My thought is more along the lines of, “Regardless of his talent level, is this really the kind of person that his country wants representing them on the world stage?”
Like, okay even if he’s the absolute best by an order of magnitude…if he were from my country, I’d rather lose every match than win on the talents of someone like that.
I think it’s mostly that it comes across more like religious proselytizing than “good advice”.
Also, that “advice” is mixed in with just as much messaging about how fussy it can be and implications that you’ve got to basically be an enthusiast level user to make it work for you. Not that it necessarily is that way, but overall that’s the messaging I see from this community.
As someone who tried Linux many years ago, disliked it, and went back to Windows, generally my take is that Windows is far from perfect, but it’s the best option for me, and I’m happy to try and ignore the Lemmy buzz around it…but that buzz just gets more and more annoying over time.
I’m not even sure these GOP reps are getting a dime from Russia.
More likely: they’re not getting anything from Russia, but their god-emperor Donny sure is, and he’s also got a vendetta against Ukraine after the whole Biden investigation debacle, so he’s using his inexplicable political clout within the party to pressure them into doing his bidding, with the penalty for falling to do so being that he says bad things about them, costing them an election.
Yeah that was gonna be my question: does Italy not have any legal mechanism in place that would be the functional equivalent of the US’s supremacy clause?
Like…not saying shit like this isn’t attempted all the time in deeply conservative areas of the US, but in most cases where the far right leadership has even a shred of strategic thinking, they often don’t even attempt to pass or enforce laws like this because it’ll trigger immediate challenge in the courts, the challenge will be 100% taken up and the decision will come down against them (since even in a conservative court, the only thing they hate more than ruling in favor of “liberal” causes is any ruling that would limit the court’s power in the future), and at that point there’s a permanent legal precedent in the books, against the repression they’d like to carry out.
We prosecuted those responsible (in absentia) and they will be arrested once they enter Dutch soil.
Sounds like you did absolutely nothing
Anyone can be insanely popular! Just gotta have an iron grip on the media!
While I won’t touch the subject matter with a ten foot pole, since I have a take that neither side likes…
It took me 20 minutes half paying attention to a meeting that should have been an email
Christ on a bike, I felt that one in my bones!
Not the least of which being that if they nuke it, they don’t get it. At least not in the way they want it.
But honestly, way theory aside, massive open warfare against Taiwan would be horrific for Taiwan, but outside of the region, it would really doom China as it exists.
Even if they did manage to take the island, likely with just an overwhelming wave of soldiers, at that point, the entire world, aside from a few exceptions (NK, Iran, Syria, Russia, Belarus, and maybe some African nations) are going to effectively strangle the Chinese economy with sanctions if not an outright embargo.
It might not change things overnight, but hitting China square in the economy is far more effective than it is for Russia, because China is so much more of a player in the world economy. They depend on the world buying their goods. As long as the rest of the world can keep unfulfilled consumer demand from triggering crippling sustained double digit inflation for years on end, there may not even be a need for large scale, near-peer open warfare.
China is a green-water navy with but-water dreams
Butt-water Dreams. Band name.
While that might be the only direct result, you’re also assuming that A) it’s only taking place in major chain stores and B) that the effects won’t include price hikes for everyone to compensate for that slight dip in profits.
In reality, corporations have showed us they’re never going to just “take the L”. If something negatively impacts their bottom line, they’ll make up for it by forcing that financial burden onto their customers.
In that respect, I suppose it’s more on the Star Wars track, where “transparisteel” is used on the TIE fighter windows.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but this brings up the next round of tough questions:
If your bodily autonomy is absolute, fine, but what happens when your choices and their impact start to spill beyond your own personal life?
If you want to go wild with hard drugs, okay fine, whatever. But when you need medical attention because of that decision, should insurance providers or the state be obligated to spend in order to treat you?
When your addiction costs you your job and support network, should the collective taxpayer have to subsidize your poor life choices?
I don’t mind the notion that individuals should have final say over what happens to their bodies, but that sort of assumption of responsibility, at some point, cuts both ways…and the flip side of some of these decisions would suggest that the individual should bear all consequences of their decisions…which seems unlikely in practice. We’re not going to see an addict rushed to an ER and the hospital toss them out into the street saying, “This was your decision! Sorry!”
And the mitigation measures seem equally unlikely to fly with the “strict bodily autonomy” crowd: increased insurance premiums or exception clauses in policies in order to keep expenses reined in for the rest of the policy holders/taxpayers who aren’t using their strict autonomy in a way that adversely affects others.
While it’s fine to conceptually discuss these decisions in a vacuum where it only affects the individual, in real life application, these decisions have impacts outside the individual in almost every case, which fundamentally shift the discussion.
In theory.
In practice, it has to be approved by your supervisor and is only for times when it won’t interfere with progress on actual work.
So all they’ve gotta do is give you a lot of work to do…or just say no…and you don’t get that anymore.
They do both.
When I bought my car in 2015 it came with the free trial but I specifically did not sign up for a subscription. When the trial ran out they started hounding me and I basically struck a deal: I’ll get a year subscription but if and only if you invoice me. Mail me a bill in the mail and I will write you a check and mail it to you or make a one time payment on your site. No auto-enrollment.
