The first step to solving it would be proving it exists.
Because it doesn't. It's been a phrase used for over 40 years to decry basically any change the author didn't like, from different technology, the rise of the 'me' generation or the declining religiousness of the US.
The only one showing any lack of social intelligence is you. The author is choosing not to go into unnecessary personal details while giving a short back story as to why they did a thing.
I've thought of doing basically something similar so my wife knows I'm in a position not to be disturbed. I can, and do, tell her when I have a scheduled call, but unscheduled calls do just happen. Something like this would let her know I can't be disturbed without her coming in, asking and then going 'oh shit, sorry.'
In no way is it engineering a way out of dealing with my wife.
The nice thing about boundaries is you are not required to explain yourself. "Hey, please don't interrupt me between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM, unless it is an emergency. I need to get work done, and interruptions break my concentration. Thank you for understanding." You also don't need to build complicated devices.
> it's pretty much the only browser holding back the rendering engine monopoly
Maybe that's why they're complaining. Maybe they don't want Firefox spending it's time working itself into oblivion.
Of course the Mozilla Foundation isn't bound in any way to listen to them so it's going to happen anyway, but Firefox's users are upset for good reasons.
> Is any other profession held to such an impossible standard?
Almost all, to varying degrees, with the expectation increasing the more you deal with people that are outside that field. People seriously underestimate the challenges and difficulties of things they have little experience with while overestimating their ability to do it.
'How hard can it be to ask someone who knows what's going on and write that anyway?'
Honestly how? What law could be written that would ban PE firms and lookalike businesses that would hold up to scrutiny.
No one with a brain likes what PE does, but really, what do they do that's illegal as opposed to people finally realizing that capitalism is essentially evil?
PE depends on favorable tax loopholes and a lot of acquisitions depend on them being able to do things like buying a company with a ton of loans which they then saddle the acquired company with or stripping assets before going bankrupt. All of that depends on arbitrary legal structures and protections which could be rebalanced to favor more productive business models.
Right. Either you directly regulate activity, or you adjust incentives. If you suggest one, detractors say you can't do that, you have to do the other thing, and then work as hard as possible to block your efforts to do the very thing they suggested you do. That's because they don't want things to change at all. But that's obviously not an option, so I tend to suggest trying both and seeing what sticks.
what gets me is trying to make the argument that market economies are not necessarily capitalist economies. it seems plain over time that capitalism works to destroy markets. As an American I'm pretty pro market, but that means at this point I'm an enemy of capitalism.
It doesn't help that the people who say that prove an understanding of capitalism is about as thin as a single layer of varnish and their collective ideas for workable alterations would fit on a single index card after it was already ripped up by hand.
Painfully true and somehow it's everywhere on this forum. To these people, capitalism and markets and money are all the same thing, and the only finite resources in the universe are those whose distribution is gatekept by the evil, evil capitalist overlords.
Everybody's experience is different. I've found experientially that anybody who can actually define and describe these things with any degree of seriousness is, at least, aware of the resource constraints that make up the real world and have opinions that at least run in approximate sync with reality, which definitionally excludes them espousing real Redditor crap. I'm willing to engage with anti-capitalists who have at least put in the work to understand capitalism, but it seems like there's not much overlap between "understands" and "disagrees" for that segment.
No, and in case you stopped reading partway into my comment, this type of useless gotcha counts under Redditor crap. I don't think it's controversial that understanding something is a pathway to criticizing it appropriately. The average anti-capitalist cannot begin to describe exactly what it is they hate, which is in my opinion one of the defining valuable features of capitalism - that many people can benefit from it without understanding it one lick, and can in fact ineffectually hate it while benefiting from it.
This is the website of a bunch of rich capitalists who got rich by doing capitalism. Of course you can't call the owners of the website evil on that website.
So how can an immigrant to the US not understand that someone might want to leave the country they're currently in because of the situation in that country?
Benzedrine (an amphetamine inhaler) was the first antidepressant marketed (although at the time I believe they used the term "psychic energizer" for antidepressants)
Not really surprising when you have political parties and large tech companies both either outright minimizing the role public institutions had in developing anything or outright lying that the public sector can't possibly do anything at all.
reply