zohch

There are, though they are just almost never the people who's job it is to be a leader.

> If you never had the chance to meet one (or did not recognize them when they were in front of you), I am sorry for you.

The worst of the worst are the "outstanding" leaders that just "did not get recognized" as such. Not even the worst part of the worst hell would be good fitting for that group.

I have met people who lead well, but I have not met anyone who's job it was to be a leader that lead well.

> Or are you saying that good leaders are nearly impossible to find (and therefore perhaps the job is difficult?)

It's almost impossible to find someone that has a job of being a leader that is good leader. The job being difficult does not explain why the worst possible people end up being leaders, and it also does not mean that we should somehow not call out the phenomena that leadership is mostly feckless and adds negative value.

We should call this out more often, and we should tell people who want to be leaders that they better not suck because there are enough people who suck at it, and we should let them know that going by actual outcomes, they will likely suck, and are even more likely to suck if they think they are good at it.

It saddens me to time and again be stuck with "leaders" who don't know what they are talking about and think they need to weigh in on everything, even though they add negative value when they do so, because they want to justify their mostly pointless job.

In a 14 year career, I have had "leadership" that is not completely horrible for about 6 months, but that I still would not call good, at best it is mediocre. If only most "leaders" were wet behind the ears instead of bordering on grossly incompetent.

If people's experience of leadership is that it is almost always dead-weight, then the problem is that it is almost always dead-weight, not that people call it out for being almost always dead-weight.

And by the way, I have never met one person who thought they were a good leader that was even slightly so. People who think they are good leaders are almost invariably pompous, arrogant and ignorant.

Unless you start using # type: ignore - the only way to interface with untyped code will be to use asserts or other checks (if + throw), i.e. perform checks at the boundary.

Okay, so there are some, though flow is pretty obscure, and flow-runtime (which is the part which does this AFAICT) is even more obscure. I don't think this is a popular feature.

> Properly statically typed languages do not need run-time checks because the compiled code is already proven to be valid by the type-checker.

If you want that, just enable strict mode for mypy.

And if you want to interface with code that is not stirctly typed, just use runtime type checks, which will inform the static type system:

   foo: Any = untyped_code()
   assert isinstance(foo, MyClass)  # after this mypy will treat foo as instance of MyClass.

So if you want runtime type checking that informs the type system, you have it. I certainly don't want runtime checks for what the type system has already checked for me.

> "His comments disregarded the values of our whole team, our partners and much of our broader community," the company said, noting that vice president Alan Wilson is now interim CEO.

If businesses aligns perfectly with establishment power structures on everything else, why would they not on this?

I don't blame them, they are after all bottom feeding power hungry money grubbers, it's just what they do, they can't help it. Tripwire had no choice but to get rid of their CEO, and their CEO was naive for thinking that his opinion would be tolerated. That would basically be suicide for the business if they tolerated it as all establishment power structures would do whatever they can to penalize them.

Some more:

https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/defending-drivers-and-womens...

> This law is incompatible with people’s basic rights to privacy, our community guidelines, the spirit of rideshare, and our values as a company.

And keeping Russians and their "dominion" oppressed. Just shows how morally bankrupt Europe is, and with how smug Europe is that is really cringey.

Don't need everyone's income to be public information to do that.

> Other countries could do the same to make things more transparent.

What verifiable tangible benefits does this have?

Laws without rule of law won't work. We can then devolve into might makes right, which is the current situation, and in that situation most people lose out.

Then why does it not stop? If you look at the countries where this problem is occuring, they don't really have highly effective governments, they have lots of corruption, and generally high crime rates.

If the governments do not prosecute those responsible and hold corporations to account, this won't stop, and if the people in those countries by and large continue their support for their corrupt governments and police, then that will also not change.

The only way to show actual public support/opposition for the issue is to do just that, everything else is not really a valid substitute. You may be right about the actual public support, but without actually showing the data for it, it remains speculation.

> However, because of the way that the parliament system works here, this issue is not correctly represented in current policy.

