Liberals can’t focus on one topic for more than a few weeks or months before they jump onto the next big travesty
No, it's more that there are a diverse group of liberals all trying to get attention for whatever issue their pocket is trying to address. The conservatives only care about one issue: Being at the top of the hierarchy. This means they're all working toward similar, reinforcing goals.
It's not an attention span issue. It's a divergent needs issue.
Maybe it depends on the specific field, but I've had no issues mentoring people remotely, and even when I was in the office I was doing it via Teams half the time.
In many contexts it isn't that hard if you have the tools. The fact that many workplaces skimp on the tools is a them issue, not a mentoring issue.
Yeah. I doubt they can have debates in person, either. But getting 7 people in a room so that the 2 highest paid ones can ideate all over each other while the other 5 nod along as a paid audience just feels better for those 2 than looking up to see the glassy-eyed stares of people who are trying to get their work done while sitting in on a pointless vanity meeting.
New consoles don't come out in response to new technology, though. They never have. The next console generation comes when people stop buying the last one.
Yeah. One of my favourite restaurants closed a couple months ago because they just couldn't justify charging more for food, but their suppliers sure could.
It would be nice if servers could be tuned to prioritize locally hosted communities over remote ones. There's a real opportunity for each community on the same topic to have distinct flavours and cultures, but so long as they all appear to be the same damn thing and appear with the same frequency in the content stream, it's never going to happen. It's not like people really look at the remote server domain.
It's really nice that the Local feed exists, but when people just bulk subscribe to 8 different communities with the same name, stick to their subscription list, and then treat them all as the same place, that just kills a lot of potential for heterogeneity.
For over a century we couldn't vote at all on the candidates. They were completely selected by the parties.
You understand that that's how it works most other places, right? The candidates that are supported by private organizations are chosen by those organizations. Because they're private. And because that support is not state sanctioned. Having a party affiliation on your campaign sign just means that you are supported, financially and otherwise, by that party.
The flip side is that independent candidates are fairly common.
And if you want input as to which candidate the private organization supports in a public election, you join the private organization. You pay your dues, you show up to meetings, and you vote on who you think the party should support in the next election.
Meanwhile, in the US, you have people declaring themselves "lifelong Democrats" or "lifelong Republicans" who have never, ever been affiliated with the party. They just vote for whoever is their candidate every time. And maybe they show up to vote in the primaries, further entrenching the illusion that they're part of the organization.
But that's all it is: an illusion. The reality is that primaries are nothing more than A/B tests to see which candidates stand to do best in the actual, real election. They're market research surveys that let you LARP as party members, and which get made to look official and legitimate by being run by state electoral officers.
Which means they're private market research surveys that you pay for.
So is money.