You can find a way to use that to your advantage. I do "robotic" stuff when I am foggy. All that stuff that I would otherwise find super boring. Doing the dishes, cleaning up, doing repetitive tasks that has a low attention requirement is perfect.
Probably similar to the NYT subscriptions surge during the Trump administration. People just buying to signal and "support the cause". Partisan views have it a lot easier to raise money from their followers than those trying to find a middleground.
> They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo
No, they are assuming that everyone must have an opinion. It seems outside of their reality to accept that people don't care about the things they care about.
Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. I just have other things in life going on.
> Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday.
Sure, you may not be a fan of it, but you don't find it a big enough problem to complain to the city.
For the editorial in question, the subject is Trump and their opinion is that finding Trump not big enough a problem to complain about is not an acceptable position for someone of such wide social reach. You may not agree with that assesment, but I think it's a fairly normal position for an editorial board to take.
But everything is already political? They're saying that _this_ specific person should have a more explicitly political stance, and not taking one is a political stance still.
58.9% of Americans voted last election. Has the Guardian already lost that much touch with reality to accept that those 41.1% of the population exist who don't care about their outrage theater?
America is not the world but that's not even the point. You're claiming they're politicizing the world. Election numbers don't represent willingness to make something political or whether it is. Not voting is a political decision.
I am only talking about the US situation here and treating the situation as if the Guardian were a US publication. That whole 'foreign media trying to meddle with US politics' narrative has reached an ironical meme status that is not worth arguing over any more.
Please link me to any other article from The Guardian complaining about one of the scores of other popular music artists who have also said nothing about Trump.
Wow, I haven't seen that before! Just stunning how distorted the Guardian's editorial board has become.
Their hatefulness must have become so deep seeded that they are unable to tolerate anyone out there who does not wanted to get instrumentalized by their 'either you are with us or you are our enemy' crusade.
It still amazes me how Germany was able to pull this off. Considering their current state of self-awareness I was expecting much more likely for them to sell it all off and invest it into social causes.
The gold is gone from where it was before, that much can be taken at face value. As to what happened to it, this...
> But we are denied access and the gold will remain out of public view — a decision that Mr Thiele acknowledges will fuel suspicions about whether half of Germany’s gold has really come home.
...is a strange policy, given the whole spin about "transpacency". So who knows, you could be right.
I remember it has been discussed on HN before. The submission was an article about a faux-pas the wife made when she asked her step-father what he was doing. I seem to remember he was afro-american but don't quote me on that. Might as well have been Kenyan. I can't find the article so I googled and found those pieces:
I remember getting in trouble when I met a woman from Holland and asked, “What do you do for a living?”
It’s a common question Americans ask.
Her response:
“Why do you care? Would you speak to me differently if I were a janitor than if I were a corporate president?”
My reply:
“Perhaps we have the same job. Or have friends or family in the same profession. When you meet new people, it’s typical (at least for Americans) to try to find what you have in common.”
When I shared this story at a family get together, a cousin mentioned that she had exactly the same experience. It, too, involved someone from Holland.
Neither of us intended to offend or be nosy. It was ordinary conversation. But obviously, not ordinary conversation in some places.
But in the end they are not able to pay the same amount of attention to 2000 startups vs 200. Or having really a hard time providing the same quality team.
Does that in the end mean that it doesn't really matter for the success of a YCombinator startup that they can just walk randomly into Paul Graham's office and ask for advice?
> But in the end they are not able to pay the same amount of attention to 2000 startups vs 200.
But this is the same issue everyone has when running their business! It is a problem of execution that you need to solve (or failed at) when you scale. Can you say that Google can't pay the same level of attention to their search engine once they started AdWords?
