https://twitter.com/433/status/1790321405801939230?t=zdNY4S0GNUUZsih-Lhl6hA&s=19
imagine being 16 years old and you have these grown ass men in the quotes and replies hating on you

"That's great! Re-watching "The Contest" episode of Seinfeld can still be hilarious and entertaining even after all these years. The episode's clever writing and the cast's fantastic comedic timing make it a timeless classic. As you re-watch, pay attention to the subtle humor, the characters' relatable struggles, and the clever plot twists. You might even notice some clever foreshadowing or running gags that add to the episode's humor. Enjoy your re-watch, and I hope you laugh out loud at the antics of Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer! If you have any favorite moments or quotes from the episode, feel free to share!" https://www.meta.ai/#:~:text=That%27s%20great!%20Re,free%20to%20share!

"That's great! Re-watching "The Contest" episode of Seinfeld can still be hilarious and entertaining even after all these years. The episode's clever writing and the cast's fantastic comedic timing make it a timeless classic. As you re-watch, pay attention to the subtle humor, the characters' relatable struggles, and the clever plot twists. You might even notice some clever foreshadowing or running gags that add to the episode's humor. Enjoy your re-watch, and I hope you laugh out loud at the antics of Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer! If you have any favorite moments or quotes from the episode, feel free to share!" https://www.meta.ai/#:~:text=That%27s%20great!%20Re,free%20to%20share!

Tier List: https://imgur.com/a/WcUX9AP
Good gravy, these visuals. This is the most visual flair they've ever had in a battle up until this point. More on the particulars later. Unfortunately the music is comparatively pretty weak and unmemorable, with the notable exception of the track that plays during Austin Powers' bits.
So, Daniel Craig Bond's first verse. "[insert Bond villains here] were not as crooked and rotten as your teeth are." that's a decent burn, but man, I always feel bad for Austin Powers when Bond says this. Powers looks genuinely hurt, quit bullying Powers, Craig Bond! "I'll go balls to the Walther on this wack twat in an ascot; Blast shots atcha like gas from the back slot of a fat Scot!" Intellectually I acknowledge that there is some somewhat clever wordplay going on here, but I can't say I particularly care for these lines. The "I'm licensed to kill; you couldn't get a learner's permit!" is an alright diss I guess. The lines comparing their filmography and tying in You Only Live Twice into the diss... I dunno, something feels so rote and lifeless about this burn. It's competent, but it's not doing much for me. The best part of this verse is easily the "B on D/beyond me" diss, fun wordsmithing there. The closer is competent, reference to Golden Gun, sure, that's fine, but I ain't writing home about it. I'll go into more detail about this towards the end, but I'm not a fan of this verse, I think Craig Bond as a rapper is a fairly bland character and that the background visuals are having to compensate hard for his lifelessness.
Austin Powers opens his verse by acknowledging that he has been catfished by Craig Bond, which I think is a ton of fun. The visual of Austin Powers splitting into rainbow versions of himself as his track with the horns starts blaring is just fantastic. "Basil Exposition told me this would be boring; but Jesus, man, even my mojo's snoring!" This isn't a particularly clever line or a powerful diss, mostly seems like an excuse to drop a couple references, but I'm in full agreement with Austin Powers here. Craig Bond's performance was boring. Austin Powers proceeds to mock Craig Bond for his hairless body, contrasting it with his own glorious chest bush. I love how much confidence Austin has in his sexiness despite not being the least bit conventionally attractive. I also love this set with Austin, his buddy, and these women all rocking out. The computer-generated visuals of Craig Bond's backgrounds are impressive, sure, but actually having this wacky set made for the battle really elevates it to a new level in terms of presentation. And all these close-ups of Austin's eyes, mouth, and ass getting slapped... much more flair than their usual fare. Austin Powers threatens to hypnotize Craig Bond with a strip tease and I just... look, I'm not saying these are great lines, on paper Austin does not have the strongest disses, but this verse is just so FUN. The dancing and choreography with Austin's visuals are top-notch, love him slapping his ass on the spinning bed. "You're defenseless, my rhymes can't be deflected, you're like all the sex I've ever had: unprotected!" is genuinely hilarious. "People want a hero with a little personality; no one wants to sit through your gritty reality" is definitely encapsulating the vibe I feel on the question of James Bond vs. Austin Powers. Powers then goes in for a nice blow with the line about them making Thunderball twice. "I'm one of a kind, you're always getting remade" goes hard, even harder nowadays than it did back when this was made. "You can't touch me, double oh behave" is a cute reference, but it's not anything more than that, same tier of verse closer as Craig Bond's.
Then we have the misfortune of returning to Craig Bond's gritty reality. "I can't believe I'm wasting my time with this clown, I should... be on an island with a fucking model by now" is really weak. It feels ad-libbed. You're not too cool for this rap battle Craig Bond, you're actually not nearly cool enough. Craig throws in a reference to the penis pumping joke from Austin Powers, we get a little failed interjection from Powers, and that's fun. Craig Bond does get a strong blow in with "but I'm the original model that your frilly ass mimics"; a powerful argument that you can't take away from Craig Bond.
Until Sean Bond comes in and takes that away from Craig Bond with a cheeky "I wouldn't exactly call you original". Good stuff. The BDSM joke is whatever. "Your performance doesn't stir me and I'm certainly not shaken" is an amusing reference to his famous quote, maybe a little obvious and corny, but what really helps sell it is the way it segueways into "if I wanted shitty acting in my action film, I'd go and watch Taken". Fun! "I don't need a Q to break your balls" is some good wordplay. I remember watching this with my family years ago, and my father groaned at Bond's closing Gold Bond joke and said "That's terrible." and... yeah, I kind of have to agree. It's a good jab and the wordplay isn't without its wit, but there's something so goddamned cheesy about it. Can't help but roll my eyes when he smugly looks at the camera and says 'Gold Bond'. It's the phrasing and line delivery, I think. This joke might have landed better if they refrained from trying to tie it into that famous quote.
Austin Powers makes a valiant effort to get back in the battle, but gets bitch slapped for his troubles.
There's something so... for lack of a better term... beta about the way Craig Bond comes in and touches Sean Bond's arm to get his attention. "The world has had quite enough rug-wearing misogynists" is accurate, albeit not the most clever.
Austin Powers shows Craig Bond up by carrying that line of argumentation further with an amusing bit about Sean Bond being a rapist. I love how uncomfortable Austin Powers seems.
"If they made a mini-me they'd have to cast Peter Dinklage"... that's so lame, guys. Come on.
"Or maybe they should cast a Bond who's actually English" winds up seeming like way stronger of a burn than it is for the fact that Sean Bond takes so much offense to it he feels the need to slap Craig Bond hard for it. Austin's awed reaction in the background is quite funny.
"Why, Pussy, aren't you the cunning linguist?" Har har har.
I like the way Craig Bond takes Sean Bond's wordplay and uses it to mount a counteroffensive, he delivers a couple real solid lines here.
Sean Bond's closer is pretty unremarkable. I guess I could charitably consider it to be of the same caliber as the closers for Craig Bond's and Powers' first verse closers, a cute little reference but nothing more. Austin Powers continues to be the best part of the battle as he rises up into the frame, enamored with his opponents.
Alright, so... I think Craig Bond gives one of the dullest and most unmemorable performances in ERB history. For one thing, his face is just not very expressive here; it's like he constantly has one facial expression. Even when his face is contorting a bit to try and express anger he still looks the same. I don't know to what extent that's just the actor's physical appearance, or if it's a deliberate choice as part of the Craig Bond persona, or what, but watching him perform feels like watching a flat line. It doesn't help that he just looks like some guy. Austin Powers and Sean Bond have very distinct and flashy appearances, but with Craig Bond it looks like they just brought in some random guy off the street and gave him a suit. Maybe that's accurate to Daniel Craig's Bond, but it's a problem for this rap battle regardless. This guy is so nondescript he's regularly getting upstaged by his backgrounds. Another issue I have with this battle is that it clearly does not respect the existence of Austin Powers as a rapper. I could be misremembering, but I believe I've heard that the creators said they didn't like the idea of a parody rapping against the character they're based on, and that this one ultimately got made because they could turn it into a Bond v. Bond battle. Personally I think the idea of having a parody go up against the original is vastly more interesting of a matchup and that Bond v. Bond is the thing that isn't really worth doing. I'd rather this have just been a battle between Austin Powers on one side with two verses and one or both of the Bonds on the other. I also want to say that this is one of the best and most un-NicePeter performances Peter has ever given; I had to go on the wiki and double-check to make sure Peter actually played him. I think Peter has an issue with a lot of his characters sounding same-y, but this sounds nothing like him. It doesn't look like him either; it's not just that the costuming is great, the dancing and mannerisms are real different from Peter's usual stuff. Just look at that pose he strikes on the right at 1:13. So good. One of Peter's best characters.
Anyhoo... I'd put this battle in B Tier, below Ghostbusters vs. Mythbusters but above Robocop vs. Terminator. The Craig and Sean Bonds have their moments, but their parts greatly pale in comparison to Austin Powers... but even then, Austin Powers' verse isn't that great, it's more supremely entertaining than expertly written. It shapes out to being a solid battle that still leaves a lot to be desired.
I don't care what anyone thinks, I'm saying Austin Powers>Sean Bond>Craig Bond. Austin Powers is the entire reason I revisit this battle.

