Because killing a leader without a plan for who will replace them isn’t very efficient. A leader, unless he is particularly skilled, is rarely string enough to actually have that big of an influence but it’s enabled by the institutions. The only way to change the institutions is weakening the ones you want to weaken.
Have you watched the Stephen King movie about that?
Probably because they thought physical discipline was an effective method of training at an impressionable age but was obviously only a method of punishment once you reached adulthood. Or maybe because enough of the people who made the laws could imagine themselves on the side of the prisoner, but none of them would ever be in the position of being a child again so there wasn’t enough self interest for that law to be different.
Basically probably no good reason, but just a misguided vague ‘nip it in the bud’ attitude carried over the generations.
Sounds more like a list of things someone might be rage baited into saying
The only way it makes any sense is if you did it quickly and sloppily.
If you were doing it quickly and to anything approaching a reasonable approximation of ‘your best’, then the teacher was just frustrated that the work was too easy for you any they hated seeing anyone getting a break but they saw no way to give you more work than the other kids. Most likely because they were too lazy to come up with a good tiered lesson plan.
He’s asking why Trump decided to go
Trouble is you can justify anything you want with the Bible.
Picking a fight with the guy most identified with have some direct line of information with the god of your constituents though?
Frank Zappa and Christopher Hitchens. Maybe not personally, but i really feel like there are some losses that the world doesn’t realize.
I literally broke an accidental streak of not logging into x for like a year to make sure the last three ‘screenshots’ of trump weren’t real, including this one. Seriously though, was the ‘praise Allah’ one real or not? I honestly can’t tell for sure if it’s satire or just something one of his handlers deleted.
Also, all real assumptions are invisible. The more things you realize were assumptions but are actually questions worth asking the better you actually are at that job or, if not better, the more experienced.
Probably truth in that, but also possible the question was phrased in a way where the managers weren’t prioritizing the things that could lead to firing, but things they were most likely to die someone for, and theft certainly isn’t as common as or attendance.
Personally i always put a person’s attitude above being on time. Someone who regularly showed up late but was willing to help others who were struggling is better, in my opinion, than someone who was on time everyday but was just watching the clock. That said, it definitely depends on the job. If someone else is waiting for you to get there before they can leave, you are definitely on the block if you’re constantly that guy.
The outrage might be a little over the top, but the sentiment is valid. Click baity shit like this is why no one pays attention to the actual outages going on.
If people are constantly seeing articles like ‘Trump didn’t say he would rule out pushing toddlers into wood chippers to combat climate change’ and the article goes on to talk about how he was asked about what he had for breakfast, then outrage is a little hard to keep up. I actually think that’s the worst/best tactic trump has used… Keep the outage going so steadily that people are worn out when the real stuff is out in the headlines.
It is arguably preying on this trait that made the pricing possibleAsode from that, you can’t honestly suggest to that just ‘not being that way’ is a valid option. Sure that can work to a small degree for specific individuals, but ‘just don’t be the way you are’ to solve some specific challenge, likely at the detriment to many other traits you may not want to break, is thoughtless and ignorant advice.
Is the gift so expensive that you feel it necessary to reclaim the money? Would it feel as though something was missing if they hadn’t got you anything? It seems like the more appropriate choice in this situation might have been to accept the gift generously and simply not used it, or not used it often and continued to use the older item. Then, if asked about it, perhaps explained it at that point instead of making a point of explaining that you wanted to return the item and get the money for it.
Funny thing is even that number would be based on all the people who can pay 20 but not 800. If it all has to be balanced by the users it would probably be an order of magnitude… Or the market would play like it logically should and it would be like 3 companies paying a million a month. But what would they do with it? Sell it at a loss for like 20 per user and hope they figure out some way to make money :)
Probability manipulation seems like just being able to transfer your consciousness into whatever multiverse contains the outcome you prefer. All the other versions of you still experience all the bad outcomes, but you get to surf through your best guess at the ideal one.
Well the population itself is not even 1/100th ‘at capacity’ in the US. The distribution of the population is certainly a cause for concern, and infrastructure is sorely in need of upgrade, but those are management problems. These are arguably exacerbated by the the fear of ‘who’ the increased infrastructure would be for, but it is in no way driven by lack of resources or space. We have huge swathes of crop land subsidized into non-food crops, crazy amounts of unoccupied land, ready access to transportation if we had drivers. Maybe the most restrictive resource is water and workforce. No magic fix for the former, but immigration would directly fix the later.
You may not want more towns/cities, and additional building should be done with pollution in mind, but it really comes down to ‘not in my backyard’-ism. There are a lot of people that exist, through no fault of their own, and to say they should live in even more cramped and dangerous environments than you just so you can afford more elbow room is exactly my point. It’s not legal or logistics reasons the US doesn’t want more immigration, it’s primarily culture and racism. Good or bad, i’d be willing to bet when someone moves in down the street with a German accent most people will think, at worst, it’s kind of interesting, but if they are dark skinned or speak Spanish, a whole bunch of people that didn’t bat an eye at the German immigrant, legal or otherwise, will suddenly have concerns about ‘over population’.
No, not on it’s own, but it’s rarely on its own. In the US opposition to illegal immigrants and racism tracks nearly one to one.
One could imagine a country where illegal immigration itself was a distinct problem, where the society was balanced in such a way that legal immigration was at an optimal rate and additional people coming into the country had downsides that outstripped the positives, when though, for example, the immigrants were of the same culture/class/standing as the existing citizens.
The US, on the other hand, is nowhere near an optimal legal immigration rate, even though we benefit pretty significantly from both legal and illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants, for example, contribute significantly to the economy while not drawing ‘as many’ benefits away. Overwhelmingly the actual arguments against illegal immigration are grounded in cultural differences and language and, to put it simply, the desire for one class to want a reason to consider themselves better than another class by an easily recognizable yardstick.
Because the example just demonstrates an example of conditioning, but the implications are much wider. The idea is that one signal can be replaced with another, which could be beneficial or detrimental, could intentional or accidental, may or may not be long lasting, but mostly just applies to a lot of situations quite a lot different than the exact example but the example serves as a convenient, familiar shorthand for referring to it easily.