Did you stop reading before the "and" in that sentence?
If you can lower your cost basis while keeping revenues unchanged it will juke the stock price. Mark has been laying people off trying to get the stock back up from his major mistake.
you know there are actual no go zones like austin area in chicago. Why are you hiding behind 'conservative commentators' as a cover for your statement.
I don't know what you're talking about, but I spend about 60 minutes in Austin (the Chicago neighborhood) every day, and live across a street from it. Austin is not a "no go zone". Residents of one of the wealthiest suburbs in Chicago routinely bike through it on their way to work in the Loop.
> Man, 38, shot in the face in Austin.
> The 38-year-old was walking on the sidewalk when someone started shooting around 10:20 p.m. in the 4900 block of West Hubbard Street, according to police.
> Austin Neighbors Are Helping Each Other Get Mental Health Care After Shootings Near Preschool
> Some kids said they were too scared to play outside after hearing gunfire, a preschool leader said. A 20-year-old woman was killed and two men were wounded in two shootings days apart.
With respect, your argument is poorly informed and seems extrapolated from media stories. I don't know if you live in Chicagoland or not --- the belief you're expounding on is prevalent in suburban Chicago as well. It's false.
Once again: one of the wealthiest suburbs in Chicago is directly adjacent to Austin. I live in that suburb, across a street (that street would be Austin) from the neighborhood. People in Oak Park commute, on bicycles, through Austin. Notably, in the ~20 years I've lived here, I haven't heard a single story about any of those people being shot. Austin residents patronize our businesses. Much of Austin is middle class.
Austin is a troubled neighborhood (it is literally ground zero for US housing segregation), but it is absolutely not a "no-go zone". Words mean things. Ironically, people who "go" to Austin are probably much safer (essentially they _are_ safe there) than young male Black residents, who are the exclusive targets of the gang violence that occurs there.
You get the same weird arguments about the neighborhoods immediately surrounding Hyde Park on the south side, and the same rebuttals apply.
its not "argument" though, i don't see what 'wealthiest suburbs' have to do with shootings in austin. Yes suburbs including the one you live in are safer. Not sure what that has to do with anything. CabriniGreen used to be next to rivernorth.
> I don't know if you live in Chicagoland or not
I've lived in pilsen for last 25 years and grew up here. I don't live in the burbs. I know what 'no go zones' mean, the block i grew up on in west pilsen used to be one ( but not anymore) . I now live on the edge of 'no go zone' in pilsen ( east of western ) . My wife works for charter school in englewood where i do weekly drop off and pickup. Englewood is a 'no go' zone for us, meaning we won't go there if we have no business being there, we never make a stop in that neighborhood ( like the cyclists you mention) .
you choose live white majority suburb with double the median income but not in austin. That revealed preference proves that Austin was a 'no go' zone for you? Going to coffeshop once in a while doesn't really count, imo.
> is absolutely not a "no-go zone". Words mean things.
You said austin is not a no go zone, can you give me an example of an area considered no go zone. Perhaps that will clarify.
> Notably, in the ~20 years I've lived here, I haven't heard a single story about any of those people being shot.
I just gave you two examples from last 2 months of ppl getting shot by stray bullets. What does you personally hearing about cyclists have to do with anything? This type of statement is really hard to respond to.
Look. This is an exceedingly stupid thread and I should know better than to comment on it. But clearly you 2 are arguing about the definition of a “no-go” zone, which is not rigorously defined.
But you’ve posited in this comment that one criteria is the count of people getting shot in the last month. By that argument River North[0] is a no go zone. Which, perhaps it is for you, but thats not an interesting social commentary because it means that effectively all urban US neighborhoods are. Just say you won’t go to US urban environments. We get it.
At the end of the day, in Chicago, the tragic gun violence problem is real. But counter-intuitively its not real for people that _visit_ neighborhoods. Its real for the young men that live there. And by invoking “no-go” rhetoric you hide the real problem. That years of public policy have made certain neighborhoods extremely dangerous for those that live there, but ironically, not for those that visit.
> Just say you won’t go to US urban environments. We get it.
I grew up in pilsen which was gang controlled 'no go zone' until it got gentrified over last 1-2 decades on the east side. We knew which gangs controlled which areas, we are only a few blocks away from El Chapo's 'The Pilsen twins' family home ( never saw them though) . People who live here and raise families here know where 'no go zones' are and stay away from. If you visit any local here for a few you will get a lecture about which areas are 'no go' gang controlled zones ( south of cermak and west of western).