I saw this post on AlternateHistory.com forums.

People keep saying just cause Saudi didnt have a mechanized army,the Saudis wouldnt even last a single weeks fighting the Japs! It won`t for the following reasons!
1)Allies would send equipment to the Saudis
2)Saudis will be doing suicide attacks
3)Japanese armies aren`t trained to move and fight in desert war fare!The Germans conquered North Africa because German troops in North Africa were well trained in desert warfare!
Just because the desert is a flat plain doesn`t mean an army could easily march over it and send tanks and other vehicles over it!Besides alot of Jap troops would be suffering from the effects of the Desert!
5)The Saudis will resort to desert warfare.Just because you dont have a mechanized army doesnt mean you can`t fight!Research Lawrence of Arabia and Omar Kutthyb(Lion of the Desert) for proof!
6)The entire Muslim World will help the Saudis Defend Mecca and Medina!Other Muslim areas such as Turkey,Egypt,Palestine,and Iran have a military force that is equiped with artillery,mechanized vehicles,and bombs!The Japanese will face numerous nations with modernized weaponry!
7)The Saudis would fight more fanatical than any Japanese soldier because Saudi Arabia is the holy land of Islam!
8)Because they lack any experience in Middle Eastern warfare and because of their Bushido code,Japanese soldiers will contiinually be slaughtered by the same tactic the Arabs used to defeat the Crusaders:luring the enemy into the desert and letting them die of thirst!
9)If the Japanese conquere part of Saudi Arabia,the Japanese will do horrible things to Saudi civillians,thus enraging the Saudis and making them even more bloodthirsty for Japanese blood and long for the deaths of Japanese soldiers!
10)The Japanese army in Saudi Arabia will eventaully abandon the invasion because of far stretched logistics and because they will continually get slaughtered by both the Arabian desert and Arab soldiers who will use rifles and bombs to attack the Japanese,their armored vehicles such as their tank,and their supply routes!
So why do most people think Saudi Arabia will be conquered by the Japanese easily in WW2?The Japs have no knowledge of desert warfare!They will foolishly contiunally be lured into the desert by Arab raiders,and they will get lost and die of dehydration!Japanese tanks are completely uselees in desert warfare!And even if they manage to land a base,the Japanese Army will still face hell because the entire Muslim world will unite and send tanks,bombs,rifles,and other modernized war equipment to the Saudis along with properly trained Muslim troops!Why do most people say this?

Its rather hilarious but its an interesting scenario whoever wrote the above quoted text. So what would happen realistically if Imperial Japan attempted to do such an operation?

Hello. My name is Bungling-Worm. You may remember me from my highly condemned submissions such as "Socialists-The Moralist Busybodies Preventing You From Beating YOUR Cheating C\nt of a Wife and Annoying Children", "Profit or: Humanity's Raisin Deter (sic).", "Who Really 'Needs' Clean Air and Water Anyway?", "Hayek Was Right! - How Fascism Saved Western Civilization™ From the Bolshevik Menace" and "SWEATSHOPS!-The Greatest Gift to Third-World Youths Since the Polio Vaccine.*"
Today I'd like to address my fellow capitalists. It's no secret that, much like the U.S. military in Iraq circa 2003-2011, we're losing the battle for the hearts and minds of our intended slav..subje...vict...vassa...thral...our fellow men™. For this reason my employer, Generic Right-Wing Think Tank Inc., in partnership with our good friends in the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and the U.K. Special Intelligence Service (formerly U.K. Military Intelligence, Section 6), have contacted the eminent propagandist conservative philosopher picnic-boy and gained his gracious permission to make an official Part 2 to his highly acclaimed How to argue in favor of capitalism and against socialism, a helpful guide the table of contents of which is freely available (for a limited time only) here: https://www.reddit.com/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/1cqvdsv/comment/l3wuegi/
Without picnic-boy's pioneering achievements in sophistry this work would not be possible. Now, without further add-do (sic) I give you a sneak peak into the table of contents of How to argue in favor of capitalism and against socialism, a helpful guide: Part 2.

