Not really, the locals in that area have never known good jobs.
819 karma · joined September 11, 2017
Trashy globalist arrogance.
The 'Germanics' have been around for a few thousand years, it's not an issue of 'nation state' - if they believe that all that they are is more than some Federalist, unelected Bureaucracy, then so be it.
Sweden is in many ways more successful than many US states - so then why do they need a Federation?
Why do certain people think that the tendency towards global governance and the abolition of states, ethnicity (i.e. actual diversity) is a good thing?
And how do they somehow make it a moral issue?
For about 1000 years the borders of Europe have bounced around but somehow they almost always end up roughly along ethnic lines.
How many wars were fought over Spanish succession? By French, Habsbourgs etc? And yet, 'Spain' is pretty much 'Spain' even to this day (yes, an amalgamation surely, but most of them roughly 'Spanish' at least considerably more so than they are 'German' or 'French').
It's also a crazy paradox that those usually virtue signalling 'diversity' in specific locales, are the same one's pushing for policies which tend to break up and delegitimize ethnic groups, thereby decreasing ethnicity in the world.
'Management' is a skill, not a 'market manipulation' and a very difficult skill at that.
Most of these 1% work huge numbers of hours, typically had to work pretty hard through school, and are smart and talented people - even if there is shifty stuff here and there, and a lot of 'born in the right family luck'.
I don't know any successful people who are fools who just lucked out through life. They're all pretty amazing.
Is it less demand from US firms due to slowdown? Market saturation? Shifting needs?
Most white collar jobs are full of 'waking sleep' - and if we focus on outcomes, and drive them forward with intentional work - we would be more productive.
"Bullshit jobs" - if you doing anything to move the ball forward - like working a checkout or pumping gas - your job may feel meaningless, but it's not BS by any means. Middle management tends to be the most BC. And many gov. jobs.
"US employee now spends 45% of their working day doing their real job. The other 55% is spent doing things such as wading through endless emails or attending pointless meetings."
This is part of the job. Communicating is work, and we can't be 100% efficient at all times.
Maybe you missed my point?
I'm kind of saying spirituality is easy, less practical part. :)
The 'work' of spirituality is hard. It's often done through religion.
Crazy point: those who 'religious and attend services' are least likely to commit crimes, but those who are 'spiritual but not religious' commit the most! Sorry no reference. Point being, we are creatures of habit, and action speaks louder than words.
I guess there is a lot of theological debate about whether or not it's more important to 'have faith' which is a matter of spirituality, or to 'go to church and be a good person' ...
Even hearing Angels is not necessarily very religious (and of course, we may hear a lot of things with chemical help ...).
Spirituality is a personal, intellectual, possibly experiential thing.
Religion often entails cultural overhead, community, and generally a lot of work: those who have had the opportunity to 'see angels' have the responsibility of then promoting their new understanding in the world, living as examples to others yada yada, i.e. it's mostly hard work and heavy cross-bearing, i.e. 1% inspiration (seeing angels) and 99% perspiration (being a good person, which is hard).
And it wasn't a 'maslow' thing - it was that we had yet to develop proper instruments, scales, etc. etc.
FYI Music during about that time was mostly Gregorian chanting and what not - and for a time music was banned by the church, at other times it was only allowed to be made 'for God' type thing. Come to think of it there are I think some composers and attributions but minimal stuff. We don't 'remember them' because what they did was not remarkable like Beethoven.
But I'm coming to think they may go: Lincoln, Washington, Obama as the 'big 3' over time. Again, a 'Black leader of the free world' is historically massive, and it transcends USA issues.
Not saying I think that, just how academics will write it.
There were no composers then ...
Musical theory only developed during the renaissance and was basically formalized by the baroques i.e. Bach - and Moazart/Beethoven mastered it.
Music as we understand it really didn't exist before that. No real way to write it down, no way to create complex arrangements.
Italians thought of it, Germans formalized it and then mastered it. Nobody has pushed it much further since.
