I don't know. I don't think I started that way. I think I started out normal like?
But when your mother awakened certain hidden feelings in me with her sex toys when I was 9, I did feel feelings against her other object of sexual obsession, you; I developed an urge to put my hands around your neck.
1) Please don't read too much into that. I meant it as an umbrella term. When I say "it wasn't", I'm sort of un-smearing all of them, as an umbrella. I have no problem with Russians (I actually like them - fun people - except in winter). I have problems with American disinformation.
I came across more recent statements from Crowdstrike, but failed to save them, and must dig them up again. Will attempt to do so (I've noticed that Google has gotten more efficient at letting me fail to find previously discovered materials, but I hope to be able to be back with my references)
It also makes the reasonable point that the Assange grand jury had been dismissed, but IIRC (and it's only been two or three hours) the court's statement was clear that incarceration to compel was not necessary. (Probably motivated more by the grand jury's conclusion than the suicide), but if you'd like to tell all of us what you think they said, that would be super!
I am baffled that no matter how many times Assange (and a fair number of NY State Fed LEOs) say "It wasn't the Russians", that the "system" nor the "media" nor the "people" seem to be able to take him at face value: It wasn't the Russians. (Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week)
Uhhhh, yeah. I was curious about why this is a "good thing". I think I got a response that tries to respond to that more specifically up-thread. Thank you.
I see (at the time of this post) a regional person and a techno-geek respond to your comment, trying to disqualify it as not being universal (sorry globalist techno-geeks!), even though it is, measured by global magnitude.
But I am baffled by the reference to the toy maker? Who is that? Unless you mean Apple?
I founded a company that, in the 1990s, was implementing a Visa/Mastercard/(Amex, IBM, HP, Sun, RSA, Netscape) backed "Standard" for credit card payments. IBM had "invented" the spec's predecessor in Zurich Switzerland.
We were in Austin, Texas. Tiny, but scrappy. Our first customer was the largest card payment processor in Zurich Switzerland (blocks away from that IBM R&D lab!) and they were an IBM shop.
Somehow, we beat IBM in our toe-to-toe attempt to sell into that account. (Less marketing, and more sales "grit"). I asked their project leader later - "Why?". He said that at the end of the day, they knew that they were one of 100 IBM banking customers. And that they were our "first". When deploying "new" technology, they wanted a vendor that will kill themselves trying before they let the customer fail. They knew, simply, that we wanted, that we needed, their success more than IBM did...
This is actually a very interesting question that might take one down the rabbit hole.
Acquiring knowledge (I should say 'beliefs about valid knowledge') and brainstorming (and certainly collaboration and getting an advisor to adopt you) appear to be social activities, as much as purely logical and analytic activities.
Social activities like this, for social or herd creatures, are subject to flock or swarming patterns.
Maybe all the brilliant people are swarming around a locus of interest? It's certainly a good way to have the population explore the ins and outs of a, well, locus of interest. It's also a good way to have a loner get shunned by wandering off and poking at an uninteresting pile of dung.
I guess my point is: why not both? (Mathematically, statistically, egotistically, I know the idea that I am the foolish one is almost certainly more likely to be the case)
> But if someone just shows up to work and does nothing, then they're stealing from you and must be punished! It is human nature.
I do realize that far too many people put their faith in the healing power of judgement.
But that is partly because, as a component of that cognative circuit, is that most people have some sort of innate desire to see things as "fair". Certainly not to be the victim! (That's bigger, actually, by far).
People who work with people know who the slackers or the non-producers are. I try to separate those, because some high-output producers can appear to be slackers because they think for 8 days before they type that one magical line of code that saves the project. (It's hard to tell when you are in the trenches day-to-day which may be which).
In any case! (I almost got lost in my parenthetical there), Workers know which co-workers are getting paid to not produce, and know that this wage, applied to a producer would lower their own work load 10% (or whatever), and besides: it's NOT fair! He get's paid $100K/year to not work! And I work my ass off for the same wage! It's enough to make me stop working myself. That will certainly show "them".
At the end of the day, if we do not purge the slacker, morale-rot sets in on the rest of the team, and that's just "bad". Even without the needing to be punitive in our heart, those people must be culled for the continued positive morale of the herd.
Or, so, I thought once. Now - I'm not so sure. But it seemed reasonable at the time!
> Nevertheless I encounter research close to the second meaning you mentioned frequently.
Would you mind sharing the context?
I work in a field where the PR machine of my target "research" jumps ahead of the methodological reports. Then those reports are often vague (length limits?) about the details of their methodology. That makes me not trust much that I find - but I've got to have something - so I end up doing some sort of meta-analysis. It's time-consuming, exausting and frustrating - and has confidence-bars that might as well be non-existent - but without doing the on-the-ground fundamental-study - it's what I've got. For example - I just spent 60 hours over the last 4 days trying to triangulate a "probably correct-ish" value and range for a variable from a heck-of-a-lot of studies that didn't use the same methodology. Would that count as research in your book, or not?
Breaking the back of OPEC, plummeting the price of oil played no small factor. Even today, with the bounties of modern production tech, Saudi Arabia and Russia and Venezuela are hurting more than a little...
Here you mean "Manichean" to mean 'redemptive' in the moral-dualism sense? If not, what do you mean? (I want to make sure I am reading you as you intend)