fleetwoodsnack

Just about any original scientific text or undertaking begins with a literature review.

No there are definitely bad products.

A prescriptive sentiment masquerading as a descriptive evaluation.

In many ways the false expert is more harmful than the do-nothing layman.

I agree somewhat, in the sense that climate change will have happened slow enough and on a wide enough scale that its impact on human geographic dispersion, social organization, and reproductive patterns will be imperceptible to those feeling its effects.

It won’t be a catastrophe simply by nature of lacking the sudden violence necessary to qualify. Will it suck, will it transform things for the worse, and will our successors envy us, if not outright loathe and resent us? Definitely.

It’s not the way, it’s a way. Life-saving notices are often redundant to reach as wide of an audience as possible, e.g. public radio, commercial radio, sirens.

People simply do better when they work together and try to make each others’ lives better.

Your points seem to be meandering and I’m content where we’ve come in this conversation. Be well!

They counted their friends and colleagues among their employers, actually. And the government’s GI Bill and veterans’ administration’s work placement and employee advocacy programs were among their most cherished programs.

It makes sense if we assume that the API’s change in performance was deliberate.

My grandparents were dustbowl survivors and veterans who humbly attribute their survival and later success to their neighbors, friends, and colleagues that helped them, and whom they spent their later lives trying to pay back in kindness and friendship.

The influence of our relationships, and who we know, on our worldview is certainly fascinating.

My grandparents had church, social clubs, mutual aid organizations, and unions which all helped (paid for) support of one kind or another during their hardships.

Working together and accommodating others is probably one of the strengths we’ve actually failed to foster in the contemporary context, to our detriment. The atomization of the individual and the cult of silent suffering is something they’d balk or pity us for.

The scarcity isn’t in the reproducibility of intellectual property. It’s in human motivation.

Maybe, but I’m cautious about assuming my own superiority, i.e. that my lonely cohort and I are the only ones able to read and infer the proper meaning from writing, and that others are too easily misguided.

It’s useful in the argument that (1) states, as they’ve grown in size have also been reigned-in due to the power that comes with their size, and (2) that companies, as they grow in size, must be reigned-in due to the power that comes with their size (anti-trust, anti-monopoly).

Metaphors are useful but they can also just confuse the issue through unnecessary abstraction. The fundamental question is already there at the surface: it’s not about market capitalization or about gdp, but about the power that size in either metric represents. That’s the characteristic binding these two dissimilar ideas together.