A country is not land. A country is a human construct. Usually, a country is situated on land. The Soviet Union is no longer a country, but several other countries now occupy its land.
A country is usually seen as its government. If the government ceases to function, the country effectively no longer exists.
Does that make more sense?
I mean, in Judeo-Christian tradition, there’s the story of Abraham willingly sacrificing his son to Yahweh until Yahweh stops him last-second. This kind of behavior is explicitly taught: nothing is more important than sky-daddy’s whims.
Woo!!! I want the one with the ears!!!
You haven’t read anything about this. It’s very clear. The first thing you learn is that sex and gender are different. Sex is biology. Gender is identity.
The second thing you learn is that sex is not binary. (And gender, being a social construct, certainly is not set in stone.) Genes may be XX, but maybe some other factor may be preventing that gene from expressing fully or even at all. This can lead to highly androgynous folks or folks with odd genital configurations. It takes genes, gene expression, and hormones for a human to express characteristics of some sex. Not all three of these are perfectly aligned. You can argue that genes control all of it, but that doesn’t stand. Genes can conflict, and environmental factors can affect things.
I learned all that and more in just twenty minutes of reading. Please, go do some homework. Start with “what is the difference between sex and gender,” then let the rabbit hole take you down. At least, that’s the path that helped me learn a bunch of this stuff.
And regarding Dunning-Kruger, the key point is confidence. That said, I’ll caveat all the above I’ve said with this is just stuff that I’ve read from sources that I trust, which I can corroborate with my existing knowledge of genetics and broader biology. I’m not an expert. I can be proven wrong. Most of this is definitions and quite simple stuff, so my confidence is high but still shakeable.
Normally, I’m a stickler about answering asked questions, but your questions seem to be based on a misunderstanding of definitions. Once you get that sorted out, we can try again and maybe learn something together
I get to be useful!
Ceiling cat is a reference to possibly the earliest generation of memes. They mostly involved cats. Ceiling cat was a popular one of a cat poking its had down through a hole in a ceiling, captioned “ceiling cat is watching you masturbate” or something similar. The odd grammar/spelling is of the same Era, where these cat memes would be spoken in the “voice” of a cat. The most famous example is “I can haz cheezburger”
Leaving Britney alone is a reference to an early Era of YouTube video, where an actor bawling at the camera ranted about how people were being too mean to Britney Spears, a famous pop star. It was hotly debate whether the contents of the video were genuine or acting. Remember, this was before Snopes, even.
I think that was everything?
Count another in these parts of the internet!
I found the one with Dunning-Kruger! Do I win a prize???
But this is a bad idea.
Areas with high property value have higher quality schooling. Area with low property value have lower quality schooling. The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor.
Maybe education money shouldn’t come from property taxes. Maybe corporations should pay for the education they require their workers to have visa corporate taxes
I think you’re confusing Trump’s ill-informed theory with actually theory and practice.
If foreign goods are taxed, those companies will not simply absorb the hit to their profits. They will instead increase their prices, which hurts the consumer.
You may be thinking, “then won’t consumers buy other products?” If so, you need to think a step further. Are there other products that are just as cheap? Will other companies simply raise their prices to match and take advantage of the extra profit? Are there even locally made alternatives to the product, and, if so, are they cheaper than even the tariff price?
In practice, tariffs are only effective if there are local competitors within the same price bracket, and your populace can absorb the difference in price without much pain.
https://www.usimportdata.com/blogs/top-10-us-Imports-data-by-country-product-hs-code-database Electronics, vehicles, fuels, medicines, and plastics are among our top imports. Home built vehicles are usually expensive. For example, when you think cheap, you think of a Toyota Corolla or a Honda Civic something. We know fuel is important. Medicines are not an optional cost. Plastics are part of everything. Our economy relies a lot on imports. The US shifted away from manufacturing and towards a service economy a long time ago. We don’t have a many home-built goods as we used to.
