Sure the "principled high road" has meaning. Coming out of the 90's, the US had a dominant position in international institutions and a 'vibe' that it was willing to subordinate its interests in favor of the global community. The post GWOT shift to a 'selfish' position, clearly illustrated here by your argument, reflects the absolute cratering of international public opinion, and frankly the collective loss of trust in a less selfish America.
Why take the chance that the food you buy from the grocer may be contaminated? I have respect for human creativity, and the limits of farmers. It's not easy to keep constant vigilance against all sources of contamination. Easier to restrict food to only what you produce yourself.
Glibness aside, there's clearly a continuum to the concept of 'we live in a society', and to how far the monkey brain's tribe extends. But the argument against routers is clearly arising from a biased set of priors, whether fairly or unfairly.
That's a farcically absurd statement given the context. Following this logic, Japan and the US being adversaries is the only justification you need for Japanese internment camps.
"Against the public interest" is the vaguest bar for investigation I can imagine, it's even vaguer than "probable cause" in policing! As long as you can find a person who disagrees (and presumably pays taxes), you're good to go on "against the public interest"?
Trailing 12 Mths Inflation: 3.2% (Headline) 3.8% (Core). In both cases, it's at least 50% above target. While a smaller gap than in recent years, it's still fairly sizable, all things considered.
It's insane to me that most of the heat is being directed at Fujitsu. Sure, there's definitely some culpability there, but the Post Office (especially their legal team) holds the vast majority of the responsibility. There's a lot weighing in on the multi-year investigation that (has been) ongoing, but I can't help but feel like they're waiting for the public furor to cool down before releasing anything.
Free speech may not be the relevant criticism here, but there's... somewhat of a discomfort of a government (if admittedly foreign) agency calling out specific individuals. I know we're in the era of terminally online politicians, but this crosses some sort of professionalism boundary?
EDIT: Which is to say, it's not illegal or anything, but I'm sending a frowning emoji.
it's a pithy, feel-good explanation that lets the anti-RTO camp feel superior without having to delve into complex topics such as talent development, informal learning, meeting effectiveness, etc. that do not trivially lend themselves to the RTO argument in quite the same way.
The so-called 'hidden caste system' that has tipped employees at the top of the F&B food chain, earning significantly more than back-of-house staff like bussers and chefs?
This incredible scope creep in the customer's responsibilities (not just price, but I somehow have to adjust for a vague sense of the employer-employee relationship, for ethical/ESG considerations, etc. etc.) is just... overwhelming. I shouldn't be responsible for your employment relationship, that is between you, your employer, and the relevant regulatory authority.
1. The paradox of tolerance is itself a paradox. None of the modern "solutions" embraced by partisans (most notably, the complete abandonment of tolerance) are anywhere close to a real solution.
2. On one hand, you accuse the GP of cargo cult intellectualism, on the other hand, you "did not" psychologically diagnose the OP.
Your understanding is wrong, which leads to a flawed analogy.
> The point here, the bankruptcy court concluded, was not to keep J&J from having to pay talc claims; the entire value of J&J’s consumer business was still on the line for those claims.
Given that we know that there can be multiple types of intelligence and that college only tests a small fraction of those types - are you comfortable with this binary framing? That the only way to go is up (in years of education)? There's no alternate model, different framing, etc. to educating a populace outside of these two choices?
Please - let's approach this question with an open mind - there are plenty of alternative approaches worth considering just from other parts of the globe.
but the source lender is the US government, which is awful at adjusting to market economics, and would likely require legislation to slow(?) down lending. How would you convince these populists to support this (not very sneaky) legislation?
It's difficult to claim that any system is 'certifiably broken' until you can actually point to an actual effective real-world implementation of a 'better system' (pareto or otherwise), no?
Was the UN meant to be a 'global government' or more of a newer forum for the superpowers to avoid nuclear conflict? If the latter, it's done a pretty reasonable job so far.
Under US law, a 1099 worker(contractor) is essentially its own business. You can deduct mileage and other expenses (including insurance premiums) that would generally fall under 'business costs'.
BBBY has issued multiple warnings of bankruptcy, far beyond the disclosures 'standard SEC language' that other (healthier) companies file on a regular basis.
This change will have a real impact to cashflow, in the sense that you are paying more (in taxes) in the first year than you would under the previous model.
And cashflow is incredibly important, Free Cash Flow metrics etc. are all fairly critical within the investing world.
Our economic systems used to be very bad at scaling. They also used to be very bad at incentivizing value-add economic activity. Which system do you want?