• 1 Post
  • 24 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle


  • The reality is that both sides are laying out unrealistic terms for surrender right now… and that’s fine. The start of a negotiation is always to start with a stated position and go from there. This war will end at the negotiation table… at least we hope it does becuase unconditional surrender won’t come from Russia, but it could come from Ukraine.

    The real question is have both sides suffered enough for a negotiated end to this war? Look, it sucks, but that’s the truth of it. It would be good to see an end to the fighting and dying in Ukraine. Wars suck. The only side winning in this war is the US. They/we spend a pittance of money and watch Russia burn their future generation, military reputation, and global standing to the ground. That’s the #2 political opponent the US has in the world, and it’s acting as a great example for to show China (the #1) why it should behave itself over Taiwan. Win win!

    But wars suck. It’s easy to sit on the sidelines, but there a lots of people fighting and dying over there who have nothing to do with make the decisions for war. Yes Putin’s demands are ridiculous, but so are Ukraine’s. That’s fine. Put them in a room and hopefully they can figure out way to end the killing that’s in between the two.










  • It’s a common phrase for to describe prioritizing bad news over normal news in media… basically saying bad shit gets top billing on news outlets. For example, murder, accidents, deaths, etc, they will lead the news feeds. This tends to give watchers/readers a skewed perspective as to how bad things are in the world. For example, murder rates may be down but media constantly hyping up the latest murders may get people to think it’s the worst it’s ever been… reality be damned.



  • It’s not that this is an unpopular opinion, but rather that it’s a dumb opinion. You’re defining things one way and someone else can define them a different way. You can both define what an environmentalist is differently and that will affect the result of your question. If you’re insisting that you own the definition of an “environmentalist” then you’re being dumb.

    In fact, I agree with the unstated premise of your statement. I think the risks of nuclear waste and a nuclear meltdown are much less than the risks of global warming and therefore nuclear power is good for the environment. However it is also a perfectly valid opinion that we should just reduce our energy usage and reduce global warming in that manner. I think it’s unrealistic, but it’s possible if we had the desire to do that as a collective. It is a valid opinion to be on that side of the fence. I think it’s the less pragmatic approach, but I’ve known many people who are hippy environmentalists and it’s still a valid position.


  • I guess I’ve been lucky enough to work at companies where the CEO worked hard and provided significant benefit to the company. Of course, working hard for a CEO is different than for people lower. Going to dinner with customers, schmoozing with other CEOs, and getting updates from managers, etc. are all important CEO tasks. In every company I’ve worked at in the past 25 years, the CEO puts in more than 40 hours a week, but that 40 hours may be travel or going to nice dinners, etc. I’ve also seen them provide good leadership, good direction, and have been relatively good people. “Relatively good”. Maybe I’ve just been lucky.