Wie schwer verletzt muss man sich das eigentlich vorstellen im Durchschnitt?

Weil in Bezug auf Logistik und Ressourcen müssten Schwerverletzte doch sogar problematischer sein als tatsächliche Verluste.

Soviele gibt es da wohl in der Tat nicht, aber z.B. gibt es ja welche mit oder ohne Spühlrand, wobei die spühlrandlosen wahrscheinlich besser zu reinigen sind.

Und erwarten würde ich halt vor allem, dass es ordentlich spühlt, was wenn ich mir manche Bewertungen so durchlese wohl nicht immer der Fall ist. Und manche spühlen z.B. wohl auch lauter/leiser.

For me the bigger value is not in the quality difference between the two platforms. And don’t get me wrong, i agree that BlueSky is a lot better than Elon’s Twitter, but not as good as a decentralised Fediverse Platform.

The real positive is in the act of migration itself, because it shows that is still a possibility. So hopefully it proves sustainable.

deleted by creator

Not only construction, but also maintenance costs. I imagine they are harder to access, if needed, and salt water is hostile to any structure

I think it boils down to “No opinion” not meaning “no consequences” or “no responsibility”.

AMD’s situation has massively shifted during that period, but it does add some perspective. In 2016 they’d have probably loved to have more employees, but couldn’t afford them unlike now. And in recent times the Xilin aquisition added a bunch of employees, with some possibly redundant?

Overall i probably believe AMD’s comment:

AMD argues its cutbacks aren’t a sign it’s struggling financially. Instead, it’s more about refocusing its resources towards higher-margin products

I assume lesser profitable margine products are e.g. dedicated consumer GPUs?

Do we know how many people AMD hired in recent years? Because often with news like that it is just companies cutting back a bit after having undergone an even larger expansion not too long ago

Absolut. Ich sehe tatsächlich das gesamte Format “Kommentar”, zumindest wie es die Tagesschau verwendet, sehr kritisch.

Das ist gefühlt ein Freifahrtschein auch das letzte bisschen journalistische Arbeit und Faktencheck über Bord zu werfen, und oft einseitig einer beliebigen Person (es gibt keinerlei Information zu Ideologie/Interessenskonflikten etc) eine Platform für ihre Meinung zu schenken.

Ich war schon nah dran zu dem Kommentar hier einen Post zu machen, gut zu wissen, dass ich nicht alleine darin war mich darüber aufzuregen.

Franchises and ensemble casts really skew those results. So in the end it basically just comes down to “who was part of one or more large franchises” (primarily marvel), which to me is not that interesting.

For me it would be much more interesting which actors brought the most “value” to a variety of unconnected movies, which would probably boost someone like Leonardo DiCaprio much higher, and in return throw out a bunch of actors from the MCU. For example Don Cheadle, who is on the list because he replaced Terrence Howard as War Machine. Which might have been the right call and an improvement, but imo don’t do the recast and you could swap those names on the list, because i don’t think he majorly shifted the franchise (unlike somone such as RDJ). Recast Leo and who knows how his movies would have performed with someone else in the lead.

Not sure how an alternative ranking should work, but maybe take either the first/average/highest grossing movie of a movie series instead of adding all up.

Thanks for adding another source with some more context

The issue is that as someone already mentioned i doubt something like that was ever truly on the table.

I think you can’t give assurances like that in a vacuum. If a nation e.g. the US would grant them, they’d only do so while simultaniously building up a physical presence in the territory and possibly also do deeper integrations military wise. You wouldn’t give such strong assurances while weakening your own ability to act on them.

For Russia that would have never been acceptable.

Since I see this claim constantly: where in the Budapest memorandum did they promise protection?

Looking at the Wikipedia summary nowhere does anyone give security assurances similar to NATO article 5 or the even stronger worded mutual defense clause article 42 TEU of the EU. The closest it comes to is in the fourth point, but that is only in the case of nuclear weapons being used. Which obviously hasn’t happened yet. Beyond that it is just a promise not to attack, which Russia has broken, but every other singator has kept. And as far as I can see it does not contain anything that compells others to act on someone else’s breach.

It definitely seems that way and I wonder if “postponing” instead of straight up canceling is just a way to soften the blow on their already beaten stock price.

Pennsylvania jetzt auch offiziell republikanisch. Schon krass wie deutlich es am Ende wird.

(disclaimer that this is purely my impression from what i’ve seen mentioned online, not firsthand knowledge)

Which isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive. I was under the impression that the problems have more to do with high workloads and work environments that are chronically understaffed, not necessarily because of low salaries. Not claiming that all nurses are payed well, but it seems like that at least in the US there is a somewhat reasonable path to making good money (assuming you are willing to switch jobs and maybe continue to get sought after qualifications along the way).

That makes sense. I can definitely see consulting work paying top dollar in many different professions.

But that seems to me like she has carved out a lucrative niche for herself, which wouldn’t scale as advice for a larger number of people. Whereas with the other professions you can probably make good money even just doing more “regular” work.

Physical therapists, nurses and people that went into trades I can see making good money, but social workers I am kind of surprised to hear. I thought those were for the most part not paid as well compared to how taxing their jobs can be.

That I am actually not sure about, since you can manipulate profit numbers much easier (see Hollywood accounting) compared to revenue. But making money is ultimately of course the goal for profit companies, so naturally where you can hurt them.

If you decide to not go for a draconian fine where the margin of error are wider (doesn’t matter too much if you fine 4 or 5 times profit, you still get the point across), then you need to at least try to put in some effort to be accurate.

And 3% margin on a deal would be something you’d see from discount retailers like Aldi or Walmart.