Waiting to hear how this plays out. But I feel this will end up being a non issue.

To think there was hope just 25 years ago of a conflict free world.

Why would a woman’s group hand her over to the men?

Lemmy started getting popular in the last few weeks. Lots of new users, not enough new posts, users being shown old posts which they are commenting in. In turn those posts are making it to the front page of other users.

Your point is incorrect. It is not needlessly complicated. It has to do with mainframe batch processing times.

It’s not a conspiracy, it is a technical challenge that is not easy to some. It is complicated, but not needlessly. If it was easy, it would have been fixed.

I am sure there are a number of private companies that do the same but simply don’t tell you.

E.g., every bank has a cut off time for transfers, same reason.

Massive frame batch processing is the usual reason.

And before it ask why not replace it, the short answer outs it is complicated.

It might be a question better speed in eli5.

Come on. If you actually worked for social security you have to know why. It’s is related to mainframe batch processing.

But I can see why you might say what it did. Maybe you think it seems cooler to simply dump on the government it meant your 20 years of experience is 1 year repeated 290 times. So really 1 year of experience but you just got older.

There is a reason and not what you think.

Look here: https://kbin.social/m/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world/t/162927/-/comment/639904

This is the real answer. Main frame batch processing.

And till you haven’t experienced it, it seems like an excuse. Why can’t you simply do it all the time. Why can’t you get rid of the mainframe, etc.

But if only it were that easy. There is a reason IBM can still acquire multi billion dollar companies and then run them into the ground.

My company has maybe a couple million customers and can’t get rid of its mainframe and in areas that it’s gotten the process away from the mainframe, batch patronizing is still a thing. Because that is the only way to guarantee integrity.

So yea. I wish your comment gets more up votes. Because it is not a conspiracy, it is a technical limitation.

Yup. Unless I am clear on what I should be addressing a person as, I simply use the name.

Pretty sure that’s offensive as well. I just use the name speaking about the person with someone else. “Ed asked me to speak with you. Ed mentioned that Ed was not going to join our meeting.”, etc.