thebestaquaman

While acting up is a problem in professional football, anyone who actually believes these players fall like flies at the smallest hint of contact have so obviously never seen a match up close, much less played football at even the junior level. Football can be a pretty brutal contact sport.

There are very well defined rules for how you can tackle someone, but those rules allow that 90 kg player can basically mow you down at 25 km/h as long as they do it right. If you've ever looked closely at how these players fight for the ball (or played at a decent junior level or higher), you'll notice that most adults would quite simply be knocked to the pitch and more or less kept there if they ever tried beating a high level player to the ball.

Same thing (wind in face) applies to people skydiving though. Some skydivers use full helmets, but a lot don't, and they're typically falling at 100+ km/h. I think the "lose your breath from strong wind"-response is just an initial response that disappears once your body adjusts after a couple seconds. I went skydiving once (tandem), and can't remember getting the same feeling as I do if I stick my head out of a moving car.

This makes me tremble. I cannot imagine starting every day with breaking some obscure tool, pipeline, or tool chain just for the hell of it

Psssht. That just follows simple mechanics. Two orbiting bodies can be accurately modelled by a high schooler, how hard can a couple more be?

"200 KMH in the wrong lane"

I'm honestly pretty impressed by some of the obscure/absurd stuff some of these artists come up with. This one is strangely specific, yet slightly absurd. What makes you conceive of calling an album that?

That's definitely true, but the question is do the execs really care? I think that for a lot of these people, the only thing that matters is whether they can keep pulling those sweet sweet cash-outs. Just look at the absurd bonuses musk was promised from tesla recently. If he really cared about the success of the company, he wouldn't take those, he would take a fair paycheque and allow the company to reinvest the rest of the money. Instead, he requires massive bonuses to keep working. We're talking about the kind of money that could fund the entire educational sector in a small country for many years. He's taking that out as a personal bonus, to the detriment of the company.

That kind of thing makes me believe that he doesn't really care about the long-term success of the company. What he really cares about is squeezing out cash from the company for as long as possible. If the company fails, he has enough money to buy up something else that he can squeeze cash out of. The modus operandi is basically

1. Be rich
2. Buy some company
3. Wave your arms and wag your tung to get investor money into the company
4. Cash out bonuses
5. Go to step 3 until your cash-out has surpassed the investment cost
6. Either sell out of company (if it's been run to the ground), or go to step 3 until it has been.

I see you haven't experienced "doing something with tunnel vision for 16 hours before realising that you're shaking because you forgot to eat and that your last meal was dinner yesterday around 26 hours ago". I don't think you need the beetus to experience that.

I honestly think a lot of the people pushing this stuff know very well that they don't need it to succeed. They don't really care if the general public hates it, and it flops. As long as they can convince investors, they're pulling yearly paycheques and bonuses in the tens of millions of dollars. If it flops, some thousand employees (thralls) will be layed off. If it fails catastrophically, they might need to step down themselves, and move to a different company that "appreciates their ability to be a visionary".

These people are only capable of failing upwards, and they know it. The name of the game for them is waving their arms and blabbering about something to draw in investor money.

I think it makes sense to be flexible: In a table, or other bureaucratic contexts, it makes sense to put the family name first. In daily speech, it's rather common that I'm in contact with family members (even more so historically), and it makes most sense to use the distinguishing name (first name) first.

If I'm with a group that includes siblings or parents/children, I can usually distinguish everyone by first name, while many people share last names.

You may be right, but as with the trucks, I would expect a much less sharp minima: Smartphone and instant messaging adoption didn't happen all at once, but from this graph we see that we're going from a substantial year-on-year decrease directly to a large year-on-year increase. A change that is gradually adopted over the course of several years can't really cause that kind of effect.

The minima at 2009-2010 is absurdly clear though. You undid 20 years of progress in about 10 years. I'm honestly shocked - what happened in 2009 to cause this? I would think increasing truck sizes would cause a much more shallow minima, since truck sizes don't suddenly increase from one year to the next.

I also believe there are other ways for the government to fund itself.

The government doesn't just need to fund itself, it needs the resources to provide collective goods like a social safety net (unemployment, health care, legal assistance, and other fundamental rights). No matter how you twist it, those resources have to eventually come from the population. We can call that resource acquisition "taxing the population", disregarding the details of how it's done. In that case, taxes are an absolutely fundamental part of implementing a social contract that involves the collective helping each other provide collective goods. If you remove taxation (in this expanded sense) completely, you are no longer capable of sustaining a government of any kind: You're left with a collection of individuals with no common programs. Note: I'm saying here that any common program implies that people are providing resources to the collective, which is a de facto form of taxation in the expanded sense.

Would you expect me to fight a European army if I was in the US and they were invading to stop US war crimes?

Disclaimer: The following retort is conceptual, not tied to your concrete example. If russia, or israel, or china, etc... invaded your country to displace your people, steal your homes and resources, and kill those in the way, do you believe that your government has any obligation to protect you? If so, who should risk their life to enact that protection? Who should decide whether to resist or not in the first place?

The point of these questions is that if we believe that we have a right to protection, we are implying that someone has an obligation to protect. Furthermore, that someone's obligation to protect is tied to your right to protection, not their personal opinion on who they want to protect you from. Basically, stating that you would only conditionally fight to protect your country against an invading force is incompatible with believing you have the right to protection from any invading force. If it comes down to opinion, there's nothing in the way of everyone else stepping aside when your house is the one being bombed, because they personally feel that particular bombing is justified. If that can happen, you have no right to protection.

Furthermore, unless someone is obliged to protect, nobody can have a right to protection. These are two sides of the same coin. What I advocate for is that everyone in a society should have equal rights to protection, and that we should collectively share the attached obligation to protect.