ECB is doing one reckless thing after another which will inevitably lead to Germany leaving Eurozone at some point.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with the rest of it but this is nonsense. The ECB policy IS German, and has been for 3 decades. All of germany's economy is organized around the existence of the eurozone with Germany controlling a unified monetary policy.
One thing I can always be sure about, is reading premium gold plated, high quality, absolute dumbest nonsense about EU policies and state of EU on this website.
landlords need people to pay the rent. Or to spell it out more precisely : the construction/housing industry off of which land lords extract value needs external value creation to still exist AND give revenue to spend to a large population. "Houses are for people to live in" may be a communist slogan right now, but it's also very basic macro-economic reality.
Sure. But he still doesn't have the money to buy the labour the OP was wanting to sell. Which was the point of the argument: If you think AI will destroy most white collar jobs, learning a trade won't help.
Historically news outlet run as public service (with sufficient guardrails for autonomy) such as the BBC, PBS, France Television, Arte (naming only those I know well) have produce much better news coverage than the privately owned ones.
OTOH the concept of independent public institution and general checks and balances seems to have been entirely forgotten, so maybe that's not a solution for 21st century.
An alternative would be communally owned media (50/50 by readership and journalists), with simple direct tax incentive to fund them (equal amounts of $ per person)
Having first hand experience of all of the named public services, I beg to differ heavily.
These corporations tend to be heavily left-leaning, with no real guardrails preventing this. The consequence is pretty biased coverage, under the guise of a "trust-us, we are here for the greater good".
Look at the handling of Middle-East by BBC, the Zucman tax at France Television, or the current allegations of fraud in some communities in the US.
My current take is that it is really hard to get a fair unbiased coverage, unless you actually state that you will strive to hire and promote both sides. If these corporations had to publish the composition/promotion/pay of their newsroom across the political spectrum (as they do for example by gender), you may start to have fair unbiased coverage. But many journalists working there see it as their job to describe "not the reality as it happens, but rather as it ought to be" (to quote the CEO of France Television). We should acknowledge that people are biased, and measure the balance of biases rather than assert there is no bias because they serve the greater good.
Public interest stories are left-leaning only in that they tend to oppose the wielders of centralized power, and centralized power is generally a right-leaning construct.
That's objectively true. They're center-left or center-right. They're certainly not democratic socialists (who are the barest left of the left). The parent is complaining that there is some objectivity at all in liberal/center-right media, that it isn't calling for pure repression by force of middle eastern people and recognizes they sometimes suffer from aggression in ways that are understandable to human beings.
None of these outlets object to this repression being meted out, they only care that it is done in a way that is respectable. A left wing take would criticize the imperialist nature of these wars of aggression and genocide and examine the economic, class, and other social dimensions that cause these events to occur and call for a social revolution via means that are electoral or otherwise. A left-leaning liberal take would say something like "man it's crazy they don't respect the UN charter or even US laws". This should give some objective sense for how rightward our discourse has been drawn.
There is very little hardware that would actually be ipv6 incompatible.
We're talking network equipment from 15+ years ago, which is also obsolete because it's 1Gbps at 10x the power usage of a 10gbps switch.
It did. I question the issue of "what problem am I trying to solve" with AI, though. Transportation across a huge swath of land had a clear problem space, and trains offered a very clear solution; created dedicated railing and you can transport 100x the resources at 10x the speed of a horseman (and I'm probably underselling these gains). In times where trekking across a continent took months, the efficiencies in communication and supply lines are immediately clear.
AI feels like a solution looking for a problem. Especially with 90% of consumer facing products. Were people asking for better chatbots, or to quickly deepfake some video scene? I think the bubble popping will re-reveal some incredible backend tools in tech, medical, and (eventually) robotics. But I don't think this is otherwise solving the problems they marketed on.
This is a use case that hasn't yet been proven out, though. "Good enough" for an executive may not be "good enough" to keep the company solvent, and there's no shortage of private equity morons who have no understanding of their own assets.
Unless you are a personal assistant, your job probably is not to "make the life of your hiring manager easier".
You have responsibilities, which ideally should be stipulated in some form in a contract, and if you are vaguely senior they hopefully go beyond "do whatever steeve needs to feel good".
I would argue that it is in fact your manager whose job entails making your (and your peers) professional life easier, by identifying the roadblocks, escalating problems if need be, etc...
Did you have to hire people? If so, why did you do that? Was it because you had "too much on your plate"? If so, did not hiring a good employee "make your life easier"? Was there another reason for doing that? (honest question)
Indeed, it was assumed that the manager is intelligent (per Carlo Cipolla). One would not take or stay in the job otherwise.
reply