PitLoversNeedMeds

deleted by creator

See, as opposed to resignation, there are no rules about being allowed to shame idiots online.

You’re a dumbass if your reply starts with “not everything is for you”.

That’s for “at will” employment in the US. Other countries actually have rules you need to follow, both ways. The employer needs to give you a grace period, and you need to as well, under risk of penalties or invalidation of unemployment benefits.

So no, it isn’t just a “I quit” letter.

Another primo example of American exceptionalism.

It does sound like the US…

Honest feedback, I’d absolutely hate it. Just like I absolutely hated all attempts to centralise shit like social media apps.

You legitimised the Americans’ reasons for needing a refuge in Canada.

All while your country is actively shipping “immigrants” to Guantanamo bay and other concentration camps, or Uganda.

The irony is certainly lost on you, due to your blind belief that America deserves what it doesn’t give others. It’s pretty clearly visible.

Exactly! So many people assume the science of economics is unfounded because of what some purported “economists” say online or because of some already-irrelevant methodologies the science has abandoned for years already…

The most egregious problem being assuming that the methodology isn’t sound and scientific, and that it instead depends on the whims of the researcher (here they would place researcher in quotation marks, I imagine).

I have had to do game theory, statistics, econometrics, data science (thanks to my chosen specialisation), a lot of math especially about optimisations and linear algebra… And the quality of the academic research is empirical. Rarely will you even find a paper that only uses qualitative data in economics, except maybe in the behavioural economics field. Most often we use natural experiments to replicate RCTs within a macro environment, or double-blind experiments to investigate an economic agent’s systemic preferences and responses within a micro environment…

People who complain about the superficiality of the “soft sciences” have never stepped foot in a class beyond the very basics of that subject taught in highschool. They therefore project their current knowledge on the entire field, marring it…

I hate this :'|

Funny you should say that, because those very humanities aspects of what I studied, Economics, lead STEM students to disparage it as a non-scientific field built of gospel and tenets. As if Humanities diminished the quality of the research and teaching within the Economics field.

So while I agree, and it’s good to see you being upvoted, in a different scenario the application of your thoughts about this will lead the person sharing their experience to get massively downvoted in an attempt to shame them for studying a “soft science”.

Don’t blame autocorrect for this. Blame the poor parenting, who is rearing its head once again to blame anything but themselves.

Another person who shows up without a source. Another day, another troll.

You’re the one tripling down at this point, when we all know your initial comment about Dalmatians (which you conveniently have not addressed, I wonder why…) had nothing to do with my comment about muzzling pitbulls.

You’re talking about Dalmatians, I’m talking about Pits, that’s whataboutism.

You may not like it. I may not care what you think.

Yes other factors behind the main point are in fact whataboutism. Thanks for confirming the inadequateness of your “point”.

For anyone reading what this person is saying X note that they’ve provided no sources at all.

Dishonesty is you thinking you have a point while not providing a single source. Get off that high horse.

Cherry picking on top of it all, you’re a clown.

I’m literally telling people to muzzle them. I’m not a defender here.

Whataboutism doesn’t help anyone.

Yep tell that to the people harassing me for my choice of source while providing nothing at all in return.