Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
Oh, so they're literally fucking insane.
I went looking for more articles about this and came across a Reddit thread where the top comment was:
Which would certainly be less insane than what The Hill claims is the true reason. Another comment said:
Which definitely rings true (think: the kind of person who insists cashiers should stand up for...some reason).
Snopes marks the claim that it's due to the mark of the beast as false, but reading their reasoning, this seems too strong a position to me. More accurate would be to say it's not explicitly supported by evidence. Because the official reasoning that is given also feels really flimsy.
No shit. Human beings can't read the random string of numbers you use currently, either.
Bullshit. You think other stores in your industry don't get stuff from the same places?
Ok? Can't be worse than by hand.
This certainly sounds like the most believable part. Not that it's true: this is exactly that fundie bullshit the Redditor I quoted above was talking about. But it's believable that a fundie store might believe it to be true.
Everything I've read suggests the exact opposite.
wtf does "squandered" mean, exactly? Be precise.
There's no way POS software require reprogramming to enter in sales.
Not for a company with estimated annual revenue of $8 billion, it's not.
I will say, doing things the hard way is virtuous. It makes you stronger, it makes you wiser and more flexible.
But that's very different from doing things the stupid way. Putting weights on your arms to do laundry improves you. Doing laundry with vegetable oil instead of detergent is just being an idiot
This is not true in all cases. If you want to go from New York to Maine, traveling South until you loop around and come to Maine from the north isn't somehow more virtuous.
There's a distinct difference between doing something "the hard way" and adding unnecessary complications. "The hard way" is just a faster way of saying "without all the modern conveniences." New York to Maine the hard way would be walking rather than driving.
The virtue in doing something the hard way is that it gives you a clearer look at the details. Walking from New York to Maine would give you a much more intimate understanding of the terrain than driving or flying.
That's not inherently "virtuous".
I don't think we have a shared definition of virtuous, but I think it often depends on context. Taking longer to do something such that a deadline is missed and people suffer isn't desirable.
I don't think "the hard way is more virtuous" is defensible without adding so many exceptions and clarifications it's not saying anything at all.
I'm actually really curious to hear your definition of virtuous! For me, it's the 'has an overall positive effect' definition, not the wishy-washy 'moral' one.
If I was going to answer from the hip I'd probably say something something similar. Taking "virtuous" to mean "good". Virtuous then to me means something like "benefitting without harming others, or minimizing unavoidable harm"
Typically I'd say riding a bike to your friend's place is more virtuous than taking a car. Not because it's harder, but because taking a car has many harms. Burning non renewable fuel and other pollution, encouraging a car-first culture, taking up extra space, extra wear on infrastructure, etc.
Picking up litter I think is virtuous. Making the area nicer. It's not less virtuous to do it with a broom than your bare hands.
Maybe virtuous also can include "taking on hardship so other's don't have to". Cleaning up litter. Letting someone else sit down on the subway. That kind of stuff. Those aren't virtuous acts because they're hard. They're virtuous because they help people. It would be hard to put a bunch of painted pumpkins on the street, but that's not benefitting anyone, so I wouldn't say it's virtuous.
Virtue is probably detracted if you're doing it for gain. If I'm getting paid to pick up litter, it's less impressive.
Anyway. Writing this on my phone while walking. Kind of a rambling answer, but hopefully it supports my position of "it's not difficulty alone that elevates an act to virtuous"
I'd say we're fully in agreement then. I certainly didn't mean to imply that adding difficulty alone was somehow automatically virtuous. It's maybe better to say there's virtue in doing some things the hard way.
I'mma go with "its useful" to do things the hard way often enough to stay in-practice, as the hard way is both often a backup method and either the method newbies are trained on, or a differentiator between newbies who would rather let things slide when the easy way isn't working, versus motivated people worth incentivizing.
Sometimes the incentive is "not having to attend remedial training", sometimes its additional training and raise/promotion opportunities. Its worth remembering that todays hard way was often the new, easier way in the past.
It can be useful to do things the hard way. But to clarify, my position isn't "never do things the hard way". I was only saying that the hard way is not in all cases virtuous. There's no innate virtue in difficulty.