> If there's a group to discuss ice cream, but they keep talking about Trump, it's not a "political act" to say "hey guys, aren't we here for ice cream?"
You're right about neutral/hopeless. I meant "happy" in the sense of "OK with / resigned to let exist". Not necessarily "this is great".
The meat-eating morality point I think is also an interesting example. It could affect you negatively, but they strongly believe it to be immoral and are witnessing you committing what they believe to be an immoral act, so should they be forced to be silent on the subject? Why? Whose beliefs and preferences win? If they're your friends, you reckon with the issue and ideally come to a space of agreement or cordially agree to disagree. Or your mind is changed! Or theirs! But if the groups dig in ("We can't let this go", "We just want to eat meat and not feel bad about it") then that's a friendship-ending juncture, isn't it? Or you agree not to share that sort of space/context any more. But it's also different with friends vs an open space, which this is.
Telling people not to be political is a political act – specifically, one that accepts whatever comes, doesn't care about power, is happy with whoever rules whom and how justly. Those are your politics, or at least sufficiently so that you're happy to park those issues while discussing tech. They aren't everyone's. You can turn off the non-technical comments by ignoring them.
You phrase this as if it’s absurd. Why should it be possible to offshore your future capital gains without paying an exit tax? You live in a country with a tax system that assumes people pay into it.
The ranking isn’t published by the newspaper - it’s by the research and insights B2B company of the overall group. Regardless of what assumptions you have about the newspaper (elite, yes, but I’m unclear on why you think fierce liberalism is likely to mean they don’t really value democracy), the B2B unit sells data - they’re as likely to skew this ranking as they are at which countries are better at rail infrastructure. Perhaps their definition of democracy is indeed flawed though - no need to speculate, go read their methodology.
But the parent point was that no British media could be critical of government policy. Picking an example that isn’t, on one area, doesn’t prove their point.
[Edit] Granted though, the bbc isn’t merciless - that’s more the newspapers
Trivially true I suppose, but it doesn’t make my point irrelevant - do you think Britain is equivalent to China and Russia? If everyone does but us then yes my goodness they’ve done a good job controlling us, but that seems far fetched.
They’re talking about British hate speech laws. They think other countries have universal free speech and they absolutely do not, but for some reason they think Britain goes too far. Although “think” is probably too generous - they’re parroting talking points.
A lot of engineers find it difficult to conceive of product and design (and marketing, and management…) as actual skilled work. It’s all con artistry orbiting engineering.
Skills frameworks are great. Your mentee can rate themselves at different levels across different competencies. You can have a discussion about where you see them differently on any areas. You can agree, based on your experience and their ambitions, on what growth areas they ought to focus on in the coming months /year etc. The structure really helps, as does putting it partly on them. People are often not bad at rating themselves if there are clear skill level descriptions.
RSS is a useful interface, but: "Do most people just want direct alerts?" Yes, of course. RSS is beloved but niche. Depends who your target audience is. I personally would want an email, because that's how I get alerts about other things. RSS to me is for long form reading, not notifications I must notice. The answer to any product question like this totally depends on your audience and their normal routines.
That's quite an antagonistic way to request an explanation, particularly as it seems straightforward:
If you needed consent to film people in the street, security cameras (in public places) couldn't be used. They _are_ used. So it must not be the case that you need consent to film people in the street. Assuming there is not just widespread lawbreaking, I suppose.
Pubs have been in decline for years, because people don't go / drink as much, and because of our starting position: this is a country where there are pubs everywhere. But Brewdog is a chain of pubs and a brewery – this is much larger than the standard story of "village supporting three pubs can now only support two".
As for the "torn" reporting, there's no contradiction – companies can go bust ethically or unethically. You don't have to screw your retail investors / fans. You just can. And they have.
Yeah, I mean millionaire authors are one thing, but saying "Most authors don't make enough money to live on, so I'm not going to pay them for their work" is a bit absurd.