1. State, often and always without evidence (because none exists), that socialists control all mainstream news media, organized religion (especially the Catholic Church, the Jesuit Order, the Hasidic Colleges and every sect of Islam), academia, K-12 public education, the entire U.S. civil service/bureaucracy (from the municipal all the way up to the federal), the FBI, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Democratic Party, the neoconservative wing of the Republican party, the Fraternal Order of Freemasons, Hollywood, all police unions, the AFL-CIO board, the entire federal judiciary, all the major drug cartels and organized crime syndicates, the Federal Reserve System and the governments of literally every single third and second world country, especially the far-right and non-white majority ones. At the exact same time, and this is really important so pay close attention, accuse socialists of being unpopular teenage losers living in their parents' basement who're too lazy to get a job.
2. When socialists remark upon how similar the claims in point 1 are to contemporary Neo-Nazi conspiracy theories and start to question how you feel about Jewish people turn around and accuse them of being "the real anti-semites" for "wanting to take all the Jews' money away ". In no way is this conflation of all Jewish people with rich capitalists a form of economic antisemitism. If someone points out that it is simply cherry pick quotes from Marx's "On the Jewish Question" out of context so that none of the parts where Marx makes it clear he is only critiquing Judaism as a religion while at the same time advocating for the political emancipation of the Jews as people are clear to the reader. After that go on to talk about how much you support Israel and how much happier you think diaspora Jews would be if they permanently immigrated there. Also and for no particular reason talk about the "failure" of the Kibbutzim apropos of nothing and don't elaborate on anything.
3. Always portray struggles of democratic socialists within ML states/the Eastern Bloc as struggles for capitalism. Yes, it is true the people who organized the East German Uprising of 1953, the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the Prague Spring of 1968, and the Polish Solidarity Movement of the 1980's (before the Vatican and CIA hijacked it) all demanded democratic socialism, yes they all said that, but what they "really wanted" was capitalism and don't you let any so-called "historian" tell you otherwise.
4. Pretend that socialists invented the very concept of the state and thus that all state rulers from the Roman Emperors, Egyptian Pharaohs, Greek Archons, etc. to modern Kings, Kaisers, Tsars and Presidents were/are "socialists".
5. Don't forget to liberally pepper your psychotic rants with plenty of freudian slips and accusations in a mirror. For example, make the claim that socialists want to destroy the family so that they can isolate, abuse and indoctrinate women and children while at the same time assert that wives and children are nothing more than an extension of "the individual" who need to be shielded by this individual from an unrealistically hostile and confusing world (literally everything and everyone outside the home).
6. Assert that socialists invented taxation and ignore that the first taxes in recorded history took the form of land-rents set by the first governments (which were councils of militaristic landlords).
7. Defend rent-seeking and landlordism so long as it's done by private individuals. Remember rent-seeking is only bad when the government does it because they spend that money on social parasites and welfare leeches, unlike landlords who spend it on their second families in the next state over.
8. Claim fascism is a form of socialism but also defend the legacies of lesser known fascist regimes, military dictatorships and other totalitarian right-wing governments whose symbols and mottos the people in your country haven't developed a learned fear response to yet the way they have the Swastika and the Fasces.
9. When leftists point out that the main victims of things like the Great Purge and the Chinese Cultural Revolution were socialists, communists, anarchists and other left-wing intellectuals who opposed Stalin and Mao's cults of personality either ignore them and maintain that the "real victims" were the tiny minority of "innocent" religious extremists, ultranationalists (who were "definitely not" fascist collaborators or spies), and grain hoarders or do a complete one hundred and eighty degree pivot and actually defend the Great Purge and Cultural Revolution because "The more left someone is, the more violent/dictatorial they are, therefore anyone to the left of Stalin and Mao would have been more violent than them and it's a good thing they were killed."
10. If you think any of these points are self-contradicting just remember that doublethink is merely a tool and "communists" (Stalinists) shouldn't be the only ones allowed to make use of it.
11. Ignore the mountains of evidence that an anti-Stalinist left exists. Portray these leftists as right-wingers and edit their most famous works to leave out the many mentions of their own support for socialism.
12. Remind your interlocutor(s) that socialism is gay and cringe.
13. Remember that reading is gay but total illiteracy is still kinda cringe (unfortunately). Therefore read as little as humanly possible without going full illiterate. Our recommendation is to only read blurbs from ancap websites, your favorite conspiracy theorist podcasters' social media threads and your fellow "capitalists' " reddit posts and nothing else.
14. In keeping with point 13 let the only things you "know" or "learn" about socialism be things you absorbed through osmosis and half remember from your high school history textbooks assuming you even read them at all. Never look at primary sources, never listen to people trying to explain things to you in detail, always complain that quotes provided to you are "blocks of text" or "unoriginal" and can thus be dismissed without serious engagement on your part.
15. Remember that conformism, unquestioning obedience to authority, an unflinching belief in the correctness of the current socioeconomic status quo and conventional wisdom, and a general Panglossian worldview with a huge heaping of moral nihilism (which is definitely a real philosophical school of thought and not just a rationalization of one's own sociopathic tendencies) are actually somehow radical and that "conservatism is the new punk rock" of the 21st century.
16. Remember that guy begging for spare change you passed on your way to work? Tell everyone that he was a capitalist. Carefully explain to workers why capitalists are actually worse off than everyone else in society as hard to believe as that may seem. Remind them that when it comes to capitalists' they're "cash poor, asset rich" which means all their wealth is tied up in assets like yachts and sports cars and mansions and designer suits/dresses/jewellery and second summer homes and third winter homes and tropical island resorts where "nothing unethical ever happens so shut up about it already"...and talk about how they can't use these assets to buy groceries or clothing or even pay the "exorbitant" property taxes on their assets. "So you see the real unfortunates in our society aren't the homeless or the victims of police brutality or refugees or the working poor, it's capitalists. These brave men and women take (minor) financial risks by using what little cash they have to found businesses, not for their own benefit but for ours, so that they can give us jobs and provide us with products and services and then what do these generous souls get in return for their herculean efforts? Just a whole lot of ingratitude from socialists and a bunch of tacky junk they can't even use to feed and clothe their many, many illegitimate and adoptive children that they're definitely not doing anything questionable with on their tropical islands that aren't even worth that much anymore because of rising sea levels (which have nothing to do with climate change, which is just a Chinese communist plot to make Americans poor don'tcha know?)".

Heya, I just wanted to ask if anyone knows why the quotes I'm getting on car insurance could be so ridiculously high relative to the value of the vehicle I've got?
Information: Age: 18 Country: UK Area: South Lincolnshire in a small Hamlet of roughly 250 residents Vehicle: 1994 Rover Metro 1.1 (carbed) GTa 5spd manual Vehicle status: currently lacks MoT and is SORN but she should be up and running within the next week and MoT'd within the next 2-3 weeks
Hopefully within the next 6 months or so I'll be passing my driving test and can finally get out and about and leave this god forsaken county and as such I've been looking at insurance policys for when I pass to see how much it'll cost me a month (my learners insurance is currently £38 a month and covers me [the policy holder and vehicle owner] along with my step dad) but I've noticed I'm struggling to find quotes that are below £9,800 a year id be ok with £2,800 with no black box (due to the conditions of the roads near me I regularly have to change sides of the road and brake sharply to avoid large potholes and as such I feel a black box with telemetry would say I'm an unsafe driver and put my premiums up). Another issue with this is that I plan on moving to Gravesend next year for an apprenticeship and will therefore need a car to get around and if I can't afford to insure the one I've got i have no idea what I'm gonna do transport wise especially since this apprenticeship may require me to leave very early in the morning and travel to various job sites. Just wondered if anyone knows why I'm being given such ridiculous quotes and wether there's anything I can do to get cheaper quotes or wether anyone has any recommendations for cheap insurance companies for young drivers. I'm more than happy to answer any extra questions if anyone has any! :)

The minutes, included in a draft version within the May 14, 7:00 P.M. board packet, https://ephraim.wi.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/24-5-14-Board-Packet.pdf#page=11, describe the DDC employee as stating:

DDC still has to by state law receive 70% of the room tax collection.