The first two years they did this no problem. The third year they put up a big fuss and told me that wasn’t something that was possible. I asked how it was possible for the past two years and he said I must have misunderstood. So I said okay, if that’s not possible then I guess I’m done with Sirius and hung up. A few days later I got another email and called in again and asked that rep for the invoice option and she said while it’s not commonly done, she’d make an exception for me.
The year after that I tried three different reps and nobody would invoice me so I cancelled and haven’t signed up since. They still sent me mail and email for years, and somehow they fucked up their database and when my parents bought their car (same make, different model) now I’m getting all of their ad email from Sirius again, but they did stop (intentionally) emailing me after about two years of no contact.
In this context, read “investors in American corporations”.
In deals like this, for the average person it tends to be a matter of “jobs vs prices”. Imports in effect can place a soft cap on domestic prices, while it’s also possible that a significant influx of imported goods could displace the jobs of domestic workers (and I don’t wish to downplay the significance of that burden on those affected), usually this demographic of “lost job due to business drying up thanks to imports and trade deals” is small in comparison to “experienced lower prices due to increased competition”.
I’d even venture a speculation that even in cases where jobs are lost in these situations, it’s probably just as often “corporate leadership preserving margins by reducing workforce and asking more productivity of the remainder” than actual proportional loss of market share.
I feel like this could be a brilliant recurring NPC.
Joins the party initially when they’re low level and down on their luck, just looking for some extra muscle for a job.
Has a few adventures with them and just when the party starts to get used to having him around and actually start to like and get to know him, he asks to be cashed out and takes his share of the loot to buy the plot of ground where he wants to farm.
But it doesn’t end there.
Some time later, the party is in a bind and need a place to lie low, so it’s off to John’s farm. He’s doing okay… modestly successful, having slightly more than he started with at the end of each season. Still having trouble with local ne’er-do-wells (which the party may help with) but his adventuring time has served him well in dealing with them.
They part ways wishing each other well.
Some time later, the big bad that the party was hiding from discovers that John had been sheltering them and razes the farm, John barely escaping with his life by hiding in his well. In the well he discovers a cavern passage leading to a significant ore deposit, so he gets out of the farming business and into the mining business. Still, he needs to have protection from big bad, someone to clear out nasty things from the cave, help him procure mining equipment from a nearby city, and make contact with both vendors and buyers. Enter the players. With their help, John successfully gets his mine going and starts to make profit and turn his fortunes, even helping to improve the town.
Turns out he’s massively successful and it goes to his head. He becomes a sort of robber baron, basically owning the town and treating it as his own private labor pool. Wages are slim, conditions are harsh, and pollution from the smelting furnaces has poisoned the land. He’s got no need for the party anymore, having hired a cutthroat mercenary company to protect his holdings and intimidate the townspeople. When the party returns after some far off adventure, the town is unrecognizable.
Of all people, it’s the former big bad that reaches out to them: it would seem some sort of a greed demon has been behind things all along, first forming a pact with Big Bad but later abandoning him when he failed to kill John years ago. When John discovered the cave, the demon realized that the end of the ore vein, way down there, sealed off a portal to it’s hellish domain. So the demon formed a pact with John, in the guise of some less evil entity, helping him succeed in his business venture at the expense of all else, knowing that as soon as the vein runs out, the portal will be opened.
From there it’s up to the heroes to try to stop the demon (and John, and maybe the Big Bad, bent on revenge) or if they fail, dealing with the effects of the portal to hell opening beneath the town.
I’ve had this happen to me, and even said to the person, “No nevermind! My train of thought is already derailed. Say whatever you were going to say now.”
I’ve got one engineer, only one in the two teams of like ten each that I work with, who doesn’t understand the concept of sending out a short email or IM to ask, “Hey, I’d like to give you a call about XYZ. When would be a good time for you?”
I mean, email is by far the best. It doesn’t demand real time attention and ALSO gives a body of text and attachments to refer back to whenever.
IM also offers these but not as easily organized and searchable.
Phone is worst: there’s no lasting record, no attachments, and you have to drop what you’re doing to participate.
Most of my team realizes these things and prefers email. There are a few who still rely on calls but they at least set up a time for calls.
Only this one guy (a young guy too) thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to call without any announcement or warning, then take up 30-90 minutes of your time with a call to convey information that could have been in a short email or taken care of in literally 5-10 minutes.
He always wants to chat about random shit before getting to the point, then give you a bunch of extra info you don’t even need.
Thus, I’ve started just ignoring his calls when it’s not a good time for me.
If he feels it’s okay to just randomly interrupt, I feel I’m just as justified in refusing to allow said interruption.
We need to allow
Oh crap, I guess we didn’t realize we were sitting on the remote with the button that prevented that!
Honestly, I appreciate the “good vibes” tone here but it’s painfully naive in any practical sense.
Most jobs like that, or really any pay scheme other than piece work or an hourly wage usually has the process of:
It’s like playing chess, and while the other player can’t change the rules as they go, but a condition for playing with them is that they get two moves every turn.