logicalmind

If your family lived in a village in middle east and the military of another country came and seemingly killed your parents, you would think that the person would grow to have certain opinions on the things and certain enemies.

A lot of the policies being enacted have the potential to create a lot of enemies. Just to name a few, there have been thousands of people fired from federal government. Those people and their families have had their lives changed. You have people from other countries who have lived here their entire lives who are now being separated and sent to other countries. You have people playing politics with Ukraine where many people are dying due to something that the rest of the world has the power to solve. Or people in Palestine being murdered while some talk of building a wealthy paradise on the land where they were raised.

I'm not taking a side on these things. But you have to agree that these tactics have the habit of making very determined and malicious enemies. Many political policies, and the people who have strong opinions on them, have to realize that their opinions and the policies they support, do impact the lives of real people. Potentially causing devastating repercussions, death and suffering. If said people are determined to enact revenge, it is no surprise that feel justified in doing so.

I'm not justifying their thoughts or actions. But you can understand that people who have felt these impacts aren't acting particularly rationally or are stable.

Prior to social media, or the internet in general, it was quite difficult to amass large numbers of people in your echo chamber without becoming a person of power (like a president or equivalent). But today, it isn't uncommon for someone with views towards conspiracies or extreme viewpoints to become a "popular" voice in social media. In fact, one might argue that it is easier to become popular by being divisive. Even though most people aren't on either side. The ability to grow a "large enough" side is enough to become an existential threat to the other side. And they end up justifying their own existence.

I don't know what the solution to this is. I don't even know how to reduce it at this point.

Making America "stand on its own two feet" would give it a lot of freedom in making choices that are at odds with future super powerful China that is no longer benevolent.

If the production cost portion increases, because of tariffs, then Apple either has to take less profit (shareholders unhappy) or increase the cost of the phone (shareholders happy).

If the tariffs are increased enough, Apple could be forced to move production to the USA. But this only happens if the workers in the USA are willing to work the same wages as external production. If USA workers cost more than external production, then again, Apple loses profit or raises prices.

Am I missing something? Unless USA workers are willing to work for wages as external production (give or take the tariff amount), then this simply doesn't work.

Original Story:

https://www.ft.com/content/62df8d8d-31f2-445e-bfa2-c171ac43d...

Paywall free link:

https://archive.ph/2025.03.19-162647/https://www.ft.com/cont...

What Trump was offering was to take a chunk of their resources for another temporary peace offer. Which as noted above, will almost certainly be violated in the near term by Russia again. So Ukraine is not only back where they started, but also lost a chunk of their resources. Why would Zelensky agree to that?

Additionally, the Federal Government is the largest employer in the country. If you both lay off a significant portion of that workforce and cut things like unemployment and other social programs, you are going to have significant increase in unemployment unless there is somehow new jobs for everyone. Add inflation to the mix due to tariffs and a perfect storm of economic despair is on the horizon.

Cutting funding for biotech results in loss of jobs and loss of patent filing. Loss of patent filing means loss of people needed for filing patents. On and on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out (some pun intended).

Not to mention that the flows of ISO20022 messages are full duplex. If you send a message you need to be ready to handle a response (acceptance or rejection of a credit/debit for example).

Generating classes from the XSD's is fairly trivial in most languages. The hard part is being able to read the XSD's and then being able to create the ISO20022 message with all of the required elements (given all the possible combinations of valid elements).

I guess creating a code-time library where it was not possible to create an ISO20022 message that invalid would be interesting. But being able to create invalid ISO20022 is fairly easy to do for free.

The dogs are as loyal as I've ever seen while you're there. When you leave, they move onto the next group. The area is great, and the dog friend I made, just added to the experience.

-John Kenneth Galbraith

1. You legitimately want to expand human knowledge beyond what exists. This should be the ultimate goal of a PHD. Whether or not this produces important output (in the capitalistic sense, aka is profitable) is secondary to attaining the new knowledge.

2. You want to attain high level knowledge of a subject AND the best way you learn is by having a strict course regiment with a decent teacher-to-student ratio.

3. You just want that check mark on your resume when you try to get a job.

#1 isn't about getting a job. #2 and #3 have some overlap in that the ultimate goal of both tends to be securing a job. The difference between them is how an individual learns material. Some people can read a book, or view youtube lectures, then take some tests and learn sufficiently that way (#3). But some people require #2 style learning.

But let's be honest, the vast majority of people attending college are for #2 or #3. Meaning, it is ultimately about getting a job. So as long as a job in a desired fields requires a degree, people will essentially be required to get them. The trend is recent years seems to be the dramatic split between #2 and #3 style learning.

I'm not interested in any religious aspects of it, I don't pay any money towards it. I believe I started by reading a book on how to do it, then listened to some guided audio on what I was supposed to do. With that knowledge I was able to continue on my own.

Specifically, my mind would tend to get stuck in loops of problems or worries, especially right before bed. What I really learned from doing this is that I would consciously reset my mind back to the present once it started going down these loops about the past or future. I do this for about 10-20 minutes before bed so that I can sleep without my mind racing and keeping me up. Even now I've noticed I don't have to do it as much or for as long when I do because I've learned to control my thoughts a lot better when I need to.

I know meditation goes much further beyond this (as outlined in the article), but just having this level of skill is very valuable if you have this type or racing mind. I very much differentiate between meditation as a skill and meditation as a way of life. The skill part is valuable for anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike

For example, my kids did not get phones. But all of their friends had them. Which meant my kids would just create accounts for these services on their friends phones and just post whatever they wanted without me being able to control it.

A second example is when their friends get new phones. Guess what they do with the old phone? They give it other kids who don't have them. Sure, they don't have a cell plan. But that doesn't stop them from using wifi at starbucks or any other place.

I have worked in small teams of highly-effective teams generally. But I am about to embark on a much larger team consisting of a large range of skill levels. It would be nice to lay some effective groundwork from the start that isn't overly cumbersome.

Granted, you need to be able to program. But being able to recall and implement particular algorithms from memory isn't particularly valuable to the job. I want problem solvers. People who have dealt with complicated problems and found solutions. Or at least know how to find them.

What you're saying is that all uses of the word master implies master/slave, which is what people are disagreeing with. In the recording industry, everyone uses the term master to denote the production copy of combined tracks. The tracks that make up a master are not slaves. In the same way that branches that make up a master vcs are not slaves.

In git parlance, master is where your builds come from for deployment. And branches are where you work on features. When branches are complete they merge back into master. How does this relate in any way to a master/slave definition? Based on the logic used, I would expect record studios to be moving away from using the word master as well.

But if we want to talk about words used in workplaces that do imply control and ownership, can we discuss "subordinate"? Because that word is the most analogous word to "slave" that is used in everyday business.