I imagine the writer wasn't thinking of those phrases as metaphors at all - just ready-to-hand, top-of-the-barrel cliches. Repeating cliches is popular, and far easier than thinking. Of course it's not very useful and it certainly is unaesthetic.
Unless you're going to go completely out of your way to find human written content the major outlets owned by billionaires or just going to feed you AI slop.
I am going out of my way to find human-written content today. I will continue to do so. As I refuse to waste time and attention on anything that is not really good, I shall either avoid synthetic writings or find that some of them are so good that they are indistinguishable from the best human writing. In which case I shall enjoy them.
From the fourth paragraph of TFA:
"But other experts in a field where disagreement over our emergence on the planet is rife, say that the new study's conclusions are plausible but far from certain".
See? No consensus. Science is done by experiment, not by weighing the papers.
This is science. There is no consensus.
In other news, human beings and other animals can help draw oxygen out of the atmosphere and sequester some of it in bodily tissues.
Or... wait, is that actually news?
This is just CEO-Brain bullshit. These people keep thinking we live to work, instead of work to live. What they forget is that yes many CEOs and "Founders" do work insane hours. But thats because they expect that at the end of the rainbow they will look in their bank account and behold a stupid number of zeros in their bank balance.
They are driven, mindlessly, to pile up riches far beyond any conceivable need. They seem unaware that in doing so they are just as much slaves to instinct as any "lower animal".
Perhaps they should consider the myth of King Midas. Also:
"And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: and he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God".
- Luke 12:15-21
If you have seen any videos of China posted by people who have actually gone there, you tend to see millions of cheerful people strolling around, shopping, getting exercise and fresh air, and travelling.
Mostly couples. According to Mr Schmidt, all those videos must have been taken on Sunday - the only time when workers have any free time.
Suggestion here is to not report research paid for by venture capitalists for the same reason why
By the same logic we should not pay attention to research funded by anyone at all.
The problem isn't the nuclear is going to kill me the problem is it's going to contaminate the land I own and all of the property on it.
Yes. Just look at France, which has been getting almost all its electricity from nuclear power for decades. Everything is fatally contaminated, and people are dying in droves from radiation sickness.
China too, which uses an increasing amount of nuclear power.
I don't understand how an employer can refrain from hiring anyone because he mysteriously intuits that some potential employees lack "work ethic".
Moreover, that simple phrase conceals a wealth of assumptions - not all of them reasonable or healthy. Many of us grew up with the belief that "work ethic" was normal and anyone lacking it was bound to fail through their own lack of moral fibre.
But such assumptions cut both ways, or ought to in a decent society. If "work ethic" says that employees must work hard and continuously, obey orders diligently, and sincerely try to further their employer's interests, shouldn't it also dictate that the employer has some reciprocal duties?
How much "work ethic" is it reasonable to expect of intelligent, observant people who notice that their employer treats them as fungible "resources", to be hired and fired in mindless response to the twitch of a spreadsheet, and exploited to the bone while they are employed? Which is normal behaviour for many bosses who sincerely believe that it is their moral duty to squeeze out every last ounce of effort and ingenuity from their subordinates before tossing them heartlessly aside as soon as "computer says"?
Shouldn't bosses treat their employees morally as part of their own "work ethic"?
Thanks for your valuable and well-documented contribution, and for your exemplary courtesy. Of course the opinion of a well-known celebrity such as yourself is quite decisive.
However, the following report shows that your opinions are wrong.
It's a cunning business plan. If it goes through and in a while it's found that the reefs are actually flourishing - it will be thanks to the clever American scientists! If not, it will be blamed on global warming.
Incidentally, do those people have any legal right to interfere with coral reefs along "...the coasts of Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras..."?
Last I heard, the Great Barrier Reef was thriving. Maybe that's why the focus is moving elsewhere.
Life imitating art in a not good way.
Or, more probably, art imitating prior art.
Before the fall of the wall triggered the 1990's recession, we used to "purchase" things.
Myself, I used to buy things. Actually, I still do. But then I'm British.
Truly magnificent!
"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum." --Arthur C. Clarke