How would you change the system to avoid such a misrepresentation of public opinion in actual policy/legislation? If there is such massive public support, what would be the fallout from just not approving north sea exploration?

Your citation is about political parties, and the majority of political parties would not translate to the majority of actual voters.

> Much like in the US and most other countries I suppose, the actions of the government do not represent the will of the majority of the people.

Maybe get a better source for the position you claim is held by Norwegian citizens before speculating on this.

What western company is using what political and economic threat? I think if we are specific about this we can work together to bring accountability to it.

Some users will moan, maybe less than 0.001% will consider moving to a different OS, and things will just continue as it stands. MS knows they have a captive audience with Windows, so they don't have to care what the users want.

In areas where MS does not have a captive audience they are much more competitive and provide much better value.

Are you talking about Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? This reads "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Note the qualification, "asylum FROM PERSECUTION."

If you enter Europe, and you do not qualify as persecuted, how exactly does this right apply to you? And if this right does not apply, how exactly is it legal? What law gives you that right?

What limiting principle is there to this right you think exists? Can I travel to any country in the world and just say I'm seeking Asylum without any basis? Where do you get this notion?

Protected by who? Where does it come from? If you live in the real world you will know that "protected human rights" are lies westerners tell themselves while they buy cheap goods from china made by slaves.

> Crossing borders to seek asylum is not breaking the law.

If I bring my family here without following immigration procedures they will be deported and I will likely lose my residence permit or be rejected on renewal.

> Your question “why do people who break the laws get favorable treatment here?” is a loaded question based on false premise and should not be answered.

No false premise. Most people who come to Europe without following immigration procedures are not refugees. Just because they think they should have the right to live in Europe does not make them refugees, and circumventing immigration laws is the definition of breaking the law.

> However, even with a right to seek asylum many refugees need to smuggle them self into their prospected host country.

If they come from countries not bordering Europe, why do they have to come to Europe? Is Europe the only safe place in the world? And why is Europe responsible for their safety in the rest of the world?

> Over half of confirmed migrant deaths occur while crossing the Mediterranean in unsafe conditions.

How many of these migrants would qualify as refugees? And how is it Europe's fault if they get killed outside of Europe.

> why do [refugees] get favorable treatment here?

> They most often don’t. But they should. The reason being is that their homes are not safe. They need to flee to a new country or risk a worse fate. In other words, they need help. A humane society would give everyone help that needs it.

You conflate refugees and people who illegally enter Europe with no legal basis and do not qualify as refugees. And there are many more of the second category than the first.

Not having a safe home does is not even considered in the definition of a Refugee by UNHRC, and even if it was, generally UNHRC does not recognize the right of those with legitimate refugee status to just decide where they would like to go.

Everyone who needs money is not entitled to mine. I would much rather send it to my family than give it to people who break the laws and enter the country where I reside with no legal basis which places additional tax burdens on me.

Not a problem for what?

> Your family struggle with violence and poverty, yet the West should have tighter border controls?

What does my family's living conditions have to do with the west's border control policy?

> Who's 'officially' a refugee and who isn't?

I do not define this and you can find the definition used by various authorities readily available on the internet.

The country where I reside uses UNHRC definitions and does not consider applications of people who are not already in the country. But as far as I know, struggling with violence and poverty is generally not enough to qualify for refugee status.

So the west is responsible for people being killed outside of the west? Why don't you blame the countries where these people are getting killed in?

And how many of the people dying on migrant routes actually qualify as refugees according to the definition used by UNHCR?

How many countries do migrants to the west pass through on average, and if it one or more, why not blame those? Why is it not the countries these people are fleeing from that hold the ultimate responsibility? And if they are indeed refugees, why are they passing through more than one country?

I am an immigrant to the west, I would love to have my family here, but I can't because they would not qualify as refugees, why do people who break the laws get favorable treatment here? Why are they entitled to me having to pay for them while my family have to struggle with violence and poverty where they live?