I've been laid off twice, and both times we were very busy. There were deadlines we were told were absolutely crucial to meet and we were burning ourselves out trying to meet them. The product we were making never saw the light of day and to this day we don't even know why.
Are you saying the United States is a bastion of democracy? It's not even classified as a full democracy. The list of full democracies are Canada, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Uruguay, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, and Mauritius.
United States is classified as a flawed democracy. Partly because sweeping decisions like this one are made by Supreme Court Justices who nobody voted for and who hold their position for life.
Or maybe that's what you meant and you were being sarcastic with the quotation marks around "bastion of democracy"?
I am not making a statement, mostly portraying the official stance from the USA government that has just had their decision to ban TikTok come into effect.
As in, due to their official stance, we should not expect reciprocity at all.
But you did pique my curiosity, where did you get that list of "full democracies"?
In almost every country, the President or the Parliament selects Supreme Court Justices. In some countries, the President picks x, and the Parliament picks y. They don't have terms. Direct democracy does not make sense when selecting justices.
"hen" is my go-to gender neutral 3rd person singular pronoun.
I realize that English speakers use "you" for both singular and plural, having retired "thee" and "thou", but the resulting ambiguity has led to the creation of a new word, "y'all", or sometimes prepending it with "all of" for clarity.
Using "they/them" in the singular will just lead us down the same path.
Why not short circuit it and just add the pronoun English speakers have needed forever?
How often is the gender of the pronouned person(s) relevant? In my experience, almost never.
Right now I am reading William Gibson’s Neuromancer for the first time and guess what, back in 1984 there are uses of “they” in a situation where gender of a hypothetical singular third person is irrelevant. It is not confusing in the slightest, compared to a completely new artificially created word.
As a writer, he can make sure that he crafts a situation so that they is unambiguous. I have tried using it in my personal life only to stumble on whether they is one or many.
That's why I settled on borrowing a word that has proven its mettle
(Edit: I used "he" here because William Gibson seemed to identify as a guy, but Gibson's gender is completely irrelevant to this.)
I hear that in Japanese schools, the kids do most of the cleaning, like sweeping, cleaning the boards, taking out trash, and cleaning windows. Janitors mostly do building maintenance or major jobs.
That must instill the sense that environments that are shared collectively are everyone's responsibility. When janitors clean up after us, it instills the sense that we can do what we want and it's the problem of some lowly person to deal with it.
> I hear that in Japanese schools, the kids do most of the cleaning, like sweeping, cleaning the boards, taking out trash, and cleaning windows. Janitors mostly do building maintenance or major jobs.
We did this in Catholic grade school. Every week the assignments would rotate. The cleaning involved sweeping the class floor, washing the chalk board, beating the erasers of chalk dust, and pulling the trash bag from the can. The janitor took care of the rest like the hallways, offices and so on.
Would never happen in a NYC public school as the kids would be doing a union job.
We have that in my country, and it doesn't really affect the society overall: the streets are full of trash and it's considered normal to throw away cigarette butts, candy wrappers, etc. after you're done with them. From reading local internet forums, you get the idea that it's always the government fault that trash does not get picked up in time, it's never our own fault.
Extremely rich people control every aspect of your life, how your city is planned, the state of the job market, the state of the economy, the laws, the state of the planet itself. One way that got a lot of attention lately is that extremely rich people prevent access to health care for everyone else.
Nobody has that much control. Human systems evolve from many different interests and lots of unforseen consequences. How are the extremely rich preventing access to health care for everyone else? The US is a democracy, people do vote and have a say in what they want their representatives to do. If universal healthcare was the priority for a majority of voters over time, it would have happened.
Don't be naive. Try to look at everything throught he lens that considers money is speech and corporations are people, and that the flow of wealth always, without exeception, flows from the poorest to the richest, and you will understand why it's a fallacy to think there is any good will involved, or that the ultra-wealthy are going to let you or I, the peasants, fuck up their plans.
Lots of men seem to be in denial about what makes those 20% of men more attractive. It's mostly that they put in some amount of effort. Most women are only giving likes to men who write interesting things in their profiles and have put effort into grooming themselves and presenting themselves well in their photographs - ie men who seem likely to reciprocate when a woman invests effort into a relationship.
Since likes are virtually limitless, it allows the possibility to deceive. Most women on these apps have experienced matching with someone and then realizing he hasn't even read her profile. Many men don't even seem ashamed of deceiving women like this. Women don't want to be used or cheated on, and so many men are signaling that they will do so by starting off with lying to multiple women that they are interested. So of course women know that most likes are actually lies, and so women are very carefully looking for signs that a man isn't playing the field. The men who succeed are those who have profiles that manage to convince women that they will only express interest when it is honest and genuine.
> Lots of men seem to be in denial about what makes those 20% of men more attractive. It's mostly that they put in some amount of effort. Most women are only giving likes to men who write interesting things in their profiles and have put effort into grooming themselves and presenting themselves well in their photographs - ie men who seem likely to reciprocate when a woman invests effort into a relationship.
It is almost impossible to fake your personality. The moment you meet person IRL it will become obvious that the fake Mr. Interesting life was created just to get chicks online. Those 20% are interesting, because they’re genuinely interesting IRL, not because “they’ve put effort into their online persona”.
> It's mostly that they put in some amount of effort.
I don't understand why so many people think that those who struggle to date must be not putting effort. Do you really think that in real life effort equals success?
Nearly everyone in this sphere of life is victim to such a fallacy. I know many men who put in high effort and are not rewarded. Meanwhile I’ve seen men who actively sabotage and have women throwing themselves at them.
The world is not fair. It’s so obvious with wealth - why can’t it be obvious with dating?
I use Kagi and I only find myself switching to Google if I'm looking for local, up-to-the-minute information. Kagi maps is barely useful at all compared to Google Maps, at least at time of writing.
