Yeah, especially as a lot of the criticism of the war rightly falls to the civilian leadership making idiotic decisions on how to fight the war.

You have two wars directly affecting major hydrocarbon exporting countries and the strategic reserves of several countries are at a generational low. Shell is likely betting that oil is going to spike, which probably isn’t bad for electrification as a concept.

We’ve also been seeing in adjacent industries that the skills to succeed in hydrocarbon related energy don’t exactly transfer well to non-hydrocarbon related energy. Shell may be bad at building out solar because solar works on different scales than they are used to.

It is all based on who talked to Trump last.

Silicon Valley kind of encourages maximalism. Companies are expected to grow and it is hard to grow beyond the monopoly you’ve built for yourself.

Also, not everyone is willing to take the deal where you go retire with your ballerina wife to go become a wildlife photographer. Some people like being a businessman.

I’m talking about kids texting each other.

You would need to make them dumber/more controlled. A dumb phone with unlimited texting is still going to be a distraction.

So nothing improved but everything became worse?

The problem that the current Reddit leadership had was that they didn’t want to share power with the stakeholders it had previously relied on to generate growth. Reddit was getting free content, moderation, and even some dev resources. There was a path in which Reddit could have maintained its ecosystem while still being profitable, but spez chose to be like every other social network.

Ellen Pao was such a better CEO.

You should post this to UnpopularOpinions.

Yeah. I had one teacher in an advanced math class say that you have to treat “gifted” students as a form of special education because traditional educational techniques don’t work on them. The reason why a lot of schools don’t do this is because a poorly performing “gifted” student will generally meet minimum education standards even if they are performing well below their potential.

It depends. If you’re an independent contractor working for a company, you could be considered to be operating a business from your home.

The line has gotten blurry, especially after COVID.

Depending on the jurisdiction.

No businesses from home is a relatively common condition in a lease and co-op ownership contract, especially if the business involves people constantly visiting the home or turns the mailroom into a warehouse.

It is the equivalent of a lease banning a person from setting up an Airbnb in the unit they rented.

I said one without the other feels counterproductive. If you can mobilize a few percentage of the voting public who will vote for who you say, you are far more likely to get included within the political process to create legislation and policy to your looking, which is the point of organizing.

I don’t see why someone would throw away a tool to implement change they are pushing for.

Organizing, showing up to government events, meeting with government officials, trying to verify government claims, demonstrating at key times if demands aren’t being met, trying to convince others why your cause is just, developing candidates and running them if an existing candidate isn’t worth it.

I think it is very counter productive. After all, you’re trying to get a political goal implemented. Why wouldn’t you want to influence which people make the decisions?

Regarding organization, BLM was organized how many years and didn’t get its political goals implemented? I bring up BLM because that is what the article is about.

There were protests for months and the burning of a police station, but then what? Why wasn’t BLM able to sustain a political movement long enough to actually fix the problem?

I hear a lot of people saying to focus on protest and organization instead of voting, but did that get anything actually done? Hell, Trump is back as President in part because leftist organizations pulled support and said both parties were the same.

I understand you’re talking through the process, which is what I’m asking about.

I look at it as, if it gets to that point, there is a significant amount of risk that the right team will win and then there is a significant amount of risk that the right team will actually do what they are saying. It then gets into what other actions are out there which are viable and which other actions are easier to implement.

I feel like people forget there was a lot of violence and bloodshed over civil rights and that was political action through non-violent means. There also becomes the issue where a political movement has to implement the policies they are supporting; policies requiring greater government involvement require better administrators than what is currently out there and there will be tradeoffs.

And there will be conflict, but it is a lot easier to win a conflict with an army of voters than to try to muster an actual army.

Even then, the agreement has led to a dysfunctional devolved government and conditions of the agreement which are in jeopardy due to Brexit.

How would revolution work?