The title reflects my assumption that the draft minutes correctly report what was said on April 9. If this was misreported, I will delete the post right away.
There is nothing in the state statutes which requires that a single tourism entity receive the 70%. The 70% portion of the room tax money may be distributed to multiple tourism entities, if that is what the Door County Tourism Zone Commission desires. It happens that there is only one tourism entity presently receiving the money, but it doesn’t have to be that way. There is another option for Ephraim to look into.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/66/vi/0615/1/f states that tourism entities must have been created before January 1, 2015. The Ephraim Business Council was first registered with the state in 1963: https://apps.dfi.wi.gov/apps/corpsearch/Details.aspx?entityID=6E03737&hash=1855910145&searchFunctionID=00c8372f-e872-4732-87cc-d096cf086605
The 1963 founding means it is old enough. As a tourism entity, it would be required to spend 51% of its revenues on tourism promotion and tourism development, and provide destination marketing staff and services for the tourism industry in a municipality.
If the Ephraim Business Council received enough room tax money from the Tourism Zone, and passed it to the village of Ephraim for tangible municipal development, that would allow it to qualify for the 51% if it does not already. Eligible tangible municipal development expenses count as a form of “tourism promotion and tourism development”, according to https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/66/vi/0615/1/fm
The Ephraim Business Council maintains the Ephraim Visitor Information Center, and this 990 form indicates that it has one full time, salaried employee: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/391539213/202311189349200636/full
That means it meets the “destination marketing staff and services” requirement.
The Ephraim Business Council could create a committee made up of entirely of unpaid Ephraim village board members. The council could receive a portion of the 70% directly from the Tourism Zone, and allocate it to the village for eligible tangible municipal development purposes according to the decisions of the committee.
That things could be set up this way is contradicted by what the DDC representative said at the meeting, according to the draft minutes. State law has restrictions about how to spend the 70% portion of room tax money, but her comment over-stated the extent of the restrictions. This is what https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/66/vi/0615/1m/b/2 states:

the commission shall contract with another organization in the zone to perform the functions of the tourism entity.

This does not expressly prohibit a commission from contracting with two or more organizations, each receiving part of the 70%.
The quoted comment from the DDC representative came as part of a discussion on whether room tax dollars from the Community Investment Fund could be spent on fireworks. Elsewhere, https://doorcountytourismzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Open-Session-Packet-April-2024.pdf#page=32, it is revealed that the village of Ephraim has accumulated a legal bill of $22,548 over their complaint regarding the Community Investment Fund. In responding to the complaint, the Door County Tourism Zone Commission has spent $4,903. Ephraim would like the Tourism Zone to pay the $22,548 so they don’t have to, but the Tourism Zone won’t pay it.
This is a waste of tax money. A democratic alternative to wasting more tax money on legal fees would be for a special joint meeting to be held for all board and council members, from all Door County municipalities. Together, they could write and vote on a resolution expressing their intentions to the Door County Tourism Zone Commission. The resolution could be more of a general nature if there isn’t much agreement, or it could spell things out more precisely if that is possible.
Topics they could consider:

• Whether more money should be spent on legal expenses
• What percentage of the 70% should be allocated to DDC
• Which other tourism entities ought to receive contracts with the Tourism Zone, and the proportion of the 70% which should go to each tourism entity
• Proportion of room tax which ought to go to tangible municipal development
• Which projects ought to be funded with tangible municipal development, and which tourism entity should be responsible for funding the projects

When writing the resolution, the votes could be taken by municipality, the representation from each municipality having one vote. A majority of all the municipalities could pass a measure. If a small number of the municipalities balked at participating, a meeting with a majority of the municipalities could be held anyway. When it is finished, each municipality could decide to individually approve or reject the jointly-written resolution. This could be done at the joint meeting, for municipalities which have a quorum present. For those lacking a quorum, or skipping the special joint meeting, approvals could wait until the next regular meetings.
A resolution written in this manner would not be legally binding on the Tourism Zone, but the Tourism Zone board members would be practically compelled to follow it. If certain board members don't comply, they could be removed and replaced, since they serve at the pleasure of the principal elected official in their member municipalities. Any members which are removed may be replaced by someone else chosen by the principal elected official, and confirmed by a majority vote of the board or council members who were present at the time of the vote: https://doorcountytourismzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Door-County-Tourism-Zone-Commission-By-Laws.pdf#page=2
Wisconsin's state constitution restricts the state government itself from being a party in carrying on works of internal improvements: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/wiscon/_18/_12
There are exceptions to this and a history of court cases. However, the clause only applies to the state. Municipalities are allowed to build internal improvements: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lrb/reading_the_constitution/reading_the_constitution_3_1.pdf#page=7
This implies that any system of allocating tangible municipal development dollars must stem from municipal authority instead of the state’s own authority. Because the scope of tourism entities includes tangible municipal development, and tangible tangible municipal development includes the works of internal improvements, it would be unconstitutional for them to claim powers derived directly from the state.
The powers of the Tourism Zone to tax and distribute funds, and of Destination Door County and the Community Investment Fund to spend the funds distributed to them, are derived from municipal authority. Along with the method for appointing and removing Tourism Zone board members, the authority structure suggests that a resolution authored by a joint meeting of the municipalities would be regarded as compelling by the Tourism Zone.
The state does not forbid municipalities from holding joint meetings. This is a recent example of a joint meeting held by two town boards: https://townofoaklandwi.com/2024/04/28/joint-meeting-town-of-meenon-town-of-oakland-on-05-01-2024-615pm-new-town-hall/
This notice describes the meeting being held at a new town hall. An earlier article describes the towns considering the purchase of a property together to serve as a town hall for both towns: https://www.burnettcountysentinel.com/news/shared-town-halls-possible/article_9dcfb588-a30d-11ed-b60f-0fb4ae6c11d9.html
If two towns in Burnett County can hold a legally valid joint meeting, nineteen Door County municipalities are capable of doing the same.
If nothing is done and the status quo continues, will legal bills continue to increase? Besides the current dispute, a second legal issue has the potential to arise, resulting in more litigation. This would be if the Community Investment Fund were to grow too large. One person recorded in the draft Ephraim minutes described the fund as already being at a million and a half dollars. There are several annotations stating that tax money cannot be accumulated and kept as a surplus having no public purpose: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/60/vi/40/5
Although this refers to towns, the authority to spend tax room money is likewise delegated, so it also applies to the Tourism Zone, Destination Door County, and the Community Investment Fund. Were they to accumulate a surplus with no public purpose, courts could intervene. Exactly how much of a surplus there would need to be for courts to get involved, I don't know.

