mnctvanj

Kierkegaard's idea of "repetition" actually speaks very directly to the topic of this larger discussion. Many ways to interpret his writings here, and I am no trained philosopher, but he seems to write about how repetition is not truly possible - that encountering a once-new thing for a subsequent time is tainted by recollection - dulling the experience essentially. I think he also suggests that cultivating a certain mindset can re-novelize life but I am thinking not many achieve that.

If you can get your hands on the HBS case study of TPS it's a great read. Details how much emphasis is put on blaming any/all issues on process, rather than people. To the extent that if a clumsy worker drops a wrench, it is assumed to be a problem with process, not that worker, and addressed immediately. The case study also describes a couple of examples of assembly line workers pulling the stop levers and how management runs over asap (every minute of stoppage is much money lost) to ask the question "why" five times in order to understand the root issue of the process breakdown.

In same boat. I've just been splitting my new investments between stock and cash and treat my cash as part of my diversification strategy (or a hedge against possible market peak). If a recession occurs, I'll hope it drops a lot, put my cash back in, and hope it comes back up. All those things have always happened (recession, recovery - not necessarily me timing a market bottom) so I feel ok about my cash. Whatever it loses in value to inflation should come back if I buy cheaper stocks during a market lull. Or so I tell myself.

The thing that strikes me is how deep the pathos about Cleveland runs as the newscasters hype the event ("Cleveland is no longer the mistake by the lake!" as the balloons fly). And that everyone seemed so entirely sure that dumping a million balloons into the sky would somehow make everyone stop laughing at the city. And then of course they all landed in the lake anyway.

This is correct. Consensus opinion might not be the very best of all the possibilities, but is rarely a very bad choice. The other side of this is buy-in. On a great team, it's important to have everyone feel free to put forth an opinion, with backup. And then this process happens. And then it's just as important for everyone to "murder the un-chosen alternative" - in other words, even if a team member very strongly believes their posited solution was correct, and very strongly believes the chosen solution is incorrect - they must murder their solution, and wed the chosen solution. A team, committed as a team, to the team-chosen alternatives over time, is a very powerful team. Likely more powerful than one that only chooses the objectively best solution without full buy-in from the rest of the team. It takes hard and nuanced work from the team leader to cultivate this.

There are certainly public/tax policy sets that could serve both: to help and/or protect those who don't have the opportunity or ability to become an Ayn Rand hero, but also still allow for those that choose to fight down that path. Yes that means that the richer one becomes, the less they take home as a percentage of their gross (more so than current tax policy requires). But it means that there are more than two extremes to the issue.

Tech can be a fine thing, yet there is also something to say about spending more time walking on trails in the woods (for example). Maybe the well-meaning elders are talking more about restoring a balance of activity and time-spent. As I age I see the importance of that more and more.

I see what you are saying - and maybe someone can get by in either job without being strong in both skills, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is that all people-management roles ideally have both things happening. So to actually be good/great at roles that people assume are exclusive either to leadership (e.g., CEO) or to management (e.g., good ol' middle manager), both skills are necessary. And the big difference between the above examples is scope/scale, not how much leadership vs management is necessary.

A good manager is absolutely a good leader, and v/v. In my experience, there is no role that, if done properly, isn't equal measure both. They are sub-set skills of any position to which people report. Be it middle manager (important to execute, important to give meaning and direction within that area) or C-level (CEO can't afford to be a non-manager).

You can deploy "tick-tubes" to use the mouse-based-transmission to mass-murder ticks in an area.

Soak cotton balls in permethrin concentrate (you can get it on amazon) and when dry, put them in empty toilet paper tubes. Put the tubes around your yard in the spring. Mice will feather their nests with the cotton balls and the ticks will die in droves.

Also - After finding an attached tick on myself this weekend (hiking in PA, including some bushwhacking) I found the following link full of good info and somewhat comforting. Check yourself for ticks after every outing in the woods - only 1.4% chance of catching Lyme if you actually find the tick attached: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/what-to-do-after-a-tick-bi...