Comment Re:Same shit, different country (Score 1) 41
It's not exactly better, but at least less fucked up.
It's not exactly better, but at least less fucked up.
Yeah, it's a shithole country. That doesn't meant they don't do something sensible from time to time.
Fewer people would become diabetic?
You might want to point out what part of the constitution gets ignored. Because so far I fail to see what that should be.
As long as this terror state has a permanent seat and thus a permanent veto against pretty much anything sensible, we ain't gonna get anywhere.
Dump that shit, make a new one, and leave that has-been power out.
We do not appreciate it if former employees post confidential information about the inner workings online, even after leaving The Company.
That incident will be examined.
You install unsolicited code on something other than a VM that contains no sensitive information, running on a computer you will wipe after the interview, on a connection that isn't physically separated from the rest of your network?
Sorry, your security conscience is not at the level we require.
War doesn't always start with a clear-headed, cold-blooded weighing of national interests. In fact I'd say that's the more the exception than the rule. Historically it's quite common for a country to start a war that in retrospect looks stupid from the standpoint of national interests.
Of course peaceful initiatives can be just as badly thought ought. We quite *deliberately* chose to tie our economy to China; I remember this quite distinctly. Although nobody anticipated the speed or completeness of the interdependency that would folow, everybody understood that we were choosing to head that way. The argument was a purely ideological one, whether interdependency per se was a *good* thing. And, as far as it goes, the argument was sound. If you don't nitpick too much, it worked out just as planned.
The thing that we really didn't put much thought into was *who it was we were choosing to become interdependent with*. China is, not to put too fine a point on it, an unstable and very dangerous powder keg. There is no rule of law; laws are enforced selectively by officials tied to an unaccountable and unrestrainable political party. There is no freedom of information, which means among other things you don't get economic data you can trust. The system is prone to sudden, opaque power shifts and the emergence of strong men who are legally, and sometimes politically unrestrained with respect to policy and military affairs.
And now we'd really like a little more distance from that powder keg, but our interdependence is the main thing that's stabilizing the situation. At least in the short term, until somebody does something that, in restrospect, will look really stupid. Which is inevitable, eventually.
Presumably critters evolved to deal with noises that naturally and regularly occur in their native habitats.
This doesn't mean that natural noises that aren't regularly part of their normal habitat can't harm them. It's possible that animals whose range naturally overlaps the periodical cicadas do get harmed by that noise, but the harm is not significant enough to exert selective evolutionary pressure.
So natural isn't necessarily benign. Nor, do I think, is *unnatural* necessarily harmful. But dose does makes the poison, and cars do make a *lot* of noise. It's pretty well established that humans overexposed to car noise can develop health problems like cardiovascular disease. Since CVD mainly kills and disables people after their reproductive years, don't expect populations to evolve a biological tolerance for car noise though.
I guess I speak for the assembled when I say "so do we".
You say less hard working, I say harder to exploit for your gains.
Noble? Nah. I'm just done trying to keep a planet habitable for dimwits who can't be assed to do it themselves, even though they are the ones that will suffer when (not if) it is FUBAR.
Let's add some turds to the dumpster fire, it's not like it matters anymore anyway.
He's moving some assets into US companies because they're innovative. Fair enough.
He thinks they're innovative because they've got more hustle. OK. That's almost circular.
He thinks they've got more hustle because Americans work longer hours. That doesn't follow at all.
Sometimes you work longer hours because the boss forces you to, and you are giving him as little for the time as possible. Sometimes you work longer hours because you're disorganized, bad at planning and managing your time. I've seen that often enough. If hours worked equals hustle equal innovation, he should be putting his money into Cambodia, where workers put in 40% more hours per year than Americans. Sweden and Switzerland rank higher than the US in the Global Innovation Index, even though people in those countries work a *lot* less.
Innovation for a country is multifactorial. Wealth and education matter. Attractiveness to foreign investment; rule of law; those are really important things where America excels. Even sheer size makes a difference; being part of a massive integrated market is a huge boost to both the US and the EU. Sure, work ethic matters, but work *hours* is a lousy proxy for that. In some countries people put in six hours of honest hard toil each day then go home. Do they have less work ethic than a country where people spend ten hours a day at work but much of that "lying flat"?
Work continues in this area. -- DEC's SPR-Answering-Automaton