Ofcouse, you can 'go' to gentrified restaurants and coffee shops on 18th st/Thalia hall and get 'the experience' for outsiders and suburbanites. Doesn't mean there aren't no go zones in pilsen.
It frustrating to me that people who chose live in white segregated suburbs ( 'for aesthetic reasons', code for not too many non whites ) and send their kids to segregated schools are lecturing us what words to use and what to call ourselves. I personally detest these white ppl more than Tucker Carlson types. Yes they are 'no go zones' and govt/community should fix it, calling them 'problematic areas' instead isn't a fix.
Dude, don't call parts of Chicago "no-go zones" and then try to high-horse residential segregation. I'm up front about how my decisions have fed into our pathologies. Try to be more honest about yours.
We considered Oak Park and Lincoln Square in the city proper for aesthetic reasons, and chose Oak Park for the schools (I'm retrospectively unhappy we did that, since we contributed to school segregation by opting into a de facto private school system, but whatever).
But even if we hadn't, and we'd simply chosen Oak Park over Austin, that wouldn't be a "revealing" preference. Austin is troubled and disinvested, again by dint of being the literal ground zero for post-redlining US housing segregation. At the beginning of the 1970s Austin was majority white; by the end it was over 90% Black, because of panic selling and white flight. There aren't that many restaurants, few grocery stores, &c, all as a result (if you're a middle class family in Austin, chances are you shop in Oak Park).
I think Austin is pretty neat; wide tree-lined blocks with some great, big houses. But I'm not arguing that it's unproblematic. It certainly is.
As for the definition of "no-go zone", Wikipedia's will suffice. Austin compares with literally none of the many examples given. You can go to Austin; you will be just fine.
Incidentally: people in Chicago have generally the same feelings about Auburn and Grand Crossing as they do about Englewood, but people still go to Lem's. It's true: I have no reason to go to Englewood. I also know less about it than I know about Austin. But Austin is simply not a no-go zone.
I don't know if there are or there aren't, but none of the descriptions of "no-go zones" anywhere in the world on Wikipedia apply to Austin. I'm not arguing "it's not a no-go zone because Wikipedia doesn't list it as one"; I'm saying the definition simply doesn't apply. You can go there. You will be fine. People go there constantly.
Cabrini Green, by the way? Never a no-go zone. I went to high school across the street from the old ABLA high-rises. Housing projects do not equate to "no-go zones".
yea for sure if you are using wikipedia definition ( but you mentioned something about cyclists and stray bullets) . No city or town in USA qualifies that definition. We use 'don't take your kids to the park there' definition in our neighborhood ( maybe what you are referring to as 'problematic') . I wouldn't take my kids to austin parks where stray bullets are flying around. Maybe we are more aware of this stuff than ppl in burbs because our neighborhood in pilsen is not completely safe even now. We have to be extra caution going out with kids .
https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/02/15/facing-spike-in-murd...
Totally false. It happened just last weekend in Oak Park, and a few months earlier at a gas station in Oak Park (that resulted in us, idiotically, banning 24/7 gas stations).
If you'd just said "places like Austin have high crime" or something, we wouldn't be on this thread. But you said it was a "no-go zone", doubled down, then walked the definition back to "places I'd be comfortable hanging out with my kid in the park".
We can be done with the thread now; I'm happy with what it says about our respective arguments. My suggestion is maybe strike the term "no-go zone" from your vocabulary. It's mostly politically charged bullshit. But in any of its reasonable definitions, it doesn't apply to Austin, and didn't apply to Cabrini.
There is usually a huge congregation of homeless there by afternoon. And its even worse inside the library. You get hit with stench as soon as you open the library door.
Sucks because libarians have exceptional knowledge that any book lover would enjoy talking to.
> You're describing a local problem.
Unless you are suggesting middle class can only exist in the burbs and small towns.
I 've lived in pilsen chicago for over 25 yrs, this is my home. Hate to relocate in next few yrs because now i have newborn.
If money is by far your top priority, sure. But the shortest path to the title might be a miserable one filled with politics, stressful high visibility projects with ton of micro management and extra hours.
In the meantime, I went from junior to principal on a slightly longer path but I side stepped most of the downsides of the shortest path.
