Honestly, can just be a different form of therapy. Worked with one in conjunction with a therapist through a service provided by my medical insurance.
The therapist was completely useless. The life coach had me questioning the way I thought about things, and got me to seriously reevaluate the ways I caused myself stress. All she did was ask questions, but they got me to see things differently. Helped a lot.
Some local governments have rules that X must be done by someone in that area. Usually the mayor’s nephew. To get around it they are made into a rep for the company that does the actual work. No value whatsoever to the project, the users, or the taxpayer.
We could very easily vote on most issues ourselves using the wide array of technology at our fingertips, with a similar or possible better sense of security than what politicians currently provide.
But the only way for that to happen is for politicians to make it happen, and who would vote to eliminate their own job? No one.
Well, the second problem would be figuring out who curates the system. If you’ve ever voted on a referendum you’ll probably know what I’m talking about. You can make any proposal sound awesome/horrible if you leave out the right details.
If you’ve ever organized to resist a referendum you’ve probably also experienced the “we’ll just rephrase this and try again later” effect, wherein special interests just need to stubbornly keep pushing until the opposition voters get sick of participating in the polls.
I don’t think these are unsolvable problems, but they do inherently require setting up a representative beaurocracy of unelected technocrats – an apparent oxymoron. It’s gotta be someone’s job to run the machine and ideally you want them to be looking out for the people above all else.
So, how to play kingmaker? Well, if we take literal kings & elected representatives off the table, what remains is a model akin to academia, wherein credentials & seniority are prioritized above most else. It’s not a bulletproof system (none are), but if you squint hard enough the EU sort of exemplifies what this model could look like – just replace the delegates with smartphones, essentially.
Hmm… I’m not sure I agree with this completely despite politicians obviously being problematic. At least at its core, the rationale is that the significant majority of people aren’t aware enough of all the contentious (or even mundane) issues in society, so we elect people we trust to make our decisions for us. I just checked Canada’s recent bills in Parliament, and the voter turnout for something like this would be almost nothing:
Bill C-16 - An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023
Obviously our current system is very easily corruptible and that needs to be addressed, but getting rid of politicians altogether wouldn’t necessarily fix our society, despite how terrible they’re making it right now.
Who would draft new legislation? I know it’s not just politicians that do this but their staff helps a ton. I just don’t see a good system of John Everyman drafting a bill that makes sense. That said I would like to see politicians get fixed cause the system is clearly broken.
This is an interesting one that I hadn’t thought of before. I think the same could probably be said for any sort of corporate job where you’re coming up with stupid corporate nonsense speak. Like whoever’s job it is that’s seems to come.up with a million pointless acronyms for a company that they share with new employees at orientation for some reason.
Diversity and etc. is no doubt important, but should be strived for as a group.
I dunno. There’s an inclusion officer at my kids school who’s sole role is to make sure kids get the help that they need to not get left behind academically. They don’t have “Diversity” in their title, so it may not be demographic driven which I’m guessing is the distinction.
Very controversial statement but really couldn’t be more true. Of course there might be exceptions but most of the time it’s a cushy job where you are paid exorbitant amounts to do practically nothing of value.
I don’t know why people are so insistent it’s not a job rather than arguing that it’s a bad job, etc. Small landlords almost certainly put a lot of time into maintaining the property, handling occupancy, reporting income, etc. How is it any less a job than renting out bouncy houses. Sure some landlords might outsource all this, in which case it’s more akin to holding interest bearing assets, but for a small landlord it almost certainly is a job under any definition of the word.
Is a job a job only if it takes a certain amount of hours a week? dumb comment tbh
But to answer the question my friend who owns 2 properties spends probably anywhere from 10-30 hours a week. He mows the grass, takes trash to the dump, makes repairs himself, etc.
If a landlord is providing services like mowing the lawn and taking rubbish out etc, you can damn well guarantee that they’re charging extra for those services.
You honestly believe a landlord spends 15 hours per week maintaining a property? At that point, you’d be exceeding by far your tenants right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, so are you really that gullible or are you just on some really good shit? You’ve clearly never rented a property yourself.
He does not charge extra for those services. Idk what you are on about, I know for a fact maintaining his property takes a decent amount of work. I don’t respect some internet nobody telling me that isn’t true lol. 15 hours is not that much time.
That depends most startups are shit and fail but they still are useful. But the idea is VCs will just fund thousands of startups in hopes one is a unicorn and actually has a product worth selling.
But the founder is expected to use capital they don’t have to fund the business until it is attractive to people with capital. They are expected to market the product without marketing experience. They are expected to negotiate with people who are negotiating from a position of strength and who has much more experience. They are expected to be personally attractive to get interest from VCs. After they have gotten traction they are expected to be “coachable” and follow the advice of advisors that up until now have not been involved in the growth of the company.
The ecosystem is broken. Founders rarely get funding and when they do they end up losing most of the business they built. VCs are getting very few positive results.
If big VC firms were losing money in terms of net total they wouldn’t exist. Albeit most of them define success as being acquired by a big company like Google. As for independent VCs most of them are probably wasting heaps of money and just following the hype.
Anybody working in SEO / “search engine optimisation.” Complete bottomfeeding scumfuck grift. The only reason it’s not considered fraud is because the government hasn’t caught up to it yet.
I’m learning web design, and one of those topics I need to learn is SEO so the websites I make rank higher. While I don’t like the idea of “gaming the system” to rank higher, it kind of becomes a necessity when everyone does it. What for you makes it such a scummy business?
I’ll take the bait a little. I will help small businesses out of SEO holes from time to time. My friends’ business was really stuck, and often you just need an outside eye to point out some obvious things: their home page was a splash screen with no text, they didn’t use the most-searched terms in their headings, they were using text-on-imagd with no alt text.
As, generally, it’s agreed we need businesses to have a society (somewhat unfortunately), and businesses need the internet to function nowadays (mixed blessing), I don’t think it’s necessarily bad to help the smaller guys succeed.
Add comment