I get where you are coming from, but to me it's like saying a painting is "visual music" or to call a painter who doesn't make music a musician, those are just two totally different things.
My main criticism here is the overextension of the word "art". It's often used to describe something as "creative", "tasteful", "well made", "pretty", or even just "really good". But that doesn't mean something is actually art. In my opinion real art is like a good view, it's a carefully crafted physical object that's only purpose is to be nice to look at, nothing else. And a real artist must make real art to truly be one.
If you want to call something art as an expression then that's totally fine, I just think it's ridiculous to say music is literally art.
In my opinion photography is close but still distinct enough that I would call it separate from art, film takes this even furthur. Cooking is way different from art, sure you can add the word "arts" after anything, but all it's really saying is that the thing is being done in a creative manner...
I don't agree, and I suppose this is just my opinion but I just tend to dislike the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder.
I think we've extended the use of the word art too far. In my opinion art is really just paintings and sculptures. Good art involves a lot of skill, eg: years of practice, attention to detail, sophisticated processes, careful choice of mediums, tasteful composition, and choice of subject matter. While a lot of this stuff is opinionated there are definitely rules to a lot of these things. There are essentially guidelines that have log existed for measuring an artists ability to capture color, shapes, light, and movement. Even with more modern styles like van Gogh and Monet these rules applied.
At some point we threw this out the window with the post modern movement and said art can be anything, becoming more focused on the cleverness and profound underlying message that this new "art" contained rather than the skill, dedication, and aesthetics that went into it.
A flash hider such as a "3 prong" achieves the same affect with no moving parts, also suppressors can pretty much eliminate all flash and offer hearing protection and additional signature reduction by reducing the db levels and changing the pitch of the noise.
I never had an issue with facebook (granted I haven't used either for years), rather instagram. When I was in college instagram really took a toll on my mental health. I'd see friends post the exact same photos as I did and get 2x-3x-4x more likes, and I'd follow people who wouldn't follow me back, It made me question my self worth or social standing. I think facebooks system of "friends" rather than "followers" and reduced emphasis on likes is much less harmful, I always felt like I was being rated in front of everyone on insta.
Looking back on it, it really bothers me because I had a lot of good friends that I am still close with, partied a lot, had good relationships, and overall had a really good college experience. I feel like instagram took a bit of that away from me. At some point I realized this and deleted the app, shortly after I was happy as could be.
Why would you expect that when drunk driving gets practically no attention at all? It's even socially acceptable and joked about within certain cultural circles.
True, although it's really the driver at fault, and the next logical thing to blame would be the alcohol. The connection between drugs/alcohol and gun violence gets completely overlooked though so why not blame the cars.
Then why isn't there any serious discussion about tighter alcohol regulation then? The CDC says that alcohol abuse in the US results in ~95,000 deaths per year, combined with drunk driving thats over 100k deaths, thats significantly higher than all gun deaths. On top of that it's difficult to argue there is any utility to it at all beyond recreational use. Where are the cries to ban alcohol?? Wouldn't it be worth banning it even if it saved just one life???
I don't think it's bad in general considering the size of the country and especially considering the fact that we have hundreds of millions of civilian owned guns (23 million sold last year, and even more sold this year already). When you compare guns to other stuff like drunk driving it shows how blown out of proportion the problem is.
I think the argument that he is making is that work visas are used to increase the labor pool (creating a "buyers market" for companies that are hiring). If a company cant find anyone willing to accept their offer then they need to improve the compensation and working environment... or they could hire a worker from the visa pool, thus suppressing wages, benefits, WLB, etc...
It's labor-economics 101.
It doesn't matter what the job is, if you pay enough then someone will take the job (and become qualified if needed).
ex: I'd scrub the shit out of sewage pipes with a toothbrush if you paid me enough, but most companies would just say that there is a "skilled labor shortage".
Thats how I read it at first, but I think he is saying if someone has 2yrs experience then working another 2 years somewhere else would make that second job half of their current career. I think "work experience" would have been a better term to use.
It seems like the optimal strategy would be to do the minimum and then job hop since the pay increase is greater and getting a raise for working hard is not certain.
I personally have not seen much correlation between pay working hard and getting pay raises, it seems about as likely as getting one for doing the minimum, and the effort to dollars ratio is usually not worth while. I don't want to put in 50% more effort only to get a 5-10% raise. Plus, as stated before, switching jobs results in much bigger pay increases making the raises irrelevant.