Hi, I have seen defenders of Israel claim that Israel has made unprecedented efforts to protect civilian life in Gaza as the civilian to combatant fatality ratio is 1:1 (highly contested obviously as these are numbers Netanyahu has publicly said recently: 16K civilians, 14K combatants). They claim this ratio is unprecedented and the normal civilian combatant fatality ratio is 9:1. But it seems that 1:1 it is actually a pretty standard civilian to combatant fatality ratio in war and has been for a while:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096701068902000108?journalCode=sdia
Here are some examples of the claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wgHuYbBcfk
https://twitter.com/SpencerGuard/status/1786612909415473474
https://twitter.com/COLRICHARDKEMP/status/1747693189946106183?lang=en
I feel like there is some level of sophistry going on here as they refer to it as a casualty ratio and casualty does not mean fatality, it means deaths and injuries and can ever refer to other effects of war. In Gaza, 120,000 people have been killed or injured and there's only 30,000 Hamas/Islamic Jihad fighters so technically the ratio is at least a 3:1 if we're referring to a civilian to combatant casualty ratio.
I assume they are referring to the fatality ratio ratio. But is this 9:1 stat credible? They often cite the UN as a source but as far as I can tell they are referencing this study by the UN which claims that 90% of victims of war are civilians:
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/ocha-orientation-handbook-complex-emergencies
This claim in the UN study is based off this paper which also makes the same claim. But victim doesn't even mean casualty in this case and it includes people who are displaced:
https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400060666a.pdf
See quote here where it includes refugees and internally displaced people as victims of war:
"The report goes on to deal at length with the various categories of victims of conflict, basing the analyses on statistics set out in several tables. Special attention is paid to the cases of child-soldiers (an estimated 200,000 children under the age of 15 are reportedly currently used as soldiers), refugees (over 16 million in the world in 1989) and people displaced in their own countries (over two million in Sudan). Giving a real-life dimension by eye-witness accounts and quotations from publications to what might otherwise be dry statistical data, the authors describe the efforts made by the United Nations, particularly the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to provide protection and assistance for these especially vulnerable categories of victims.
Considering that 1.7 million people have been displaced in Gaza, if we are defining victims in the same sense of the original study then civilian to combatant victim ratio would be over 60:1.
Now I understand that this was is different as it is urban warfare and fatalities are likely to be higher. I can't find any statistic from studies claiming that this is the ratio in Urban conflict. All I could find was AAOV data which claims that up to 90% of casualties are civilians when explosives are used in urban warfare:
https://aoav.org.uk/explosiveviolence/
However AOAV applied these statistics to Gaza and found that ratio in Gaza was 10.1 after a X (Twitter) analyst Eli Kowaz claimed it was 0.8 but had miscalcuted the data. Funnily enough, the official Israeli spokesperson also published the 0.8 figure which was the reason why AOAV clarified this was a complete falsehood.
https://aoav.org.uk/2023/x-twitter-analyst-eli-kowazs-grossly-incorrect-interpretation-of-aoav-data-trends-claiming-idf-has-low-gaza-casualty-rate-kowaz-later-deletes-post-but-others-continue-to-spread-the-misinformatio/
So am I missing something? Is there any basis to the claim that 90% of deaths in war are civilians. Does this apply particularly to urban warfare. Because Even in the Syrian Civil War (which I doubt even Assad would claim there were great lengths taken to protect civilian life) had a higher number of combatants killed than civilians killed. Even the Afghanistan War seems to have had over 3 times as many combatant deaths than civilians deaths. I understand these two wars are not directly comparable but what about in Mosul and Raqqa? What was the ratio there?
TLDR: What was the Civilian to Combatant ratio in Mosul and Raqqa and other urban combat zones?

Simon Stone
Erik ten Hag, asked if tomorrow will be his farewell appearance as Man Utd manager at Old Trafford: “Goodbye? For me? It's not how I feel it and how I see it.”
https://x.com/sistoney67/status/1790496531528777884
​

Detailed Quotes

https://www.manutd.com/en/videos/detail/part-two-of-erik-ten-hag-press-conference-for-man-utd-v-newcastle-united
​
Ten Hag, asked if there will be a lap of appreciation tomorrow, after the last home game of the season:
​
Through good times and bad times, we are together, and the fans show it, that we are together. So we will do a lap of honour."
​
Ten Hag asked if the Newcastle match would be a "goodbye to Old Trafford" for him:
"Goodbye for me? It’s not how I feel it and how I see it. It is not the way I go to start that lap of honour for the fans, no. The answer to the questions you made so often: same answer."
"In the stadium, away and home, they [the fans] are always backing the team and backing me.
"Also, when I’m in the streets, many, many come to me - maybe it is just polite, but I don’t feel it like this..."
​
Ten Hag on reactions of the season:
"I almost never get a negative reaction [in public] because the fans understand where we are.
"The fans understand this club is in a transition, and the fans understand the huge problems we’ve had to face, especially positions in key areas."
​
Ten Hag on Wayne Rooney's claim that some players are not returning from injuries:
“You have to see here at Carrington. The players are desperate to play,”
“I have seen that Licha Martinez [wants to play]. Bruno did a fitness test on Sunday to play. Rashford did everything he could do. He trained, tried to train last week but he didn't make it.
“Players are desperate to play and they want to be in the right shape.
“You see also Victor Lindelof, Rapha Varane, they are training to make themselves available for the final. They do what they can do.”
​
Ten Hag on Lisandro Martinez
"I think especially on the pitch, we need him. There, he shows his spirit, and it is there he is a warrior if he is fit. "When he is fit, his standards are high, and he is an absolute leader for us, a warrior who has the right spirit. "He is a very important player in our defensive line and we missed him across almost the whole season."
​
Ten Hag asked if he ever feels sad on the touchline:
"I can't feel like this, I can't express this, because that will lower the vibe in my team. we have faced high problems, but I am always positive. I do it with the players who are available, we make the best team of it, we motivate them."
"I have to inspire the team, and I will keep fighting..."

