For whatever it’s worth, I very much doubt that I have better judgement than you. I am a bit of a dummy and in general don’t have any truly valuable insights as to the nature of reality.

I think I know a few things, but I am also always filled with self-doubt and never want to be thought of as a person who has any answers.

Can you please explain to me exactly why and how it was objectively obvious that OP’s comment was meant to be taken as some kind of joke or satire?

Because if you can’t, I have to think that you are little more than an arbitrarily condescending piece of shit.

The cool thing about Andersen is that even if the glass on your window gets accidentally broken for whatever reason, it’s still covered by their forever warranty and they will come and repair it for free. The downside is that they are, again, very expensive.

I personally think it’s worth it and have Andersen windows on my house.

Well played, sir, or madam, as the case may be. Very well played.

The short version is that it was about the transfer of power from hereditary nobility to a different elite consisting of wealthy merchants and “gentlemen” farmers. This transfer was already happening anyway throughout the British Empire, the Americans just wanted to speed it up and codify it.

But you could swap the sexes or have them both be men and it would still work, so I’m not sure that it really is sexist.

But who is the author of said thoughts? From whence do they arise? If you look carefully you’ll find that there is no author and that the self is an illusion that arises from the nature of consciousness. This is the essential insight of Buddhism and other contemplative traditions.

That’s not true at all. The ignorance in this thread is absolutely astonishing. It’s like you went to the US once, spent a week in Florida and now somehow think you’re an expert in American homebuilding techniques and practices. WTF?

As someone with nearly 30 years experience in various types of construction, I can say for a fact that this is objectively incorrect. There’s a trope about any kind of social media content that touches on a subject about which one has real expertise, don’t remember exactly how it goes, but anyhow, let’s just say that the ignorance in this thread is absolutely astonishing.

Go down to your local big box hardware store and try to find a single-pane window, for example. You can’t because nobody makes them. If you want a single-pane window you have to buy a sheet of glass and know how to install and glaze it yourself.

You need to go through a window company and have them custom-made. They’ll come over to your house and take measurements then build them at their factory and then install them. It will take a few weeks and will be expensive, but for my money it’s worth it.

Where I live Andersen is probably the best as they come with a forever warranty on everything including the glass itself, but they may or may not be in your area. There are plenty of other reputable companies as well. Again, this is not a cheap option.

Anyone who has worked in high-end construction can tell you that they’re very common in rich people’s houses. The reason you don’t see them more often is that most people don’t want to pay for them. Americans tend to value the size of their houses more than anything else, and since McMansion developers know this, windows are one very easy way to cut costs.

They’re also a lot more common in older homes (like mine) because if you’re going to replace all your windows (which you should do for energy reasons), you might as well get the good ones.

Yeah I’m a little confused too. The thing with windows is that you get what you pay for. It’s ridiculous to think that there’s some kind of window design that’s magically available in Europe but not in the US. There are probably designs that are more common in different parts of the world, but it’s absolutely not the case that if a homeowner wants to pay for it they can’t get whatever they want in the US.

I have to think this post was made by someone who knows nothing about construction.

Lol! Imagine thinking this is true.

They aren’t that difficult to repair if you have basic carpentry skills. All you have to do is take the sash out and open the side of the frame and you’ll have access to the weight and pulley. They’re designed to be pretty easy to do. YouTube probably has hundreds of videos on it. You just want to be careful about lead paint if it’s an old house and you’re producing dust or disturbing old paint.

They open from the top as well.

I don’t know why this should be an unpopular opinion. It seems to me more like a truth claim or a hypothesis that can probably be supported or refuted on the basis of research.

I read “Anthem” when I was about 19, I think, and at the time I liked it. I tried to read “Atlas Shrugged” when I was in my 30s, but didn’t get very far before I put it down in as a waste of time. There’s one data point for you.

The last week or so it’s been Too Much Too Young by The Specials. It was on the radio, once, last week and for no good reason I’ve been stuck with it since. Thanks brain.

I don’t think Lemmy is ready to hear that kind of thing.

True, but not for the reasons that most people think.

Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.

Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a “firewall” between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.

Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they’ve always been very hands-off. It’s a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn’t care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.

Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You’re completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.