> What are you having trouble finding, out of curiosity?
Five employees couldn't find the macarons (I found them next to the raw chicken!?)
The snack bars are being moved around. Now some of the ones we buy are with the toothpaste!?
My wife asks me to pick up some sort of caffeine product. There's three spots they could be in she tells me to look. Sometimes that doesn't work either.
We're considering cancelling. We don't drive much and our vehicles are electric. Not a lot of extra money for their vacation packages.
No one seriously wants to compare the relative merits of child factory slavery and traditional child bride type situations. Like literally no one here is saying "its better to enslave children in factories compared to having them exchange their womb for protection from a local man."
Being forced to do anything is bad. Having an evaluation of your options is good. I don't think a facial argument can be made you're better off in the factory, although it might be true. I can think of many scenarios where I'd rather be in the factory, but also many where perhaps I'd prefer to have some selection of pastoral herding families to marry into over being funneled into "the one factory" where the god-billionaire has even more power than a vindictive husband.
I'm certainly not going to look at a piece of paper that says "factory move into town and women (or chidlren) took the jobs" and then just declare the women are better off. What happened before that factory was there? Did they buy off the agricultural or herding land and turn it into a waste dump? Are the power dynamics against women even worse now, where before it was a decentralized network of husbands but now one centralized hierarchal company with bosses that are even more above the law than the husband was? I don't know.
Here is some evidence: https://womensenews.org/2002/07/bangladesh-garment-workers-h...
“Ever since I started working in the garment factory, my life has changed. For the first time, I am not being looked upon as a burden. It has improved my status within the family,” said 19-year-old Chobi Mahmud, a garment worker in Dhaka.
I'd be interested to know what happened when this transition took place in Europe and the UK, because we'd have the advantage of hundreds of years of history to inform the outcomes. It's easy to forget that our great grandparents and grandparents experienced roughly the same dichotomy between living on a farm raising kids and going to work for a capitalist owner of a factory for a meager wage. The romanticization of that period paints a picture of choice that I don't really buy. It seems like your desire to find nuance is validated by what I do already know.
> simply stating "stayed in school" feels like an oversimplification of what was done here
> Am I misunderstanding something here?
"Stayed in school" is a clear, binary condition that's easily measured and has obvious benefits to everyone because everyone is at least a little educated.
If I ask you "is your house temperature livable?" and you say "the thermometer says 20", answered. You didn't say "well, I purchased and installed a heat pump and duct distribution system capable of forcing warmed air to be distributed to the remainder of the house, which keeps the temperature in a habitable range, then ensured power supply remains connected and kept it on" and say I didn't really explain the important part.
Except that your example is a simple conversation vs explaining the outcome of a study/program. That immediately requires more information to actually convey what did and did not happen.
For example, I could read the actual details on this and possibly determine that they replace school with some other (cheaper) program that just keeps the girls busy.
Or I could determine that all we really need to do is launch an outreach marketing program encouraging that girls stay in school and ignore all of the other support that was given.
One of those is supported by the headline and one is supported by the lack of information about what actually helped.
If by your example there was a study on how we made a previously unlivable area, suitable for humans in their homes but all it said was "well the temperature is X" than you would have questions on how exactly that was achieved.
Same with living in space, if NASA told us that the way astronauts are living on the space station with "well there is oxygen" we wouldn't accept that because there is obviously more going on.
Wanting to actually know what the full picture is allows us to reproduce it.
Buying the panel box which is unchanged from the last 70 years and costs $50 less than a nicer new style, but also our houses are big enough the panel is nearly always in a mechanical room so who cares what it looks like.
The ones I think they are referring to a more like industrial control cabinets with DIN mounted breakers, which are indeed (paradoxically) less ‘old industrial’ looking. That Leviton board has a similar look, but with the standard bus bar type mounting in a heavy metal box.
The metal box does serve a useful purpose, which is protecting the flammable wood framing typical in North American construction from fire, where most European and Asian boxes are either much thinner metal, or plastic. Because their construction is often concrete and fire danger is much lower.
> A robot to pull 100 acres of white mustard and weeds is what?
Lets step back and say: could a bunch of humans with hand tools do this?
Yes, they could. (As opposed to, say, eradicating horsetail: if we can't even do it ourselves, then no, we definitely aren't getting a robot to do it).
One way could be the lasers-on-trailer approach, burn the undesirable plants so they're sufficiently uncompetitive. Another could have arms and cutters to reach down and sever the plant below the surface.
Either of the above could instead be a smaller autonomous robot working as part of a swarm day and night.
Too many, but at least some are directly on vehicles. Transit (in the USA, on the West coast) is funded >90% by taxes on income, property, vehicle registration, fuel, etc not by the people using it.
It depends on the population density. You may have a perfectly well designed route for the area, but there are only so many people per hour that want to take a trip. You can delete routes and make people walk further, but that makes the trip take longer and not everyone can or wants to walk a long ways to the bus stop.
Different population densities have different optimal vehicle sizes. It's the same reason a small city airport might have one or two regional jets per day serving it instead of 2 747s per week.
Partially not, as gas taxes cover part of it. I think gas and diesel taxes should cover the full cost of roads, which would help. Still doesn't mean transit should be run so inefficiently.
FWIW, some States require roads be funded exclusively with gas and use (e.g. vehicle registration) taxes. This does seem to significantly incentivize efficiency and long-term planning because their budget has to anticipate variable revenue.
Five employees couldn't find the macarons (I found them next to the raw chicken!?)
The snack bars are being moved around. Now some of the ones we buy are with the toothpaste!?
My wife asks me to pick up some sort of caffeine product. There's three spots they could be in she tells me to look. Sometimes that doesn't work either.
We're considering cancelling. We don't drive much and our vehicles are electric. Not a lot of extra money for their vacation packages.
reply