Link to AO3
chapters 1&2
chapter 3
chapter 4
chapter 5
chapter 6
chapter 7
chapter 8
chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
The Academy looked normal enough from the distance but blew Gentry’s mind when she finally entered it. First of all, the way in lay through a massive winter garden full of the most luxurious botanical collection she’s ever seen. Not only that, but it seemed to be arranged in a way that offered spaces for hanging out as well as paths in and out. Here and there, G noticed little nooks with people’s voices coming from them and small murmuring streams gleamed in the sun that blazed through the transparent walls and roof. This place looked magical and invited to stay, enjoy the refreshing coolness and peace of mind. But Gentry had a good enough rest in her communal room the night before and was eager to start working on her first assignment that the System had spat out with a congratulating letter. Figuring out the controls of her new wristcomm was simple enough.
DEAR GENTRY!
WE ARE DELIGHTED TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU ARE THE FIRST CONTESTANT TO CLEAR ALL CHALLENGES AND OBTAIN THE STATUS OF AN ASHTAPADAN NEWCOMER! YOUR MEDICAL DATA HAS BEEN ANALYSED AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE.
IN THE ATTACHMENT TO THIS LETTER YOU WILL FIND A LIST OF RULES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND IDEAS THAT WILL DEFINITELY HELP YOU IN THE FIRST WEEKS IN OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY BUT WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND FINDING A BUDDY THAT WOULD BE YOUR MAIN GUIDE AND POTENTIALLY A NEW GREAT FRIEND! IT CAN BE ANY CITIZEN OR A MORE EXPERIENCED NEWCOMER.
YOUR CURRENT POINTS: 0
WHY NOT START EARNING SOME WITH YOUR FIRST ASSIGNMENT?
START ANY BEGINNER COURSE AT THE ACADEMY AND KEEP YOUR ATTENDANCE RATE OVER 80% — WORTH 50 POINTS
(OPTIONAL) FIND SOMEBODY WHO IS WILLING TO BECOME YOUR BUDDY — WORTH 20 POINTS
Without stopping to check if the vending machines offered anything good, G made her way through the dreamy garden and entered the inner yard that looked just like everything here: nothing too eye-catching at first glance but secrets hidden everywhere.
One thing she had already noticed was that most of the people had another piece of technology on their bodies besides the comm on their wrists: a sort of extendable visor that some of them kept engaged at all times. Those who were focused on the screen had a comical look on their faces, a thousand-mile stare, eyes wide even as they were talking to each other or going about their business. It was unclear yet why they would engage the screen for so long though. No one needed this much time to read a notification or check a map.
Take a group of young students by the fountain, for example. They seemed deep in conversation with each other yet their pupils didn’t focus on the person in front, but on the translucent screen over the top part of their faces. Was it some kind of virtual reality helmet?
If so, G needed one, too.
Perhaps she’d be able to make new friends this way.
There was something else that caught Gentry’s eye. Despite her initial disappointment about the severe lack of male hotness in the streets, people of both sexes seemed to really care about their appearance. Even those who probably weren’t naturally stunning were very interesting to look at not least because of the crazy fashion sense everyone here had. Never before had G seen so much variety in what everyone wore: countless variations on different national garments, some looking very traditional, like something one could see in a theatre, some — futuristic uniforms straight out of a sci-fi movie. It didn’t seem like anyone was concerned with gender norms here, too. At least in when it came to the outfits.
G hoped she didn’t look like a creepy stalker when her gaze lingered on a pair of very nicely shaped legs stretching from underneath a plaid skirt that belonged to a young man in the group sat by the edge of the water. A pair of snow-white knee-highs, flat loafers and neat raven hair with some blue streaks completed the image. His clothes fit him very well and weren’t inappropriate in the least: something an old money university student would wear.
A female student that is.
And he wasn’t alone. Here and there, among more conventionally dressed people, there were people wearing all sorts of things: a crazy mix of goth-like apparel but barefoot, men and women with heads covered with scarves, people in strange jewelery that looked like it weighed a ton and so on. Most importantly, no one seemed to care what the others looked like.
Was it paradise? Looks like the demo didn’t lie: it was heaven on earth.
The young man in the middle of the student gaggle caught her staring after all. With a dazzling smile, he waved in her direction as if they were great friends, and G waved back, face heating, hoping there wasn’t anyone behind her this tease was actually waving at. Thank god his shoes weren’t heeled, otherwise she would definitely have a heart attack right here, in the middle of the common area, on her first day.
Did he notice her ogling his legs? Judging by the giggles of his friend's entourage, they all did. The young flirt covered his mouth, eyes wide in mock indignation and pulled his knees in, as if hiding them from the improper attention, getting even more laughter from the rest of the company. G averted her eyes and tried to calm her breathing as she was on her way through the yard again, but before they all disappeared from her field of view, she noticed the coquette stretch his legs again and fall back on a friend of his, embracing the lucky man’s neck in an affectionate gesture, already forgetting G existed.
There was no way she wasn’t going to make some pretty boy do the same for her. Forget the assignment, put that in the list of her top priorities!
At first, Gentry was lost when she failed to find any kind of class schedule and there was no one to ask at the reception desk.
Why have a reception desk if nobody’s on duty?
Soon, however, it occurred to her that there was no schedule: each room within the wide marble corridors had a small display with a handwritten message scribbled on it.
Bachata for beginners
Product engineering (Tuesday class cancelled)
Colloidal chemistry (revision today)
None of these were the Communications course that Jey was talking about, but the variety definitely made G’s eyebrows go up.
Was she just supposed to barge into any class and sign up? Did she have to sign up later if she liked the subject? Was it ok to choose any?
After some wandering around, too scared to just walk in uninvited or ask others for directions, she finally stumbled across the door saying:
Communication & decision making course (Newcomers welcome)
With the desks arranged in a horseshoe and the people of various ages that were also apparently Newcomers, it all seemed comfortably casual. Everyone was chatting as she walked in, paying G no mind so she busied herself with the wristcomm that dinged at exactly the right time to save her the embarrassment of looking for a desk.
Would you like to enroll in this course? Scroll down to read the description.
Was this damn thing a spying device? Did it just know which room she was in? Jey didn’t joke when she said the little thing was going to be her primary aid!
“Are you looking for somewhere to sit?” called a young red-haired woman at one of the paired desks. “Here, this one is free.” She had the auglasses on, like everyone else, but they were off, showing her lively face and a pair of sharp green eyes.
“Thanks,” G said, gratefully taking the offer. “I’m new here, don’t know how things work yet.”
“It’s alright, the course is very engaging, you’ll love it.” — the woman held out a hand — “I’m Sereen, what’s your name?”
G shook the warm palm. “It’s Gentry. And by new I mean I’m new to Ashtapada, not just the course. Literally arrived yesterday.”
“Really?” — S looked surprised — “Everything must be very confusing!”
“You have no idea,” G smiled. “I’m glad someone understands. Everyone’s friendly but acts as if giant mechanical dogs in the streets and a moss garden in the lobby are the most normal things ever.”
“Don’t worry, I was just like you when I first arrived, you’ll get the hang of it soon.”
“Hope so! Is that the lecturer?”
“Shhh...”
Just like everything else in Ashtapada, the lecture started out normal enough only to unfold into something completely alien to how things were normally done.
Apparently, the Communications course involved learning rationality, debating, logic, etiquette and god knew what else. It was supposed to give the future citizens tools to, well, communicate. G was given a booklet with some ground rules for beginners that included entries that sounded like something Sun Tzu would say if he studied debating instead of warcraft.
“The purpose of any argument is not to win it and not to change the other disputant’s mind. It’s to find the truth.”
“Always argue in good faith.”
“Don’t attack your opponent.”
“If attacked, dismiss the attack as if it didn’t happen.”
Well, hopefully, it only meant verbal attacks! G knew too well that when it came to physical violence, it was hard to ignore it.
Most of the rules looked straightforward enough, some were confusing.
“Seek challenge to your convictions. Avoid echo chambers.”
“Don’t seek being right.”
“Be mindful of your audience including yourself.”
“Avoid “Empty arguments” that don’t bring everyone closer to the goal of finding the truth.”
The lecturer, a willowy man of about sixty that drowned in his tweed jacket, started the class with a bit of small talk with the regulars after distributing the booklets to all first-timers. He made sure to give it to G face down so that his photo under the “About the author” title didn’t go unnoticed. He also made most of the “talk” part himself.
