That reminds me beer ads in eastern Europe :). They show successful people enjoying themselves in a cosy pub. But reality is vomit and alcoholism. Not sure that someone selling an unhealthy legal drug/stimulator is a good role model. Unless you are trying to build a better Happy Farm clone.
One reality of beer is vomit and alcoholism. Another reality is people, of many socioeconomic demographics, including successful people, enjoying it socially without vomiting or alcoholism. Of course you sell on benefits.
And maybe ironically and/or coincidentally, the only thing I associate Red Bull with is drinking it with vodka.
I'm not sure how much effect it's had on sales figures, but I'm convinced Red Bull is the only soft drink whose flavour is actually improved by adding vodka.
That is dramatic! Yeah, some young people vomit, some people become alcoholics... But the vast majority of people enjoy those beverages to varying degrees and quantities and most successful people have a beer or two every now and then.
Same thing with Red Bull. I don't drink it often but every once in a while I grab one when I need a little more energy.
Yeesh...if your experiences with beer have been vomit and alcoholism, then you either have a very strange group of friends, or an allergy to something in beer.
Beer has been an integral part of the human experience for a very long time.
"Any programmer ignoring JavaScript is doing themselves a disservice."
Not really. You get to work with a buggy language and you loose competitive edge on the work market. Management's/business's point of view could be different though.
One person's freedom to speak, another's freedom to censure them, both of which are covered under the first amendment. I don't understand the problem with this.
"I’ve always dreamed of having a little house, a really small little house" the thing is that it's not economically possible for everyone to have those.
What? Why? Economically possible would mean that our society is not productive enough, that it doesn't have the capacity, to produce small little houses for everyone who wishes one. I doubt that is true in any modern economical system.
It isn't about the demand not being there, nor the supply lacking. The issue is the distribution of wealth and how much the poorest workers in America get paid and the insane cost of living associated with the "American Dream"
America is a big place. There are a lot of places suitable for living out different dreams. Some (many?) dreams are just not conducive to some (many?) situations/locations, others are.
Buying into dreams promoted by the wealthy are expensive. A lot of what we consider normal, even vital, is the result of accepting advertising's message; wasn't long ago such was considered luxurious, even impossible.
Living [sub]urban lifestyles requires reliance upon others for pretty much everything, with many layers of middlemen taking a cut for profit & raising prices; that's not a condemnation, just observation of reality. Shorten the distance & layers between source & use.
Okay, call me dumb, but I don't get it. I looked up wikipedia, and I still don't get it. What, in economics, is analogous to fermions and quantum state?
Assertion: In any modern economical system, capacity exists to produce small houses for "everyone who wishes one".
Disproof: For certain possible values of "everyone", the Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents the simultaneous existence of a sufficient number of distinct small houses.
"Living wages" supported by the only major industrialized economy not to be smashed by the two World Wars. And a labor market that actively limited its participants for many of its most rewarding roles to almost exclusively white men.
I don't get this nostalgia for the 1950's. Things have gotten radically better in essentially all aspects of life since then.
Certainly things were far from ideal in the 1950s, but pay equity was still a thing then. The CEO of the biggest corporation weren't be making thousands of times more than the people in the factories assembling the products.
Until around 1980 when things started to get a little crazy, or 1990 when they started to get intensely crazy, CEO pay was around 20-40 times that of the average worker. Now, given that a lot of manufacturing is out-sourced to countries where dollars per day is the norm and a CEO's salary of $50M a year is not abnormal, it may be that the disparity is as high as 50,000x.
It's not that the money isn't out there, it's just being concentrated to a dangerous degree.
Remember that it's not a good idea to equate "didn't have thousands of times the taxable income [in the 1950s]" with "didn't make thousands of times more" except for the purpose of misleading people. Comparing taxable income then to taxable income now is a mistake, because it was a time of 90% tax rates and not coincidentally a time of people moving heaven and earth to get their compensation in any form other than taxable income.
And even if they weren't radically better there is very little that is easy to do other than destroying other countries investments that would allow a return to such a state.
What nonsense. On any given night in the US, there are more unoccupied residential spaces (homes, apartments, etc) than there are homeless people. The problem is entirely political and structural.
IIRC, there is/was a Chrome Store version of Angry Birds. Not sure what the mobile performance would be though (or the gestures support for that matter).
Maybe if you're dropping 100k on a car to get girls, you don't care what they really think of you as long as they act a certain way. And maybe that's just fine. Just a consideration.
You've got to start somewhere. My mom admits that the first thing she noticed about my dad was his cool car, and they've been happily married for over 35 years.