Tariffs will hurt the average citizen by corporations increasing their prices to absorb the profit losses imposed by the tariffs. There are often no comparable local alternatives, and many of these goods are not optional. Americans will pay this price. In effect, this makes it a tax on normal citizens
Personally, I like the idea of restoring local manufacturing, and I think tariffs can play a role in this… but to do so without harming citizens requires subsidizing local industry to provide cheaper homemade alternatives along with a more gradual adjustment. We would also need to reduce the cost of living in order to make lower wages livable such that the labor cost of local manufacturing is lower. But we all know that’s not happening - we desperately need wages to go up right now to make the cost of living bearable. Slapping double-digit tariffs on goods suddenly is a great way to destabilize an economy. So uh… fuck Trump.
Since many answers aren’t actually answering the question…
Most places require a permit to assemble en masse. There are “free speech zones” where you can create large gatherings without any kind of advance notice or permit or whatever. Most universities have a free speech zone towards the middle of their campuses. Cities will also often have at least one but somewhere that doesn’t inconvenience commerce, like a park or near city hall.
Most mass assembly requires a permit and sometimes a fee, even in public places. Following this prevents arrest by “disturbing the peace” or other such laws, usually.
How this squares with the first amendment is interpretation. Individual freedom of speech is protected except very specific public order and safety things, e.g. calling for violence. Coordinated, mass freedom of speech is perceived as a fast path to rioting.
I’m not saying this is right, but this is my understanding of how things work. I’m not a lawyer or an expert in these matters. This is just what I learned from activist friends in my university time ages ago.
As for expulsion, public universities are run by states. To my understand, Trump has no legal mechanism to do this. He’s just talking out of his ass or expects to bully public institutions into expelling students by threatening to withhold department of education funding… but he’s planning to kill that anyway, so 🤷♂️
Sorry for the delay, busy days.
Yeah, fake postings are total bullshit. I still don’t understand the motivation for them.
As for having jobs up for months, I can understand that when a role has very specific needs. But if the roles specific needs haven’t been made clear in the job description, then yeah, that’s total bullshit
My job postings are usually up for two to three months, and the rejection rate is maybe around 80-90% for the resume review stage at the beginning. I’d like to think the job descriptions are clear, but that’s subjective. But do those sound like reasonable numbers to you, though? What do you think is reasonable? (Like I said, I want these opinions for my improvement)
Unfortunately, I haven’t hired for a service job, so I don’t have a complete perspective here. You mention “one of the first to apply.” For an imaginary job that requires no background, what do you think would be good reasons to reject a candidate or choose one over another?
Got it. Okay, that makes much more sense. Nothing new there for me, then.
When you say companies shouldn’t be “this selective,” what are you referencing that they’re being too selective about? If I’m being more picky than I need to be, I should stop, so I’m eager to learn something here
Can you share what kinds of questions you’re asking? Or at least generic versions of them?
100% this
And the same thinking applies to interviews, but that’s very difficult. My leadership sometimes gets surprised about how much I help interviewees, and I have to clarify to them that I don’t care about how good they are at interviewing. I care how good they are at the job.
Unfortunately, this makes my interviews super long, but we have arguably the best engineering team in the company.
Our new CTO was very skeptical of our long interviews and ordered us to shorten them. Fortunately, we had one scheduled already. He sat in on it and is no longer worried about our long interviews. He understood the value once he was able to see where the candidate stumbled and excelled in our … simulations? of the work. We try to simulate certain tasks in the interview, especially collaborative ones, to see how they would actually do the work. It’s really hard for us as interviewers to prepare and run, but it’s proven highly effective so far
All of this. When I tell people I meet that we don’t do coding tests, we instead do tiny assignments, they often get quite excited. It also seems to be way, way more effective
Do you have any qualifiers for that? Like “with sufficient time to learn” or something? Is there some kind of personal development that you think could enable that?
In my understanding, asking a chef to be a doctor or a software engineer to be an artist often doesn’t work great.
How selective do you think is appropriate?
To be clear: I’m a hiring manager for some specialized stuff. I’m genuinely curious about your perspective because I hope it can help how I do that work. I’m not trying to argue with you or prove you wrong or anything.
Aren’t most states ethnically associated…? Like… the US and Canada are anomalous. European countries are particularly accepting of other ethnicities but still have a core ethnicity. Asian countries are usually pretty homogenous. I imagine African countries are, too. Latin America, I’m not as sure.
Or am I misunderstanding the definition of ethno-state?