tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺 @ tryptaminev @feddit.de

Posts

7

Comments

943

Joined

2 yr. ago

Isn't that true for most workplaces though? You'll end up using some tool that automates much of the heavy lifting and a lot will be meetings and managerial tasks anyways. When you design products you usually have engineers of many different fields that need to work together so lots of it is just talking about how to get it to work together.

For any applied math jobs, which is probably IT related you'll have the same issue.

As civil engineers we used to joke that architects are mostly artists and wouldn't know what they are doing.

There is some brilliant architects that do know their physics for building design and construction, but they seem to be far and few in between.

Anyone who wants to design and publish research has to have a pretty good grasp of a lot of math.

I invite you to have a look at some of the studies, when there is a new "pyschologists found out that your poor sleep comes from your mom having an affair with your goldfish" style headline. Then you find out they asked like 30 people they got from an online survery or so.

Bigger cars are mostly just more metal. But you can ask prices abouat proportionally to size. The expensive parts are all about the same, whether it is the engine, gearbox, axis, computer...

So by selling someone a car that is twice as big for twice the money, when it only cost 25% more to produce, profit goes "brrrr"

None of these are foregin policy issues and none of these affect people outside the US directly. Which is why it is hard for us to see one candidate as better or worse than the other. It will always end up being the same shit for us anyways.

But maybe ask yourself this: Why did the system produce these two candidates again? Why is this the "best" the US can offer? What did the average Democrat voter do, to get a better candidate than Joe Biden from the Dems? Probably nothing. And why? Not being interested enough? Or feeling powerless anyways, because it is rigged with superpacs and billionaire donors anyways? Or because you have to work a second job, because you need to feed your children and yourself?

I can only point out to you again, that the political and economical system that produced Trump is the same system that produced Biden and everyone who is invested in that system will try to make sure that you keep staying inside the box they want you to stay in.

My point was that in these regards Trump is not worse than Biden. Voting either party in this system will only reinforce them.

Not if you vote democrats though. 2016 should have been a wakeup call, but wasn't to the party elites. Then 2020 should have been a wake up call but wasn't. Now it is 2024 and they are still not waking up.

As long as they are not punished vor being neoliberal far right economists with an imperial war hawk approach to foreign policy nothing will change.

Everyone should vote for a third party imo. If the Dems suddenly need to compete with an actually progressive party, they would need to bring actual progressive politics. Right now they are just becoming more and more like what the republicans used to be, just with some LGBT rights, but only like if it isn't inconvenient.

And here you fall victim to the problem i was talking about in the first place. The US politics are so entrenched, that each election you rather want to chose the party that will fuck you over less badly this time, but by this enable both parties to fuck you over every time.

I'm not an US citizen so my perspective of course is different, but how the fuck can the majority of the voters in the US be fine with the choice being between two geriatrics with visible mental decline and think "yep this is as good as it gets"? How can the voters of the democrats let the party elites get away with another Biden candidacy?

But like a badly managed company only thinks about the next quarter, the US seems to only think about just the next term and never further.

Trump also pulled US soldiers out of Syria, Iraq and Somalia.

Also as much as i love to blame stuff on Trump, Afghanistan failing was not his work alone, or even mainly his work. And Biden was happy to fully pull out of Afghanistan, instead of reversing Trump decision. But the USs proclaimed goal of stabilising and democratising Afghanistan was a sham from the very beginning under Bush. Heck even the "war on terror" angle was a lie, as all the US did was make insurgent groups stronger wherever they went.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/23/politics/how-four-presidents-created-afghanistan-mess/index.html

This sounds like a case for a crackdown by the federal police then. And even more of a reason to take illegal weapons from people, who are willing to murder police officers with it.

What you describe is practically half an insurrection already. And this sounds like the kind of area, from where exactly that could happen with enough methed up MAGAhats. So instead of the 2A helping people to protect themselves from a hostile and unlawful government it will help hostile and unlawful people to establish an undemocratic regime and abolish the constitutional order.

Where did Trump expand US military presence during his presidency? I only have the examples in mind where he pulled troops out. Also the brief escalation with Iran was, well brief. Torpedising the JCPOA was a destabilizing act, but the war hawks amongs Dems are also fiercly opposing any diplomatic efforts with Iran.

Meanwhile while Biden is talking about "please Israel don't kill so many Palestinians, what are you doing this is bad press for me" he also keeps sending arms to Israel and backing them against every UN measure to demand a ceasefire and humanitarian access to Gaza.

Judging by actions instead of words, i don't see why Trump would be more of a danger to the Middle East than the Democrats are.

I share the criticism of lacking Ukraine support and Putin apologism by the republicans. I am skeptical that this would lead to WW3 in Europe though. Russia did not escalate to nuclear war, like they threatened, for European countries and the US to send more and more and better equipment to Ukraine. Russia having switched to war economy is dangerous as it might necesitate an even stronger focus on war efforts, but i remain sceptical that they would push into an all out war with European NATO countries. Putin is struggling internally to keep power, as we see by both Putin allies and enemys to keep "falling" out of windows. And the russian elites like money, but they don't like getting nuked. Also Russia is more and more dependant on countries like China and India to cover the sanctioned parts and products. Neither country is excited about the economic fallout of a full blown war in Europe.

