If I’m given exciting work to do, and management reduces beurocracies and other blockers, I’ll work 60, 70, 80 hour weeks. If my job is as a glorified paper pusher because of bad procrssses/management I won’t.
It’s a leaders job to motivate people to work those hours, and create an environment where it is worthwhile, to just say “work more” sounds like he thinks management doesn’t have a role to play.
In fact almost definition ally, if you’re people aren’t working enough, that’s a management failure. So who is he telling?
The past three years we have been with propaganda from both sides of this conflict. It’s a war. To point to one side and say that’s the side that’s lying is just more propaganda, it’s not a serious breakdown.
Can you explain more about being bamboozled? Bamboozled about what? Bush tried to convince us that Iraq was creating WMD’s when they weren’t, but left and right were pretty united at the time as a reaction to 9/11, like it wasn’t just the right that was bamboozled, it was bipartisan.
Left and right were pretty united in defense of Ukraine until Trump came along, but what’s the lie they were trying to convince us of. That Russia started the war when really Ukraine did?
Trump said that the other day, but if he really believes it, why doesn’t he seem to stand behind it?
I haven’t heard a clear confident description of what the lie is???
So this is true, and if I piece apart what you’re saying, it’s that you think that liberal propaganda has turned people away from MAGA, convincing liberals of Trump’s inherent malevolence.
But I have a different theory. I think that in this case, the propagandists are trying to convince the other of their own inherent malevolence.
Not to say liberal media doesn’t try to do this, but let’s be honest? Trump is a world’s better marketer than the folks at MSNBC.
And I think he thinks it is useful to be so extreme that it also creates that divisiveness. Like as objectively as I try to look at Trump, I think he intentionally obfuscates his intentions to increase divisiveness.
It's funny, I mean I don't know the exact divide between MAGA and trad Republicans, but the trad Republicans I know have been the ones to turn pro-Russia. There definitely seems to be a split in /r/conservative.
This is a bit flippant, but maybe hacker/startup culture just moved from being applied to tech to being applied to politics? It seems like the technofeudalism promoted by some could apply a similar ethos.
I don't think that we're this far gone yet, but is there a chance the US sides with Putin in this case? I think it would be risky, and I don't _think_ Trump's base would go for it, but it does feel like the long term goal is to try to sanitize the idea of a shift in the geopolitical order to ally America with Russia instead of with Europe.
Yeah, I watched as much of the video as I could, and I can totally see this playing well with all the conservatives I know. JD Vance and Trump come off as strong, and Zelensky comes off as weak.
I'm curious which way this will go since this is opinion is split in the current administration. If I had to guess, I'm guessing big tech will win, and h-1b will be protected/maximized.
Right, but what you are forgetting is, that in exchange for all the efficiency provided by a central government agency, millionaires with only 2 yachts will be able to leverage this private contract into enough money to buy a third yacht.
Areas with dense populations will be financially incentivized to generate their own storm warnings, and we'll save money on sparsely populated areas, so probably rather than spending money equally on tornadoes and hurricanes, we'll see more money spent on hurricanes and less money spent on tornadoes.
What are the potential macroeconomic impacts of like increased financial scams. I assume maybe like most things, is that it can be good short term but bad long term? Like it depends how enmeshed things get and if we end up in a similar situation to 2008?
I can sort of blur my eyes and certainly see why some flexibility is necessary to evolve our financial systems, but something about a lot of this stuff feels shortsighted.
I’m not clear the distinction you’re making. Doesn’t coin base make more money is people think Crypto is real? Like rug pulls are relatively small potatoes for the big banks who could be making billions on fees if crypto is legitimized, I might even assume the opposite low level crypto fans or maybe better put “influencers” want to do unlimited crimes but the “industry” wants reasonable regulation.
Do they want this though? R/cryptocurrency is not happy, and if you want crypto legitimacy; wasn’t part of the complaint of the crypto industry that the SEC was too slow to make rules?
It’s a leaders job to motivate people to work those hours, and create an environment where it is worthwhile, to just say “work more” sounds like he thinks management doesn’t have a role to play.
In fact almost definition ally, if you’re people aren’t working enough, that’s a management failure. So who is he telling?