---> Scientists ...
Aristotle, Plato, Archimedes - not Scientists, but I get what you are saying - again I'd suggest that these are 'fundamentalists'. Founders of rational thought.
Newton = foundations of classical physics.
There are 1000x more Scientists alive today than ever before, and the only one we're going to remember is from 300 years ago? Point being - maybe there are no easy/major discoveries to be made so nobody will be remembered. Who will be remembered for CERN? Probably nobody.
Sorry, I meant wary :)
B) 'Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance.' - as we dive into selfish consumer materialism, and narrow minded scientific materialism, the better religious figures words are more important than ever now, I for one wish some legitimate leader would come along in this regard.
C) Musicians - Mozart, Beethoven and Bach are still household names.
The one's that will be around:
QE2, Hitler, possibly Obama - I think American academics will create a big historical thing around him and America is a 'big power' they have the ability to bend history. Think JFK but times 10, and more globally oriented. Mao especially due to his foundational status of the new Chinese state - and they are huge. Possibly Stalin. Gandhi - depending on how Indians decide to propagate his history. He has some really ugly spots that we overlook.
Possibly Marx and Adam Smith as 'founders' of economics.
Maybe another common thread is 'those who are the foundation of something' - because Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are taught in Music class as kind of the kings 'basic of music' (even though they were not there at the start). No matter how many music genres we go through, at music school the rudiments will likely still be interpreted with them in mind.
Any serious Monarch that lasts more than 30 years will get a spot in the textbooks at least.
As for Scientists - how many can the average person name past 'Einstein'? And FYI - Einstein had a marketing/branding campaign behind him that he was aware of and somewhat weary of. Niels Bohr? Oppenheimer? Walk down the street nobody knows who they are. Maybe if they get a particle or theory named after them ...
Athletes not really.
Actors - this is a new one - because we now have the ability to record performances for future generations. Maybe the early actors will be minted as 'the originals' and be studied for 1000 years ...
The kind of history we have post 1900 will be very different than before because now everything is recorded and written down. Imagine if we could just pull up Billy Shakespeare on YouTube ...
Assuming that someone is stupid because they didn't go to Ivy League is a dumb form of discrimination.
California does not have one, in general.
If California municipalities 'don't want to enable building' because their residents don't want it ... well ... then they will have fewer people, probably higher housing costs and that's their choice.
If the 'average bay policeman' or whatever can't afford to buy a home for 100 miles - then the citizens of Cali are going to have to pay their cops more, or, those cops will go elsewhere.
It's a fairly fluid and competitive landscape - more so than most places on earth.
There's a high demand for living in some parts of Cali and it's going to be like that for a long time, even with some building it won't change.
It's a choice Californians seem to be making, it's their choice.
If town councils are arbitrarily messing things up against the will of the people - who want to see high rises everywhere ... well that's another story.
Most people would rather cheaper home prices, given the choice.
Not really - what he 'does' is 'writes code that solves problems we are facing' - ostensibly - because there are so many ways it would be done differently if he was a professional communicator.
What I'm saying is it may appear that he is 'doing his job' - but I'm making the argument he's not.
But this is not a construction site. We can't say - 'pour the cement there and then go refill'.
He's inflexible and making others on the team bend around his designs. He does not reach out to others when there are issues, we have to initiate communication, keep an eye on the situation. He does not work with others to solve problems as a team. When asked for direct feedback, it's generally negative, cynical - not quite personal but almost. He does the minimum required and can't be counted on in a pinch like basically everyone else on the team. He takes the longest to respond to any issue.
Writing software on a team, is like solving a complex problem as a group. If you are not part of the group - then the problem is not being solved maximally.
I will definitely have a chat with him about all of this, but I know what the answer is going to be - and this is a behaviour and attitude problem, it's nary impossible to change.
I've let go of people like this before and the only regret I've ever had was not doing it sooner.
