Are all men equal by that definition of "equal"? Or all women exactly like all other women?
"Men" aren't stamped out of some kind of archetypal "man" mold, nor are all women exactly whatever you think a "woman" is or should be. Both men and women are going to be distributed along a normal curve (or maybe log-normal) when it comes to their fitness for some particular job.
So this raises the question: how much overlap do those populations have? The traditionalist view is that there are manly jobs for which no woman is suitable; the radically opposite viewpoint is that there are no differences at all between the populations for any job. But leaving aside jobs like NFL offensive lineman or surrogate mother, I'd say that unless you take one or the other of these extreme positions it's not necessary to have an opinion on precisely how much overlap there is. The only thing that really matters is the individual you are evaluating for the job. If a woman is the best candidate for an engineering position or CEO or whatever, it literally doesn't matter whether or not men are usually better at that sort of thing.
"Show runner" is rarely listed in the credits. Usually some other role that applies to the person who is the show runner is listed, such as Creator.
I like the fact they can be really misleading. Producer sounds like it's the "boss", but actually it's often an underling who has to get the stars coffee and make sure they're in good hotel rooms. Remember Jeremy Clarkson beating up his producer? He wasn't beating up his boss, he was beating up someone who worked for him. Executive Producer? Probably - though not always - some guy at the studio who approved funding the show.
I have known or at least met many environmental luminaries in the course of my career, and as one of them put it: I = P*S/T -- that is to say environmental impact is proportional to population and standard of living, but is inversely proportional to technology.
So the key to avoiding a dystopian future is to keep the rate of technological improvement greater than the rate of population growth. The way to do that is to invest in people. Societies who have lower infant mortality rates have lower birth rates; societies with better education are more innovative.
Will the future way we do things look radically different from today? Yes! Just as the way we do things today look radically different from the past. Change happens in both the environment and human society; it's inevitable. The question is whether it happens at a rate organisms and people can adapt to, and in particular whether we make a conscious decision to direct that change or have it forced upon us.
The term has existed for decades. Producers and directors frequently change from show to show - writers too. Directors have a little creative input but work from a script he or she has little say in. The Producer's job is to make sure the Director can do his or her job. And an "Executive producer" is the person who fronts the cash, they rarely have any creative involvement at all.
None of those describe the person who owns the show creatively, who approves the scripts, determines the core storylines, manages the show's bible, etc. That person is the showrunner.
The only confusion here from what I can see is that for some reason it's rarely a job title shown in the credits. Usually - though not always - the showrunner is also the show's creator, so they just gets listed under that title. Vince Gilligan, Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul's showrunner, is listed as "Creator", for example.
You may not have intended it, but your allegations are a searing indictment of Republicans (or whoever came up with the law you're describing), not of Democrats. There's absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with rewarding people for voting. Voting is a civic duty, and a government with a "mandate" determined by a minority of those governed has no mandate at all. A law making it illegal to reward people for merely voting is at odds with that principle.
This story isn't about laws intended to stop rewarding people for voting. it's about laws intended to stop rewarding people for voting for a particular candidate, or punishing them for voting against that candidate. That's a legitimate law. Not something that punishes people for rewarding others for doing their civic duty.
You could just find out what's happening on other websites that have better insight.
It's pretty logical why people over history want to believe the world/society/civilization is ending - it makes a superb excuse for extremely localized personal choices and values.
Nobody who knows what they're talking about talks like you do. It's really that simple.
You must keep calling it that until they no longer exist or are no longer needed. They are horrible, and the name for them should be just as horrible or embarrassing as possible.
Well, we have messed up many places in a misguided attempt to save them, (History of Yellowstone) so yes, doing nothing may be better!
Err... "Doing nothing" in this case doesn't mean leaving nature alone; it means leaving human modification of nature alone.
It's the support for commercial applications people actually want to use, without having to compromise with shitty FOSS alternatives. Linux is a pain in the ass in that regard.
I've been running Linux for a bunch of years now and I'm content with the FOSS stuff. I buy Windows games on the Steam store sometimes, and I can imagine someone really needing an audio workstation or a video editor or something. But the basics (email, web, watching videos, word processor, spreadsheet, etc) are all solid.
That said I am willing to pay money for Linux software, if anyone would bother to sell any. I bought the legal video codecs pack and the DVD player from Fluendo and I'd buy a video editor or whatever.
The end of labor is to gain leisure.