growup12345

The really funny thing is that no one reads the article:

>> Facebook’s reach statistics show that mainstream news content is far more common on Facebook than the far-right content Roose was featuring.

And this reference to the content Roose is featuring is indeed:

>> Journalist Kevin Roose began publishing a Twitter feed in July 2020 that showcased the 10 “top performing” links on Facebook as determined by Facebook’s Crowdtangle analytics tool. Most days, the “top performing” links come from right-wing commentators and provocateurs like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Fox News and others.

So everyone’s carefully constructed contrived debate schematics topple.

I found it a tad bit childish with all the swearing. Swearing is acceptable and sometimes natural in live speech but writing swear words is ugly and shows a lack of education and class, even if the actual education is of the highest calibre.

In my experience, lack of consensus is always due to people who have strong opinions and potentially a lot of knowledge in a general area, however the specifics/particulars of the problem are not known or understood by them, hence they are effectively “trying to solve the previous problem, not the current problem”. The metaphor often used is “they were fighting the old war” and I think that makes sense: people who get into high management positions think that they know everything, and they do, but about “old stuff”. New problems, or problems in a slightly different subarea come about and they are suddenly finding themselves unqualified, so they try to re-establish dominance through pulling rank.

Just my 2 cents

So either I have autism, or this is complete bogus research

It’s not a queue but an append only log

The main thesis of Morgenroth is that men and women are equal in terms of their ability to be communal… but are they?

No evidence offered, just some philosophical symmetry “it has to be” argument is concocted.

I don’t buy it: in western countries you are protected by law if you want to take parental leave, so if men want to do it they should do it regardless of what “society” thinks. The law gives them the power to do so, hence who cares about the hypothetical existence of these “deep prejudices”: even if it is as bad as they say, it’s not like anyone can fire them.

But you might miss out on your career: and that is logical… if you go away for 5 months, then your colleague who is ultra competitive and childless and was waiting for his chance will just snatch up your position and when you are back you will find yourself sidelined. I see zero issues with this: you prioritised family, hence where your career will go from that point shouldn’t matter to you at all. Are people supposed to modify business objectives due to personal choices? If people do believe the answer is yes, we are entering the land of such deeply ingrained entitlement that to me that is the real problem. No one owes you anything in life: if you think otherwise, you are set for a disaster.

No

> 76% said increasing the number of police officers in high-crime neighborhoods should be a priority.

In a single sentence makes it clear as day.

You are waisting your breath trying to convince the fanboys here. Their brain cannot grasp the concept that the VC just wants to make money.

To the VC, investing in a startup is equivalent to buying a very out of the money call option. Option theory tells us these are ultra low premium but have immensive upside, so the payoff for the VC is ultra convex and non linear: from 1000 startups, 10 get more than 10 mil valuation, and maybe 1 is a unicorn (i’m making the numbers up but u get the idea). So yes Mr Graham would love for all of the fanboys to work hard since they are literally just options to him, and he has nothing to lose apart from small options.

On the flip side, startup owners are then underwriting options in the form of their life and work, so must be short volatility.

Long story short: dont do startups thinking you will win, think the VC will win

Of course you did.

All of these languages were very similar to each other more than 100 years ago but were actively forced to diverge for political reasons during the turbulent 20th century.

Czech/Slovak/Polish

Macedonian/Serbian/Bulgarian

Croatian/Slovenian

Of course outliers like Romanian/Greek/Turkish/Albanian/Hungarian are different by construction. But even they shared extensive vocabulary with the rest due to the free flow of (rich) people between the countries.

Salaries are a function or location. Who would have thought?