I don't expect people to be chipper sycophants, in fact, I hate that. Dispassion is fine, even a little bit of curmudgeon is fine with me. It takes all kinds.
If someone really does not want to do something, and they have an 'inner negativity' about it - it will take a high degree of professionalism for them to carry on properly. If they can't manage this level of professional behaviour on the communications side to make up for their negativity, well, it's out.
Also - if you've ever been a manager, you'd realize that what is 'bs' is that you think you can just 'do your job' in the terms that you think it exists.
I literally have this problem right now with an Eng. who's decent, he technically moves the schedule forward roughly on time - but he's impossible to deal with, cynical at every turn, always negative, does not offer up flexible options when he should - and I hate having to speak to him, it ruins my day.
So does he 'do his job' - he could argue that he does. I have only a few complaints about his ability - but working on a team goes quite a bit beyond that.
I'm about to let him go and I will accept someone who is not quite as good in his wake if they are a better communicator -this person will be more valuable to the company - and my peace of mind is worth something.
For professionals - if you 'don't like working somewhere' you should probably leave. Life is too short. It's probably worth taking a little bit of a pay cut to work where you get along.
Except for the part where Gaddaffi was using his military against half his nation in revolt.
False. 'Proxy wars' is a misleading title.
The Korean war was not a 'proxy war' it was a real war, that happened to also be a proxy for other powers.
Country A does not fight random country B for no reason.
They are generally real conflicts where their actions may happen to have geostragetic alignment with other powers.
This is ridiculous.
The US didn't take a drop of Iraqi, Kuwaiti or Libyan Oil.
The US could take all the Oil in the Middle East in a heartbeat if it wanted to.
This whole 'war for Oil' bit is mostly rubbish.
'War for continued access to energy' yes - but the us is not grabbing resources with military power, moreover, North Korea has nothing anyone wants.
This is not what the world thinks.
Gaddafi was not about to obtain nuclear status - not even close.
There's no way he would have been allowed to anyhow.
Libya is a fairly small country, smaller than Chicago, fragmented, spread apart, with no industry other than some oil.
North Korea is not remotely comparable to Libya - I don't think the North Koreans see a true analogy.
Even most inspirational companies were started more or less along these lines.
Extremely few companies were started with a highly aspirational 'world changing' premise. Even the most aspirational brands we recognized, early on - they had no idea they would be as big as it they are.
No - this is false.
It was the existential and immense nature of the consequences of war that enabled the parties to 'back down'.
Without nukes - the US and USSR would have likely started a bunch of scuffles here and there.
There's a great chance that US/USSR navies duked it out over Cuba - because the consequences would have been likely very limited - unless they escalated of course.
Yes, we were lucky that it didn't go down as well, but nukes have been a huge factor in keeping the war basically cold..
"some less risky peace-building efforts" - there is really no such thing. 'Balancing Power' is what creates peace for the most part.
Gulf Arab states on the ground hunted him down, it was Qatari forces that likely killed him.
The US did some drones, AWACS and coordination, but to suggest it was the US is not quit fair.
They are attractive to everyone. Note that the 2 biggest nuclear powers also have the most powerful conventional militaries.
Nuclear weapons arguably did end full scale war as we know it and the 'cold war' is not over, it's just thawed.
WW2 ended due to them basically - and Korea was stalemated when Eisenhower demonstrated artillery based nukes as a 'signal' to the Chinese.
Korea was the last 'real war' - since then it's been smaller scale stuff, insurgencies, smaller nations fighting, NATO overruns (Iraq, Libya, etc.).
It will take another 50-100 years to denuclearize.
The only way to stand-down is to create a framework wherein there is reasonable assurance of balance of power.
You can see North Korea's push to nuclearize is actually fairly rational survival strategy. Once they are fully there, they are too dangerous to fight. I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying it's a reasonably rational move for a self-interested entity.
As for 'ban' - who 'bans'? There is not international power than can ban this stuff. The UN? Where is the UN's army to enforce the ban? See what I mean? ...