Or just move on. There are some situations or people where “smart” approach doesn’t solve anything. The article has good points. If we understand others, we can handle things easier, but also can be lost in the dark. It takes time and energy, some cases doesn’t worth the quest.
The “just find another job” trope is tiresome and overused. This seems to be commonly thrown around in a hand-wavy way, and it ignores a large part of reality.
The idea that one can just move to another job is a luxury in many places. Many areas have only one or two employers, so there’s simply no place to go.
There’s also the fact that no matter where you go, you will likely always find someone you don’t get along with. Learning to deal with those people is a life skill.
Not just luxury, but it is making us collectively incapable of dealing with bad actors. Over time, we (as an industry or culture or whatever) are loosing behaviors and skills needed to expose or minimize harm.
Meanwhile, culture is increasingly dictated by bad actors - making it even harder to oppose them. For example, some of what is said to be "professionalism" are basically rules that make it harder to deal with bad actors or companies.
I meant move on as thinking, not switching a job. I’m working in an enviroment where are limited options to switch. Dealing with it, as you don’t do it. As others also wrote about bad actors. You cannot go on a path where you won’t find any. From my point and experience, sometimes you shouldn’t care. If you don’t like 5% of your coworkers or just one, thats totally fine. But if I want to go further, you may not dislike them. They are just not the same. I don’t think the only way is some scientific/psycholgical explanation to get over with them.
Edit: I switched because of this, taking the risk, it’s worth it. At the current place I got another bad actor, but we could manage these differences.
I agree. People that dislike someone, wait for things to confirm their personal bias and ignore positive things the disliked person does. First impressions are so important and prevent unreasonable headaches with someone.
I never forget the IE war, when everybody complain about the preinstalled browser. And that time they called "monopolistic practices". At apple, they even don't know what these words mean... /s
It wasn't a very bad idea, the implementation was. I still miss a tool, somewehere between email and chat. Basecamp has something like this, where you have topics (threads), members (recepients) and a simple message sending like a forum, without the downsides of a chat.
You know, when the message is "this is not a facebook product", because some people confused about it and you post an "unoffical" announcement on facebook, then maybe it's not a good PR.
Probably Libra's hosting provider doesn't offer a one-click blogging plug-in that could get integrated in their website. What are they hosted on? WordPress?
I'm pretty certain WordPress is all about blogging...
So if even Libra's team isn't capable of posting on their own website, but instead have to "reach out" to Facebook, it isn't too far fetched to assume that they're sitting in Facebook's premises to begin with.
I was looking at this yesterday and learned the following. A 100 year flood is a flood that has a 1% chance of happening in a given year. A 500 year flood has a 0.2% chance of happening in a given year. I’m not sure if temperature has the same model as rainfall. Anchorage was settled in 1914 according to Wikipedia, so I’m assuming that there are no temperature records beyond that and that 100 years in this case refers to it only having been settled for about 100 years.
So I guess there is no scientific reason, just living memory. For me such articles just lack the scientific merit and the only purpose is trying to cause mass hysteria. Earlier it was about how we all going the freeze to death, nowadays it is how we are all going to die because of global warming. In fact Earth went through several warm and cool periods, even if you look back just few hundred years. I am all for reducing CO2 and I am pretty successfully reduced unnecessary CO2 production in my work by using more efficient solutions and not wasting energy because this is what is under my control to help mother Earth. Writing click baity articles without context and scientific merit is not going to help anybody.
To cause "hysteria" in the way you're implying the general public would have to read the headline any other way than it is meant in the first place. But joe shmoe wasn't ever going to consider that 1000 years ago earth may have been in a different place climate wise so they're going to read the headline exactly the same whether it has the qualifier "in recorded history" or not.
Or maybe it’s only you who considers it clickbait and everybody else immediately understood the article was about recorded history of temperatures, because, you know, it’s kinda common sense?
"Moore co-chaired the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which was supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a national organization of pro-nuclear industries.[59] In 2009, as co-chair of the Coalition, he suggested that the mainstream media and the environmentalist movement is not as opposed to nuclear energy as in decades past.[59]
He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions would require increased use of nuclear energy to supply baseload power."
Sure, whatever. Honestly, I'm tired of arguing with denialists. Really, I do hope that it turns out you're correct and know better than almost every climate scientist on earth.
At this point irrational hope is about the only hope left, so sure. Let's say you're right. Everything is fine. Natural cycles. Whatever.
Nobody sensible says Earth will be incapable of sustaining life. Jellyfish, for example, are predicted to flourish in a warming ocean depleted of fish stocks.
If society does collapse from drought, famine, resource wars, etc., then will we be able to rebuild it without all the free energy from fossil fuels, or was that a one-time cheat code? Maybe we're looking at the Great Filter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter
Right now society is monolithic. As individuals we are part of a highly coupled system and we would die without it. What we need are small communities that are independently self sustaining. That will be much more robust and eco friendly I believe
Please break down what you mean by self-sustaining for me then - tech is super specialized, requiring special resources to construct. There is very little of modern standards that you can self sustain - really, food is about it, and for everything else you need trade, and can't self sustain.
>I don't think that guy is denying anything. He's merely stating that the earth has gone through drastic changes _many_ times in the past.
Bringing with them tons of changes to the climate, the kind which would kill billions from famines, floods, tornadoes, heat, lack of potable water, etc, in our hugely populated modern world.
>What makes this change the final one before earth is incapable of sustaining life?
We don't merely want an Earth "capable of sustaining life". We want an Earth capable of sustaining us, the whole 8 billions, and not a hellhole of environmental disaster, famine, decertification, and so on.
I could not give less fucks if cockroaches and wolves, e.g. survive, but billions of people are wiped out...
Some people will survive, and hopefully they figure out what it is that this civilization did wrong and do a better job. This isnt the first time a human civilization has wiped itself out due to spiritual negligence, that is the myth of Atlantis.
