the conclusions of this review.

I’m definitely no specialist on this topic, but to me it seems questionable to generalize the conclusions of that review to all remote workers. From section 3.a, where they analyze the productivity of fully remote workers:

[…] Emmanuel and Harrington (2023) use data from a Fortune 500 firm which had both in-person and remote call centers pre-pandemic. […] Using the always remote call-centers as the control group they find an 8% reduction in call volumes among employees who shifted from fully in-person to fully remote work.

Extending the results of one call-center to all other companies would be very shortsighted, and the fact that this shift to remote work happened quickly during the COVID pandemic is very likely to affect the results. Still, it could be evidence that for this type of industry specifically fully-remote work may have a negative effect. Nonetheless, the authors of the paper offer a more nuanced analysis, finding that remote work actually increased the productivity of workers who were already in the company:

[…] We find that working remotely increased call-center workers’ productivity. When previously on-site workers took up opportunities to go remote in 2018, their hourly calls rose by 7.5%. Similarly, when COVID-19 closed on-site call centers, a difference-in-difference suggests that the productivity of workers who switched to remote work rose by 7.6% relative to their already remote peers.

What their results suggest instead is that people who are overall less productive are more likely to seek remote work:

Despite these positive productivity effects, remote workers were 12pp less likely to be promoted. If better workers are more concerned about being overlooked in remote jobs, remote workers will be adversely selected. Consistent with this theory, we find evidence that remote work attracted latently less productive workers. When all workers were remote due to COVID-19, those who were hired into remote jobs were 18% less productive than those who were hired into on-site jobs.

Going back to the main review, the next study they cite didn’t actually find a decrease in productivity, only finding that workers spent more hours working to do the same job:

Gibbs, Mengel and Siemroth (2022) examine IT professionals in a large Indian technology company who shifted to fully remote work at the onset of the pandemic. Measured performance among these workers remained constant while remote but they worked longer hours, implying a drop in employee productivity of 8% to 19%.

Indeed, working more hours doesn’t mean productivity will increase, but to frame this as a drop in productivity because workers can simply do their jobs at a more calm pace seems rather disingenuous to me.

Atkin, Schoar, and Shinde (2023) run a randomized control trial of data-entry workers in India, randomizing between working fully in the office and fully at home. They find home-workers are 18% less productive.

Similar to the first study they found that the workers who prefer to work from home are less productive when doing so, which partially explained the lower productivity:

[…] We find negative selection effects for office-based work: workers who prefer home-based work are 12% faster and more accurate at baseline. We also find a negative selection on treatment: workers who prefer home work are much less productive at home than at the office (27% less compared to 13% less for workers who prefer the office).

Still, because this study focused specifically on one data-entry company and only included 234 workers in their final sample, we should be careful with generalizing their findings.

Ultimately even if we take the conclusions of the review at face value, the authors themselves point out that mixing remote and in-person work doesn’t seem to lower productivity, and remote work can still be an attractive option for companies because it reduces on-site costs:

[…] Fully remote work is associated with about 10% lower productivity than fully in-person work. Challenges with communicating remotely, barriers to mentoring, building culture and issues with self-motivation appear to be factors. But fully remote work can generate even larger cost reductions from space savings and global hiring, making it a popular option for firms. Hybrid working appears to have no impact on productivity but is also popular with firms because it improves employee recruitment and retention. Looking ahead we predict working from home will continue to grow because of the expansion in research and development into new technologies to improve remote working. Hence, the pandemic generated both a one-off jump and a longer-run growth acceleration in working from home.

There are a lot of other studies on remote working with conflicting results, with some finding an increase in worker productivity while others suggest the opposite, and as the section dedicated to COVID-19 on the Wiki states the effects of remote work can vary depending on the earnings and position of the worker.

As some of the previous studies point out the drop in productivity is in part due to less productive workers self-selecting into remote positions, and due to remote training at the start of the job being less adequate. Hence what seems like the most reasonable solution to me is in-person training for the first few weeks, then a mix of in-person and remote work for employees who want it - and even if there is some drop in productivity, I ultimately agree with you that the improved life-work balance and worker satisfaction that remote work gives to some people is worth the cost.

It’s literally just this comic but unironically

Justice workers just straight up endorse more racist views against blacks compared to whites, and cops are more likely to shoot an unarmed black person. The data on this could not be more clear, and people who insist that racism is not still a problem in America are either willfully ignorant or just lying.

Let the pathOwOgen flow through you…