Fail Quotes

[Altimadark]

I HATE this commercial.

[yt]BE5b6VBHUTE[/yt]

GOG.

The fail itself is nothing which hasn't been mentioned before. No, my problem with this ad is that it plays regularly at my place of work (It's one of the lobby ads at my movie theater), and I know it's going to keep playing for at least another month.

[dallen68]

Sure. Why did San Jose need to increase the minimum wage to get that result?

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the source for this graphic's claims, but I did find an interesting study which shows (among other things) that both CA and US unemployment went down over the past year at roughly the same rate as San Jose. Moreover, unemployment has been going down since it peaked in 2009. So why did San Jose need to increase the minimum wage last year to reduce unemployment when (1) the rest of the country didn't, and (2) it was already going down?

Based on this data, I'm thinking that if I saw this graphic's source, I'd see similar trends with the "minimum wage jobs" and "businesses created" the graphic mentions. Or, just as likely, I wouldn't see comparative state/country data at all.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in December 2013 (the last month complete information is available for both the United States in general, and San Jose specifically):

The United States had an (official) unemployment rate of 6.7%
San Jose had an (official) unemployment rate of 5.8%

In the terms these people speak, that's not an insignificant difference.

San Jose was holding steady between September and November, 2013, and then unemployment dropped almost a full point in December, suggesting to me that possibly some seasonal work became available.

The leisure and hospitality industry (where the majority of minimum was jobs are) had been relatively steady since at least July, 2012 until October and November 2013, where the number of jobs went down 2 points, meaning approximately 2,000 jobs were lost.

In conclusion, the poster is incorrect. While the total number of jobs in San Jose did go up during that period, at a higher rate than the national average rate, minimum wage-specific jobs did indeed go down.

sources:

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.ca_sanjose_msa.htm
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

[MrBogosity]

Unemployment's been going down because people get discouraged and stop looking for work, not because there are more jobs out there.

[Ibrahim90]

Unemployment's been going down because people get discouraged and stop looking for work, not because there are more jobs out there.

pretty much.

I wonder what the rate would be if we counted people who just said "fuck it"....

[BlameThe1st]

[yt]VyDVSdM3gs8[/yt]

Ryan doesn't seem to grasp what freedom is.

[Skm1091]

[yt]VyDVSdM3gs8[/yt]

Ryan doesn't seem to grasp what freedom is.

By a UniversalPotentate

The Libertarian view of Freedom means their ability to behave however they want to whomever they want. It's basically being a child without parents.
The rest of us understand that rules are good but not every rule is good. Those who have nothing to lose are Libertarian. Those with a lot to lose are conservative. Those who have adapted to the existing order are the establishment. Those who are thinking of themselves but unlike the rest of these assholes can also think about others are progressives.
Yes, we progressives like opportunity. Opportunity is a threat to lawlessness, hierarchy and the status quo.

[evensgrey]

pretty much.

I wonder what the rate would be if we counted people who just said "fuck it"....

An interesting question.

I once looked up Norway in the CIA World Factbook, and discovered (along with the fact that Norway's oil reserves are far lower than the normal standard for an oil producing country) that if you count up all the people who don't have jobs and ought to be able to have jobs, it's somewhere between 9% and 43%. The spread is so large because there was a listing of multiple classifications of people who didn't have jobs, and no indication of how much the classifications overlap. (For instance, how many of the officially disabled, of which Norway has a higher proportion than any other country in Europe, are also on welfare.) The 9%, btw, is just what Norway acknowledges as unemployed. They don't count most of the people without jobs as unemployed.

[Skm1091]

An interesting question.

I once looked up Norway in the CIA World Factbook, and discovered (along with the fact that Norway's oil reserves are far lower than the normal standard for an oil producing country) that if you count up all the people who don't have jobs and ought to be able to have jobs, it's somewhere between 9% and 43%. The spread is so large because there was a listing of multiple classifications of people who didn't have jobs, and no indication of how much the classifications overlap. (For instance, how many of the officially disabled, of which Norway has a higher proportion than any other country in Europe, are also on welfare.) The 9%, btw, is just what Norway acknowledges as unemployed. They don't count most of the people without jobs as unemployed.

This reminds me of the people who say Cuba has lower mortality rate than the US. Because Cubans don't count their infant mortality rate the same way the US does

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/5585611/
So how many things can you spot wrong with this journal entry (grammar and spelling aside, I mean)?

Basically, he grew up with an alcoholic father who was abusive and/or with just a mother.  He went to a catholic school in the inner city, and fumed when a kid who was spanked/paddled by one of the nuns called his (drunk dad) to confront the nun.  The man hit her and the author of the journal hated that (and basically defended the spankings he got from them too ("I deserved it.").  And said, "never EVER hit a girl."

Better idea, OP.  How about "Never EVER hit ANYONE unless in a case of neccesity/pure self defense."?

[R.E.H.W.R.]

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/5585611/
So how many things can you spot wrong with this journal entry (grammar and spelling aside, I mean)?

Basically, he grew up with an alcoholic father who was abusive and/or with just a mother.  He went to a catholic school in the inner city, and fumed when a kid who was spanked/paddled by one of the nuns called his (drunk dad) to confront the nun.  The man hit her and the author of the journal hated that (and basically defended the spankings he got from them too ("I deserved it.").  And said, "never EVER hit a girl."

Better idea, OP.  How about "Never EVER hit ANYONE unless in a case of neccesity/pure self defense."?

Unless they are Chris Brown. JK.

[Travis Retriever]

So something I've heard from Menno Henselmans (the Bayesian Bodybuilding bloke), Armi Legge (The Evidence Magazine guy), and even my psychology/sociology professor that is a fail:

"If our findings were repeated consistently for years — even decades — and we were able to logically explain any odd results, we could call our theory a fact (an idea with the highest level of certainty)."

Last I checked, "theory" not "fact" is the highest level of certainty in science because it will include facts in it.  Like gravity.

[dallen68]

So something I've heard from Menno Henselmans (the Bayesian Bodybuilding bloke), Armi Legge (The Evidence Magazine guy), and even my psychology/sociology professor that is a fail:

"If our findings were repeated consistently for years — even decades — and we were able to logically explain any odd results, we could call our theory a fact (an idea with the highest level of certainty)."

Last I checked, "theory" not "fact" is the highest level of certainty in science because it will include facts in it.  Like gravity.

Yes. A theory is an explanation of the available facts, most often referred to as data. However, gravity is a theory that explains the fact that mass tends to go toward other mass at certain predictable rates.

[ArtemisVale]

http://www.saddlebackresources.com/Wide-Angle-Framing-Your-Worldview-1-DVD-with-Chuck-Colson-and-Rick-Warren-P2432.aspx

My business ethics professor is using this in our class. She thought our textbook was too secular.

[BlameThe1st]

If someone were to tell you that gay men only "choose" to be homosexual because they hate women, and that women choose to become involved in porn because they hate themselves, chances are you would assume that person to be a fundamentalist Christian.

Nope!

Turns out it's a radical feminist:

[Travis Retriever]

If someone were to tell you that gay men only "choose" to be homosexual because they hate women, and that women choose to become involved in porn because they hate themselves, chances are you would assume that person to be a fundamentalist Christian.

Nope!

Turns out it's a radical feminist:

....Are you fucking shitting me?  Good lord feminists.