I'm still partial to that tactical nuclear strike.
That's twice the reason to throw sense and logic out the window!
Where's terrorists when you need them?
Seriously, people. Am I the only one who can see how they can instantly score a lot of sympathy and good PR if they chose the right targets for their planes?
The task, then, is to implement something that can operate around 80% of the way there, most of the time.
In case you're wondering, I know why you don't get invited to parties...
We get a new barrage of online anti-bullying laws. While at the same time, nobody gives half a shit about real life bullying.
Ya know what I'm talking about. The kind where REAL people REALLY hurt you and your feelings. Starts in school, doesn't even end in the workplace. And? Zilch. Nada.
Could it be that the ones making the laws ARE the offline bullies? And just unable to retaliate otherwise when their targets fight back with weapons that require more brain cells to employ?
Note that I'm not accusing our market of functioning properly.
And, like, everyone else in the arena?
I don't question it being competitive. Or requires training and skill. Hell, I even don't question that it's a sport. Or rather, I don't want to get into a discussion about it because, well, it's useless. There still is a reason why your playing of DOTA or whatever else the game du jour is will replace Superbowl Sunday any time soon: It's boring to watch.
And sadly that's true for ALL so called eSports. It simply isn't interesting to watch someone play a computer game. Yes, maybe due to novelty some people will wanna know what the hubub is about, but as soon as the novelty factor wears off, it's back to "meh". It's simply no fun to watch people play a computer game when you can play it yourself instead.
Soon to be the official SI unit describing the minimum distance between two blunders.
And this is how copyright caused thousands of deaths because the life saving checks could not be implemented.
I feel like a story coming to me...
I state up front that I work on my own terms. I have talent to offer and can solve problems that others often can't, but I place a premium on flexibility and on my own health and family. I am incredibly productive, more than many other employees, but I do not offer *maximum productivity*, i.e. "as much as I am humanly able to produce." Even if it seems that I have more to offer (i.e. I leave at 6:30 when everyone else is still working and Skyping me at 11:30 pm, I travel a only couple of times per year and decline to travel 20 times per year, etc.), I am not willing to give this "more" to the organization—it is for my family and my own personal growth.
And both of the phrases I used are things I've been told—"We have doubts about your how serious you are; we're interested in someone that's more serious about their career" and "We don't doubt that you're highly skilled and productive, your resume and recommendations are stellar, but we're in a competitive industry and we need highly competitive people, and we're not sure you've got that competitive fire in your belly—that you're really going to be one hundred percent invested in the company and its growth."
I have two friends that have been on the serial startup carousel as founders. Both burned out and moved in other directions because they felt it was impossible to actually have a life, be a human being, and get growth and operating capital support from investors. Each startup became their entire lives each time until positive exit, and at some point each said, "I'm not doing this again, I'm losing my own sense of identity and my family."
And if you take that kind of statement out into the public sphere, I'd bet that what others would say is, "Well, they weren't really made to be enterpreneurs, then; they were destined to burn out because it's not the lifestyle for them."
Which is precisely my point—and it sounds like you've seen it, too—there's a prevailing "wisdom" that "real" career builders or "real" enterpreneurs are a particular "type"—the type that gives every . last . drop . of . blood to the company. The rest? They're just not "cut out for it"—they should "do something else."
Of course, if you're not "cut out" for the job market or for enterpreneurship, it's not quite clear what "else" you ought to be doing to earn a living. There are only so many jobs at nonprofits and in government agencies.
It would be better if society were to take a step back and assume the opposite—that everyone is basically loyal, driven, and productive, but in general, a healthy person cannot exist without healthy hours, life balance, and relationships, and if someone is the "type" to be working from 4:00 am until midnight every day of the week, and double that on holidays to pick up the slack, the are probably in need of counseling or personal development, rather than a raise and a promotion. But I suppose that's not how the market works.