> The point there being that the bank is the middleman not the government.
The current UK government is not going to be the one to "expand the role of government", eliminate the private sector and avoid allowing "private enterprise" (i.e. their pals and donors in big business) a role (i.e. a cut). They're ideologically opposed to that. Mr Sunak, The current PM has ties to banking, he's not going to leave them in the cold. Like he does with pensioners who can't afford heating.
Grandparent is correct: currency is already digital. The majority of my GBP transactions are digital now - they are not pieces of paper with picture of the late Queen changing hands, they are database records, mediated by a "buy" button in the web browser, or the tap of a card onto a reader.
Nevertheless, there are political parties that claim to believe in "small governments" along with "free markets", "individual achievement" and other buzzwords that mean they'll enrich their pals in business, and cut anything that helps poor people. The current UK administration is very much one of those.
They will (ideologically) shrink certain aspects of the state by "outsourcing" or handing it over to private companies. e.g. If you think that the welfare and healthcare aspects of the UK state are currently "expanding the role of government" then you're misinformed. If you think that there hasn't been "austerity" for government services in the last few years, then you don't know the UK at all.
Banking will be likewise, they don't believe in meaningful financial regulation.
Not to change the subject; the claim was not "one is better than the other", the claim was "this government will make the government the middleman for financial transactions, instead of a bank".
And in terms of this government where the PM, Mr Sunak, is an ex-Goldman Sachs guy, it is an extraordinary claim. Even absurd.
In my opinion, you are interpreting it incorrectly.
Look from their perspective.
"My man is so smart, competent and emotionally stable. I can rely on him for anything!"
"Oh no he's crying, does this mean our family won't survive? What do I do?"
It's not anything more complicated than that. Women can probably chime in to tell me if I'm right or wrong, but this is a human perspective, because children will feel the same way if the father cries.
Oh no! he showed....gasps emotion! Surely you can't rely on someone who shows emotion? The stereotype of "the man cries = we're doomed" is perpetuated by people who think like you. It's not like men are designed to just not cry unless they're doomed.
This comment is quite demeaning to women's intelligence. There is no reason for a woman to consider that emotional openness on the side of her husband is an indication that their family won't survive.
Crying is an expression of bottled up emotions, not an acceptance of defeat. Someone can cry and be invigorated to try harder to deal with their problems or they can cry but still be supportive to their spouse and provide emotional stability.
Womens' reactions are dependent upon their personality, their values, their view of the other person, the environment, their current emotional state, their biology and a lot of other factors at any given moment. This explains the fact that some people in this thread talk about how their crying led to more fulfilling relationships why others talk about break ups and loss of trust.
Even the point about children is completely arbitrary. Will children feel that their family won't survive due to their father crying about a lost relative? Doesn't it depend on their age? Furthermore, children need to see that their parents are humans and how to express their emotions. The alternative is that they find more indirect ways to do that like alcoholism, abuse, self-harm, extreme escapism and many other banes of today's society.
Peldi (Balsamiq) did this well, but in reality it was all pretend. He pretended like had this massive groundswell of people who loved his app but it was an incredibly well-executed PR campaign and he deserves mad props for it. He didn't make it clear at the time, but eventually it came out. Of course, people did love his app but he engineered that incredibly well.
So if being open makes sense for PR, do it, but learn from people who have done it successfully.
No, I was just obsessed with how he did it, so I swallowed every piece of info I could've until it was clear. It was manufactured, which is the best approach.
YouTube is the best invention in modern history. While working I can passively listen to thousands of ideas in a year often curated by my interests automatically.
We don't teach people how to use these things well but we should.
Unless this is sarcasm, I completely disagree. Listening to thousands of ideas inevitably lowers the value you attach to each one, and lowers the barrier of entry for what ideas you hear.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
This is how I exercise that skill. I listen to science, sociology, religion, conspiracy theories, relationship dynamics, etc.
Sometimes, I pick up something. Most of the time I'm allowing the ideas to float around in my head.
It helps a lot to practice this skill, because I trade for a living and I need to be able to convince myself that I am wrong about something all the time.
Yeah, but receiving ideas non-stop isn't really "listening" to them. A more accurate description of that passive activity would be "hearing". I get that surrounding yourself by interesting ideas and conversations is a nice passive way of entertaining potentially alternative views. But there are way better setups in which to do this. The YouTube algorithm is unlikely to challenge you to the same extent of, say, organising a family dinner where the racist uncle or communist cousin are in attendance.
Myopic view, "older" folks are also excited they can leverage this new tool, you can be excited for a thing while also being apprehensive about some of its uses.
i love how you point out "write or help edit essays" and cant see how that could have potentially negative effects on society. If someone can generate an essay for class in 2 minutes that's better than their writing produced in hours, why would they ever bother to improve their writing?
Or just not play the game. If it's already this popular/hyped, it means it's too late to create a product and profit from it. Find the next big thing before it's overhyped
You are comparing 2 different things. Buying a stock is instant. Starting a startup takes years and incumbents already have the same advantage as you. Also, you can sell a stock whenever - liquidity is easy. You can't just throw your hands up and give up a startup that easily, especially if you take funding.
Age is no guarantee of wisdom, but it certainly is an indicator. In any case, I'm quite sure that I don't understand the point you're making here. You just listed a bunch of things that some people (both young and old) think and say about this tech.
What do you mean by "being old" here? What is it, concretely, that you want people to stop doing?
The modern city is built to service the needs of the rich and/or powerful. It is run on the backs of people who are not that different from slaves. Many people are hand to mouth, but wait! They can choose where to live and which flavor of slavery they prefer.
Humanity never escaped slavery, we just call it something else now. My preferred definition is "hard work and subjection".
So, when you are working hard to survive as a subject of the powerful, and you constantly see those who appear to be "free" in the media you consume, it starts to mess with your mind.
I think that's the ultimate cause of all of this. People who take public transport, in general, are going to fall under this definition of slavery.
I’m far more inclined to believe the Chicago official’s hypothesis that the reduced number of riders partially emboldens some individuals to engage in criminal acts, than your claim that riding the bus is slavery.
The article describes a recent increased frequency of violent events. Were you suggesting that using public transportation was previously less of an indentured servitude?
We've always had greedy and powerful rich people around. These conditions are new. Complex systems fail in strange ways so there are almost certainly both multiple contributing factors and multiple ways to improve the situation.
