Yes, analogies do have differences. And parliament is better than handshakes behind closed doors, even if it’s not perfect.
Comparing to states is much more far fetched. The UK left the union without any serious retaliation, let alone military conflict. What would happen if Texas or California tried to secede seriously?
For the past year or so I've only been watching YouTube in private browser windows to avoid getting too stuck in an algo niche. Sometimes I'll have the window open for a few days at a time and build up different interests in the recommendations. Eventually either an unplanned restart or intentionally closing the window makes me start from scratch.
Its especially interesting recently as Youtube encourages you to search for something before giving you recommendations, so you get to "seed" your session with topics you like. If nothing comes to mind I'll just start with Practical Engineering and go from there.
The only downside is that I can't "like" content to help the creators, since I'm not logged in
YouTube for me as a search results never a destination. And my search browser is anonymous. It clears all data when I exit. If I could "like" content without logging in I would - but I can't.
It is not narrowly scoped, it states that we need to stop another "wave" of "social justice piggishness" which would include challenging the gender identity framework the author is using among other things. It also makes broad claims about social justice politics writ large.
Having read it carefully I found the hn thread interesting and it correctly criticized the essay's lazy reasoning.
Unless pg just now edited it out, you're making false quotes and misrepresenting his words.
I cannot find the quote "social justice piggishness" or the word "gender" in his essay. Every single mention of the word "wave" is attached to "wave of political correctness" or a close variation thereof.
Thanks for this. I've always considered PC an entirely different thing, but after perusing the comments here, and given our new president's attitude toward the people affected, I can see your point.
It obviously wasn’t so strict since the Palestinians were still able to send thousands of rockets.
Gaza also has a border with Egypt, which Israel doesn’t control. For their own reasons, the Egyptians also blockade Gaza - although they did let in all the explosives and weapons that were used against Israel.
I agree that the Egyptians also blockaded it, which is also explained in the wiki I shared. It is still inaccurate (and intentionally misleading imo) to say "Israel left the place some 20 years ago".
The point I'm making is that it is inaccurate to say Israel "left the place some 20 years ago" because they maintained a strict blockade on it. I didn't say anything about cause and effect.
The author links to a Teach For America article as evidence of the "removing gifted programs in the name of equity" trend. That article in turn references 2 gifted programs potentially being suspended in Boston and Anchorage, one temporarily for a year due to administrative constraints and one due to budget cuts.
Why does the author claim this is a broad trend with social justice and equity goals at its heart when that isn't what the evidence provided suggests? (Imo: clickbait.)
This example illustrates the first comment's point: it is fundamentally a transactional relationship. "Caring contributes greatly to the bottom line" means the goal of "caring" is increased productivity.
Not to belabor the point, but if I understand the book correctly Paul did things this way because he believed it was the right thing to do and it was the best fit for him and his personality. Relating this way to employees allowed him to live with himself and humanized the business. So the increased productivity was a happy coincidence of his insistence on positive human interaction being a foundational element of business operations. He never really expected to be successful or anything like the great success which unfolded. The entire business was basically winging it in order to make money because he had trouble following more common paths.
It was at a university and the union is called in France CGT.
The basic problem is, if we have such powerful semi-paralegal entity (considering its scope and power), it protects people in need, but what mechanisms do we have in place to prevent it from evolving into an entity protecting itself (or to a mixed state), attracting those with perverse incentives in addition to those in need?
I agree with comments above. I wouldn’t say we should rush to dismiss unions. It probably depends on a lot of factors, eg, on country and how it’s set up. However, we need to recognize that this is an organization functioning like any other, eg, a bank, it has internal motives and can, and will, use its concentrated power to produce good and bad results. We probably need a balanced approach, and checks ...
> It was at a university and the union is called in France CGT.
As a mostly labourer union, CGT is a minority in universities, especially among teachers and researchers (less so in administrative and maintenance departments).