“I never took part in a debate,” G told Sereen, who was patiently waiting for the class to begin. “And never seen anything like these rules. Is it actually useful?”
“Oh, believe me, professor Poe will be ecstatic to talk to you about them. He can’t not start discussing his subject at the slightest provocation. Look.” — she raised her hand — “Professor, how was your weekend?”
The man wearily smiled. “That might seem like a meaningless question, Sereen, but it’s actually very much related to the topic we are going to cover today.”
“See?” — S raised her eyebrows with a suppressed smile. G giggled. This promised to be interesting.
“Our friend Sereen is a very polite person, isn’t she?” — Poe smiled at the class but his eyes glided over everyone’s faces, gaze turned inwards like he was reading an invisible text written on the walls. “But as kind as she is, I don’t think she’s actually interested in how my weekend went. Small talk is just a social custom we engage in to strengthen our social relations. Why don’t we just start a day by saying “Hi! I value our relationship and would like to fulfill my societal role!” to everyone we know? I would definitely prefer THAT over the small talk! He-he!”
The audience laughed politely. The guy seemed alright.
“However, just as we use different tools to fulfill this role in different contexts, so can the context of a logical problem steer our thinking towards a rational, that is, right, and an irrational, that is, wrong, answer.”
“Well, that’s not a given,” Gentry mumbled under her breath but it went unnoticed by S, who was already immersed in the lecture.
“Consider the famous René Descartes’s quote "Cogito, ergo sum". Who can translate it from Latin?” — the board behind the thin, almost transparent man glowed, displaying the words.
“Is it really a Beginner’s course?” G asked Sereen in a low voice but her companion was already raising her hand, together with a dozen other students.
“I think, therefore I am,” she said after a curt nod of the lecturer’s permission.
“Very good,” he continued, pleased. “I taught you well. Those of you who attend my lectures regularly are familiar with the notion of solipsism, which states that the only thing we can be sure about is our own thoughts.”
Gentry looked at S with raised eyebrows.
If this is an introductory course, what was the advanced like?
Sereen didn’t seem to perplexed. She was fully following the thread.
“However,” professor Poe said. “I am going to challenge that notion by demonstrating that we can’t trust our own mind when it comes to perceiving reality.”
He looked at the audience with a quizzical eye, and pointed at Gentry with a long bony finger “You, new girl. I want you to close your eyes.”
Why her?
Gentry was only happy to hide behind her eyelids. No doubt the whole room was now staring at her.
Through the blood rushing in her ears, she heard the old man’s voice, “Who was sitting beside you before you closed your eyes?”
“My new friend Sereen,” G answered and heard a little gasp of appreciation from the woman.
“So you know she existed as long as you two were whispering behind my back. However, now that you can’t see or hear her. How do you know she exists?”
“Well, I can reach with my hand and touch her,” Gentry said, demonstrating.
“Yes, this is what most people answer,” Poe said. “You can open your eyes now. But let me ask you this: how would you know it was her, an not some other person that took her place?”
Gentry’s intuition was right: everyone was staring, as if waiting for her answer.
“Well, I suppose— ”
“Hush, it was a rhetorical question,” the professor cut her off. “The correct answer is that you can’t know that. We think we can trust our senses or at least our thoughts, but this is also false. Everyone, look out of the window.”
Everyone did.
The day was as fine as Gentry was annoyed.
What did this pops think of himself?
“I’d ask what you see, but I already know the answer,” he went on. “All of you would say “the sky”. And all of you would be wrong, because sky doesn’t exist. We only see the endless emptiness of the outer space, but perceive it as a blue dome. It’s an illusion, a phantom, born out of our collective unconscious.”
Sereen whispered, lost in the lecture, “Ah, yes, Carl Jung.”
What?
Was it supposed to be obvious?
“But listen to this,” he continued, voice booming like a demiurge’s in the completely silent room. “Listen to this. How many words is it? Listentothis. Our common sense says it’s three words while in reality it’s just a string of sounds I an producing with my mouth. I am literally making you hallucinate the spaces between the words I’m saying. With knowing that our perception is so flawed, how can we know that we even know how to think?”
“I’m sorry, professor, I disagr...” G started but got struck down by his serrated gaze.
“I’ll invite questions at the end, young miss,” he chopped out.
Sereen’s eyes were sympathetic. It looked like most if not all of professor Poe’s students had learned not to interrupt him.
He went on, “Anyway, the fact that you even understand what I am saying is in itself incredible and shouldn’t be possible.”
“But it IS possible, right?” G whispered to Sereen. “I mean, aren’t we understanding this as he speaks?”
“PLEASE refrain from talking unless asked!” professor Poe roared.
Impressive lung capacity for such a frail human being!
G begrudgingly did as she was told. The guy seemed to be enjoying this power trip a bit too much to her taste.
“Now, since most of you,” he put some emphasis on the word to shut up another pair of whispering students. “Most of you think you comprehend my words, you must know that there is a way to tell that something is real, even though we can’t rely on our senses for perception. I’m giving you a minute to discuss with your partners what it might be.”
G considered it. She and Sereen exchanged equally confused glances.
Like a dutiful student, S started summarising Poe’s arguments but Gentry listened with only half an ear. She felt that behind all this over-thinking was a clear and simple answer.
She watched the professor walk along the aisles, tuning into one or another conversation before leaving each with a smug head shake of disapproval.
What was there to think about? Even if they didn’t see the world precisely as it was, something was definitely real, right? The chair she felt under her buttocks, the air around, the low murmur of the students. The annoying professor that… looked a little too translucent.
Gentry waited for the man to approach their desks and tune into Sereen’s musings. As he came so near they could reach out and touch him, Gentry did just that.
To her utter shock, her hand went through the old jacket and sent a wave of static over the professor’s figure, his whole form glitching and flickering.
Professor Poe was a hologram!
Unable to help herself, Gentry said, “No wonder you don’t think anything is real, Professor, you are hardly real yourself!”
The whole roomful of people stared, transfixed, at the surreal scene of a student’s arm disappearing into the teacher’s abdomen.
Gentry looked back at Sereen in search of support.
Was it laughter in her eyes?
Poe’s blood drained from his face, the mouth slacked open, twitching as if trying to form some words, but none came out.
Sereen chimed in, “You never told us you were a simulation, Professor.”
“Out!” Poe gritted lowly so that no one really heard him.
“I’m sorry?” G asked, innocently.
“Out of my class!” he exploded, jumping out of Gentry’s reach with an enraged grimace. “I am as real as you are!”
G stood up and looked at her hand then back at Professor Poe.
How much rage could storm in those watery eyes?
Then, she winked at her new friend.
“Let’s go then, shall we?” she said.
Sereen looked lost for a second, her eyes darting pack and forth between Gentry and Poe. Then, her gaze seemed to cloud a little, as if she retreated into her own head, but when she resurfaced, she nodded with a mischievous smile.
Both young women left the room, the classmates’ sympathetic silence and Poe’s angry seething seeing them off.
***
“What a way to start my first day,” Gentry said. “My hands are still trembling a bit.”
She and S were calming their nerves in the green winter garden, the soothing sound of the little running streamlet at their feet a welcome distraction.
“Believe it or not, his course is actually quite useful,” Sereen laughed. “Who would have thought the old Poe is actually not human? I guess we never thought of poking him in the stomach before. This is going to be the talk of the Academy for the next month or so!”
“Is it? I feel bad now. I guess I’m not getting any points for attending this lecture, right?” — Gentry checked her wristcomm — “It says “zero progress” and something else… ad.. Honi… adhonim…”
Sereen laughed, “Yeah, you adhominem’ed good old Poe, no wonder you got zero credit!”
“What does it mean?”
“You’ve seen the rules of learning and discourse, right?” S said. “There are no-nos, things that aren’t allowed, especially when it comes to Rationality classes and the like. Ad Hominem means an attack on the speaker, not their argument. It isn’t exactly what you did, but I guess it’s the closest thing!”
“Ad Hominem, huh,” G said. “Well, I guess I deserve it then. Thanks for standing by me.”
If it wasn’t for Sereen, G wasn’t sure she would be going to return to the Academy any time soon!
“You just chose a wrong course as your first class, G,” — no doubt about that! — “But another lecturer who works here is much more open-minded and he also teaches Rationality. I think you’ll enjoy him more than our old Poe. His next class is in a couple of days. Wanna come?”
***
DEAR GENTRY!
CONGRATULATIONS ON COMPLETING AN OPTIONAL ASSIGNMENT! 20 POINTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO YOUR STATUS COUNTER.

