Checks out. I could barely make it past the first paragraphs.
"Like very few Americans of my generation, I come from the physical world. ...earning a living from things I could touch and smell."
What is the majority of the workforce doing, then? People working in fast food, welders, plumbers, carpenters, laborers, people working in slaughterhouses, janitors, cooks, waitstaff, the people working at the grocery store and gas station, people that stay at home and take care of their children? All of them are demoted from reality? Can't touch or smell any of that? Poor struggles in the city don't count?
I forced myself through several more paragraphs before I let myself post, but could barely keep my rolling eyes on the text. "We, we, we..." We were the toughest, the hardest, the roughest. The unstated implication being that the rest of us soft, inner-city, fake Americans could never relate to the realness. Blah, blah, blah. How about some humility, things have been pretty tough and unfair and extreme and real for a lot of people in a lot of places. People have real relationships and peculiarities wherever they might live.
I don't know, maybe the article goes further than that, but I couldn't force any more of it down.
Sounds like your company has bad or missing business analysts and/or product owners. Someone's supposed to be working between the stakeholders and engineering to develop those requirements and commit resources for testing. These "important people" are re-inventing the wheel and will be mired just as bad or worse until they figure this out.
Stephen LaBerge's book explains, in detail, how they would communicate with lucid dreamers during their research. I don't remember how the researchers signaled the subjects, but if I remember correctly, the subjects would communicate with researchers primarily through eye movements. I can't say if the methods are related at all, but the book is worth a read.
I think this is the first time I've seen a cookies pop-up that only offered an "Allow All" option and nothing else. Accept our cookies or go away, I guess.
Reads like a scam. Obfuscatory language, outsized claims on future impact, excited opportunity advertisement, first-mover advantage, "no time for the rulebook, it's an inch thick!".
Are you implying that OP hypocritically supports Larry Ellison and Elon Musk? Are you implying that not supporting Larry Ellison and Elon Musk by not promoting their media or avoiding their products is absurd? Are you implying that people should hold Larry Ellison and Elon Musk accountable for US actions, but don't, and therefore doing it to other oligarchs is unfair or unreasonable?
I don't think either of you have made your point very well. "It's not okay to ... appreciate ... pictures..." Isn't nonsensical, but it doesn't really convey the meaning that I'm assuming was intended (so I guess it's incoherent to some degree). That assumed meaning being that it's not okay to support people that support evil regimes. Even if that support is minimal and indirect.
Would you buy an art book by a Nazi officer in 1942? After all, the officer would only receive a very small portion of the proceeds of the book, in reality providing an infinitesimal benefit to the Nazi party itself. Would you recommend said book to people you know? After all, you wouldn't be providing even that tiny amount of material support. And after all, it's simply the creative work of another human, unrelated to the war or atrocities, not representing the interests of the Nazi party itself.
I'm sure that there are plenty of people that will show up to argue that actually, yes, they would gladly buy the book if they liked it and they would recommend it. And some will have the logical devices to show that there are no moral obligations involved. I disagree. Generally speaking, each of us only have tiny levers to pull, and we should pull them.