Yeah, having to split your gear up between two workplaces gets exhausting. For a long time I was a self-employed contractor primarily working for one company and I'd never have the right tool or part where I needed it. I now work full-time for that company and most of the gear stays in one place and is a lot more manageable. Plus, I set up a co-management agreement with an IT company that is literally our upstairs neighbor so if there's a hardware problem that needs to be fixed in a hurry on a day I'm working from home I can just escalate the ticket to them instead of driving into the office.
But yeah, there's absolutely no one size fits all approach to every workplace or specific job. I've been pushing for more flexibility there at my office for other roles because of that.
You're getting downvoted here, but your anecdotal evidence matches my own. This is how I set my own schedule by choice. I get my "real" work done when I work from home, while the 2 in-office days are mostly spent in meetings, training other staff, and stuff that's easier to do in person (hardware troubleshooting).
I get that this isn't the case for everyone though, and many people would be more productive predominantly working from home.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I'm sure they're a popular band, but "star" to me implies a pretty broad level of recognition among people who follow an art. It's all just semantics though and I'm mostly being cheeky.
One I'm not seeing on here is The Birthday Boys, which had Bob Odenkirk with a bunch of (if I remember correctly) young UCB comedians. If you've ever seen the show Love or listened to the Doughboys podcast, it has Mike Mitchell from those.
It's definitely not for everyone. My wife and I have a lot of overlap in our comedy preferences and are both big fans of SNL and everything Mitchell & Webb have done. On the other hand, I Think You Should Leave is my all-time favorite sketch show, but she couldn't even get through the first season. It's got a real sense of absurdism and weird social interactions that aren't for all tastes.
Don't feel bad if you can't get into it - there's tons of great TV out there. No need to waste your life on one show just in case you don't like it. If you weren't into the first few episodes you probably won't like the rest as it's all the same style.
That's all very interesting and something I will definitely be looking up. While I have little knowledge of psychology myself, I do find it fascinating - especially stuff like this that touches on the idea of consciousness. While I'm a believer in approaching everything scientifically, I hold some explicitly non-scientific theistic beliefs that are at odds with this approach (and which I admit essentially amount to hoping there's more than we're capable of understanding ourselves). That brings to mind some of what you said there regarding that sort of dichotomy (as I'm understanding it) of physical biology vs the workings of the mind.
This part is still definitely confusing me though:
I suspect that in sociology that would be some sort of unified anarcho-marxism, if such a thing exists. The atomic theory of society seems to be the thing where they are working on unifying language. If society is fully atomized, asking whether a new society arises due to free choice or resource demands is like asking whether rivers rise due to rain or sewer overflow, if that makes sense?
Is the idea here essentially a question of whether social progress (for better or worse) is essentially pre-determined by geography in some fatalistic way?
I'll definitely be digging into this a bit over the coming days and may ask my wife her thoughts on the psychological side of what you said earlier. She's a former psych nurse, so while not at all a psychologist at least has more background in this stuff than I do.
I think there's a way to follow people on Lemmy (?) so I'll see if I can do that to keep in touch with you via private messages. Or, I recently got around to setting up a mastodon account. If you happen to use that, feel free to link up with me that way so we can keep in touch (if you'd like). I'm at @herrcaptain@geekdom.social
That's a very interesting question, but unfortunately one I don't have much input on myself. I've always understood materialism as a belief that everything can be, in theory, explained by science (or in the somewhat-related Epicurean understanding that everything is comprised of atoms). As such, its counterpart would be something along the lines of spiritualism rather than idealism. I'm certain that my understanding of materialism must be a specific definition of perhaps a different concept entirely than that which you've brought up. I don't have a great deal of formal knowledge of sociology or psychology. Likewise, I've studied a fair bit of political philosophy but nothing that I can think of which touches on this specific topic. Nonetheless, you've piqued my interest and I expect I'll be heading down a rabbit hole tonight.
That's not a bad idea to take it separately for both my frames of mind.
I hear you on being a "radical moderate". Maybe 7-10 years ago I had a period where I thought of myself as a centrist because, despite being generally quite left-leaning, in certain areas I sit more toward the middle. I've since refrained from referring to myself in that way as the Overton window has shifted do far right that I no longer feel it's correct. Furthermore, I see centrism these days (and in retrospect, back then too) as the domain of fence-sitters.
Philosophically I've "identified" as an anarchist since my teens and many years later that still forms the core of my beliefs. However, I'm also rather pessimistic about people as a whole and believe humanity hasn't reached a point where that's feasible outside of small dedicated groups of like-minded people (like communes or worker's co-ops). In my opinion, the average individual is either too self-interested or naive at this stage of our social development. Thus, if anarchism were suddenly attempted on a national scale it would inevitably devolve into strongmen rising up and returning us to something like feudalism. (The same direction I feel we're heading under unfettered capitalism.)
However, I also don't trust the state to have too much power and am thus not explicitly a socialist (outside of my philosophical belief in libertarian socialism as an anarchist). As such I find a market-based economy acceptable so long as it's very-well regulated to protect people from the whims of corporations (who I trust least of all), and with an extensive social safety net (or better yet, UBI) to go with it. Functionally, in practice, I'm on the left side of social democracy with a touch of Marxism thrown in, but in a few very specific economic areas I lean more to the right. There's way more to it than that, but as you can see I'm all over the place and as much as I find political tests fun, none can ever properly place me on their spectrum. I suspect I'm not alone - people who give this stuff a reasonable degree of thought are unlikely to be so easily packaged up into neat little boxes.
Anyway, thank you for posting this quiz, and I genuinely appreciate the conversation. I have a degree in political science but don't get to discuss it as much as I'd like these days other than the few times a year I get together with friends. (Or with friendly strangers online.)
I can't seem to find it, but this reminds me of a greentext that's stuck with me for years. The gist of it is that most of British history can be summed up as sailing around the world looking for something good to eat.
Ah, the ol' butt to butt position. Can we start referring to this as moth style?