I would even argue that because I was less pressured and overworked, I had the energy and excitement necessary to get involved with more initiatives and was perceived as more productive than some of my peers who were powering through massive features!
You can think of it as the 80/20 rule or "Slow and steady win the race."
You're missing the point. Putting yourself in a position where you're close to indispensable gets you the title. Because the company now has to make a choice, stop having person X manage some area and find a new person who's not as good or won't be for some time, or just forget about the politics and rubrics and other annoying BS and give person X the title and raise. Way cheaper for the company to do the latter. Usually a better strategy too because you retain talent. I've known a few title chasers in my time and they don't last long. /2cents
The caveat here is that you need to be truly indispensable. This may not always be your piece of the company. As key initiatives change, you either need to change or risk being dispensable. The truth is we are all dispensable at some point.
Your attrition may be regretted, but you can be replaced.
> Putting yourself in a position where you're close to indispensable gets you the title.
If you are indispensable at maintaining convoluted stored proceduces with business rules baked into them . Most likely you won't get the next level position which would need company to find somoneelse.
Thank you! A lot of posts seem to be focused on when things go wrong (which I DO need to hear of course), so it's good to get a simple reminder like this one.
How about everyone taking a long flight or just staying at a hotel etc?
That IMO is where VR glasses are actually a pretty good fit. Carry lightweight laptop through the airport and still get to use a 32” monitor on the go. Granted the current hardware not exactly ideal, but it’s close enough to be a reasonable option.
Don't underestimate the unwieldy shape of these headsets, they aren't very bag-friendly. The Apple design seems to do some compromises to decrease bulk but it still won't nicely slip between other stuff. Portable displays on the other hand, they are wildly underappreciated because so many still haven't the slightest idea that product category exists. They offer a very favorable bulk/utility trade-off and allow day on day scaling between the extremes of the smallest laptop you can find and what could be considered a mobile workstation.
These devices are currently bulky, but you can easily but them and a a bunch of other stuff into an under seat airline bag. The weight and volume is annoying but not a dealbreaker.
Also, I think we can all agree the form factor is likely to improve over time. Portable displays meanwhile have inherent limitations in use ie an airline seat.
No one in my family is overweight or has any sort of health issues
As you are aware, it is kind of a rude question, but also a weird one
Not sure why you’d ask that given my anecdote
Pretty much all parents I know describe the same situation of not getting sick very often before kids, and that completely changing once their kids start going to daycare/school
> No one in my family is overweight or has any sort of health issues
> As you are aware, it is kind of a rude question, but also a weird one
The (US) media drilled into us for years that being overweight/obese may as well be a covid death sentence, doing things like stating how many covid hospitalizations/deaths were overweight/obese without context. So it's become very easy for people to jump on that.
The missing context was that if you actually compared like-for-like, using the real rates in the general US population... overweight/obesity has (almost) no effect. They just left that part out so the number sounded high, or compared "obese" in the population to "overweight or obese" in hospitalizations.
> 78% of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the US overweight or obese, CDC finds
> Among 71,491 U.S. adults who were hospitalized with COVID-19, 27.8 percent were overweight and 50.2 were obese, according to the CDC's latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published March 8.
> Percent of adults aged 20 and over with obesity: 41.9% (2017-March 2020)
> Percent of adults aged 20 and over with overweight, including obesity: 73.6% (2017-2018)
It's not no effect at all, but the effect is pretty small. It definitely doesn't deserve as much attention as it's gotten, especially relative to other risks like age. I think I vaguely remember diabetes was another risk factor barely talked about that has a higher effect than weight.
---
> but wasn't sure what ' like -for-like' means in this context
Some of the reporting would include the population context, but would say "78% of hospitalized patients were overweight or obese" and compare it directly to "41% of the US population is obese". It's technically correct but extremely misleading, since the reader will compare those two numbers directly even though they're not the same thing.
Sorry didn't mean to offend. I have prediabtes and dr told me that it could lower my immunity. That was his response when i asked him if there is anything i could do to stop getting sick.
> No one in my family is overweight or has any sort of health issues
same here. I am not obese or have any visible health issues but have high fasting glucose and prediabetes a1c. Even prediabetes can impair the immune system.
This doesn't contradict your anecdote though. Its totally possible that you and your friends are getting more sick now given increased exposure and high rates of prediabetes in the country ( 41% of men , 1/3 overall population)
feeling of power and purpose?