Finally Putin being staunchly against LGBT people is unfortunate, but i don't see how this would make the prospect of WW3 more likely. We see a recession of pro LGBT stances in the growing fascism and right wing populism in Europe too. These countries will not go to war over LGBT rights. And the growth of these political leanings is aided by Russia, no doubt about it. But the land for these "plants" to grow is kept fertile by neoliberal politics, that are in line with the US Dems economic positions.

This is where the circle closes. We cannot solve Trump, growing fascism in Europe, Putins expansionism and create peace in the Middle East without changing the political direction of US Democrats and similiar political groups in Europe. By saying "ohh this election again we must get the Democrats to win as they are the lesser of two evil" all we do is grow both evils stronger.

I understood "not surrendering" as Police shows up and demands to be handed over the braced gun, to be met with a closed door or at gunpoint.

If people need to be told to hand it over, but comply then, i guess it can be handled with a fine. I still stand by this being a clear indication of being unfit for gun ownership though.

I used to work at an utility company that started to build, or rather started to plan to build a new site, for something that mostly exists in developed countries already. The normal projects thus were usually expansions, upgrades and refurbishments.

Getting to build from scratch, and especially at that size is an amazing opportunity. Unfortunately though mixing the slower processes of a utility company with political interference in an unstable political environment, company leadership where the CTO role was vacant for multiple years and the rest of management is classical business school people w.o. engineering background and insane ideas about new management practices, bogged the whole thing down pretty harshly.

With the managing practices i'm talking about things like bonus systems that most companies tried in the 90s and got rid of again. This is particularly absurd as the companies goal is to provide the utility at cost coverage, not to maximise profit. But it gets even worse, as the main issue is lacking cooperation cross departments. In an environment where people are already clingy to "this is our department standard, i will follow it precisely because i dont want to take risks", adding on top conflicting KPIs that impact peoples salary is a recipe for desaster with a 100% guarantee.

Also they got an insane idea about "desk sharing" to cut down on office space rented, since most people are working from home. But they didnt increase the allowance of work from hom days. So you are basically forced to stay at home on specific days and go to the office on other days, so you can meet both quotas, effectively taking all the benefits for the employee away.

I left and i'm not looking back. I would have loved to continue working with the colleagues though and i am still amazed by how they try to make the project happen despite every boulder the company throws into their path.

because the rounds aren’t lethal enough?

Because the goal is to kill the animal quickly with limited pain. "not lethal enough" entails every lethal wound that takes minutes and hours to kill instead of seconds. But for killing humans there is a reason why armies prefer 5.56 over .308 in most standard issued weapons.

This is to say nothing about enforcement: it’s a common position among gun owners that they would simply refuse to comply with a gun confiscation / surrender, and I believe a significant chunk of them would follow through with that. See the recent ATF rules about pistol braces for an example of mass non-compliance.

Then they need to be arrested. Noone should be trusted with guns and other dangerous weapons or machines if they deliberately break the laws surrounding the ownership of them. We don't let people drive after they lost their licencse.

Also there is empirical evidence that people are less "empathic" the further away they are from you. Shooting someone is psychologically much easier than stabbing someone.

The US has deliberately destabilized the Middle East, South and Central America and Southern Asia. What you describe as holistic sense, is in fact the opposite. It is limited to a western perspective, that was culturally formed by almost a century of American supremacism, denial of non western perspectives in media and manufacturing consent propaganda in all levels of society..

The Vietnam war was largely an effort to destabilize the region and prevent economic development by defending a brutal post colonial regime against its own people. It wasn even about communism, as the US was happy to help the genocidal Red Khmer in Cambodia.

The US has toppled something like a dozen democratically elected governments in South and Central America and installed brutal, often fascist regimes, to maximise US company profits.

The US destroyed Iraq, leading to the Insurgency and subsequently ISIS, to keep the Middle East at perpetual destablization after it started to become more stable in the early 2000s. The momentum was then used to destabilize Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. While claiming it was about "democracy" the US was happy to support the coup in Egypt after they kicked out Mubarak and held elections. The now installed Sisi is even worse than Mubarak.

The final example should be Afghanistan, where 20 years of US occupation created nothing tangible and had the country fall back under Taliban control before the last US troops were out.

for the only candidate who still has a chance at not bringing a third, and possibly ultimate, world war.

Trump hast pulled out US troops from the Middle East. The US strategy for the Middle East and in particular the strategy of supporting Israel no matter what, revolves around perpetual destabilization of the Middle East to prevent the formation of a unified Arab bloc, that would become another global power.

I believe this to be highly implausible. The current US strategy is a danger to peace. Also both Saudi Arabia and Iran are now in the BRICS, so without US divisive interference diplomacy is actually possible in the region.

The whole "Trump will cause WW3" seems to me like a great consipiracy theory peddled to get some of the anti war vote, when the Democrats have been War Hawks since decades. Hillary Clinton campaigned in 2016 on the idea of going to war with Iran. There is many problems with Trump, but on the issue of global war i do not see, why he would be a bigger danger than the Democrats or other Republicans.

But would anybody be bothered by it, if there's no interaction there? Boomers destroyed Facebook for younger audiences, as all of a sudden parents would join in on conversations with your friends in the comments under a photo. You would link an article about a political issue and your reactionary uncle would proceed to call everyone who reads it a damn commy that needs to go to the army to learn some real life.

This is all nice and well, until your footnotes are half a page of explanation that was impossible to fit in the text directly.