His argument is: 16 hours daily use is not addiction IF THAT IS THE ONLY FACTOR. He repeats it again and again. But that argument is stupid, because it ignores the other well-known and proven variables of addiction. Does this behavior have serious effects on your mental and physical health? Does it interrupt your work and play? Do you have an obsessive need to do it? The list goes on.
Who put this genius in front of a microphone?
Tri Repetae.
https://animal-uprising.weebly.com/blog
There are 2 images of 'the evolution of man' on this page. The 2nd one seems close to what you're asking for.
Hell arrived a while ago and it is summer on Lake Myvatn, or Midge Lake. You can't breathe without inhaling insects, so you have to wear a mask just in case a cloud of those things happen your way.
Agreed on the independence part. We are much more interdependent than we let on (in the US especially, but other places as well).
If everyone 30+ got together and collectively decided what thriving meant, then worked to reach those goals, then I think we would all be thriving.
The majority isn't hoping for a vacation home or to send their kids to Ivy League schools or to buy a bigger boat. The majority of middle class folk I talk to regard thriving as being comfortable enough to send the kids to some postsecondary school and take a few weeks vacation out of the country. They want to have enough to retire at 65 and live a modest life, be able to spoil their grandkids a little... nothing crazy.
The ability for all of us to thrive is already here. It is only the slight matter of systemic overhaul that prevents us.
Okay, now defend us from the foreign censorship that Israeli lobbyists baked into our state constitutions. https://www.newsweek.com/pro-palestinian-protest-states-colleges-illegal-bds-1895292
This is an astute answer. Bravo.
As I was reading the article, I had to keep checking the URL to make sure I wasn't on the Onion. Is the BBC doing satire now?
If peeing your pants is cool, then I'm Miles Davis.
And I just don't give Adam.
I am in construction (not manufacturing) and own my own business. Truth is, they are both right.
Rodney is right because there are a huge number of variables that the prof's equation is ignoring. Also, it is generally a good idea to know what you are manufacturing and work to produce that product as efficiently as possible. The professor is sort of putting the cart before the horse by building a factory with no product.
That said, we are in a learning environment and seemingly in a lower-level class. You have to strip away real-world variables to teach the lessons at hand. The professor is right not to include corrupt politicians and mafia folk, it's too much when you are trying to start with the basics. But he should've had the class decide on a product - he said it himself, it could be anything - and then build up from there.
Mafia payoffs are a 300 level course.