Need to pick your brains about an issue i'm having:
I just built a fresh kernel, a custom 6.9 xanmod-edge fork with some optimizations tailored to my setup, x64v3, built with LTO etc, previous version 6.8.9 has been fine. i just merged 6.9 and now i'm running into some kwin issues on wayland:

May 14 20:53:12 arch kwin_wayland\[4701\]: kwin_scene_opengl: Invalid framebuffer status: "GL_FRAMEBUFFER_INCOMPLETE_MISSING_ATTACHMENT" May 14 20:53:12 arch kwin_wayland[4701]: kwin_scene_opengl: Invalid framebuffer status: "GL_FRAMEBUFFER_INCOMPLETE_ATTACHMENT" 

as soon as sddm starts i get these errors, switched sddm to x11 temporarily and started plasma wayland but it looks glitchy as hell and i get the errors above in the log
specs see screenshot i am on nvidia-dkms nvidia/550.78 nvidia_drm.modeset=1 kernel parameter latest kde plasma

lsmod grep nvidia nvidiafb 61440 0 i2c_algo_bit 16384 1 nvidiafb fb_ddc 12288 1 nvidiafb vgastate 16384 1 nvidiafb nvidia_uvm 4698112 2 nvidia_drm 94208 81 nvidia_modeset 1540096 22 nvidia_drm nvidia 59457536 657 nvidia_uvm,nvidia_modeset video 65536 3 asus_wmi,asus_nb_wmi,nvidia_modeset 

could it be related to the framebuffer console changes? (my TTY seems fine though)
i reverted back to 6.8.9 and rebuilt, everything is just dandy
stock kernel 6.8.9 seems ok too, 6.9 arch kernel is not out yet is it?
any clues?

As Google IO is wrapping up today, something I wanted to talk about is how glaringly obvious the different approaches in product announcement that OpenAI and Google take, and how that reflects the quality of their products.
Now to first caveat, Google(Alphabet) as a corporation has many more responsibilities than OpenAI. They have to maintain and provide for all of their billions of users, and that shows in how much time is spent showing minor AI applications in their existing products. There's a lot more pressure on them to succeed, since they're the "800 pound gorilla".
Let's start at the OpenAI event; it's less than 30 minutes long and speaks for itself. They had some gaffs with GPT-4o cutting out, but it didn't matter, because everyone was blown away by the product itself. They had enough confidence to just show off their new product, accompanied by a few videos of employees experimenting with it in different ways.
Now if we head over to the Google IO, they're trying to streamline and plan out everything meticulously, even to the point of having their employee say "look here I was able to cut you off Astra, see that everyone?! We can do what OpenAI can do."
We even have Google's Dollar store Sora, which is generating very little buzz because it's seemingly not as good as Sora (which OpenAI had sitting around for months and just pulled out of nowhere), and also lost any excitement factor because OpenAI yet again, beat Google to the punch.
I think this really just continues to reflect the quote by Satya, that they're making Google dance. Whether or not Google pulls through in the end and comes on top as clearly the leader in the AI space, it's very much clear that OpenAI powered by Microsoft's compute is making them sweat like hell in the current moment.
Edit: There was a lot more I wanted to discuss in this post, but I also forgot to say that I don't have any bias for one company over the other, and they both have made their own respective huge flashes in the AI space. I think Google's announcement of Gemini 1.5 Pro was indeed overshadowed by Sora, even if maybe the 1.5 Pro unlimited context length research was in my opinion a bit more significant as a whole.

Hey so I'm here to say thank you for your kind words and others not so kind words on my previous relationship post .Yesterday was bad ,I was bitter ,but today I have been laughing at the comments 😂😂 Y'all are hilarious.Most of you are concentrating on the fact that I ate after a heartbreak 😂Yes I did ,and I ate lunch and dinner too.For context that relationship was only 3 and a half months but those were special to me,I won't regret coz God knows I gave my best🥺we'd known each other for 6months before making it official. Lesson learnt:Don't cook without the ring .Okay too bad coz I love cooking.Also don't go without calling.But thank God I didn't call.I wouldn't have found out .Good riddance.His loss. Also I'm surprised at how much the story has trended on here and Twitter(some girl even copy pasted and got some good engagement on X)and FB.If this was not anonymous,ningekuwa celeb😂😂😂Anyway thanks to those reaching out, I am fine and no I don't want to date,at least not now.Thanks

*Management style:
Not democratic/participative. Not transformational. Not Coaching. Very much Autocratic/Authoritative/Coercive. Sometimes Laissez-faire. Style depends on the department.
*Chain of command:
The ministry is seen as a church by top management. Top management are the “elders” and the CEO is the Senior Pastor. Then there is everybody else. So, confidence is put on their positions of authority. They are, in all sense and purposes, the “spiritual leaders”. They present themselves as having spiritual authority and, therefore, as being entitled to receive immediate agreement and unquestioned compliance.
Also, there are multiple management layers or chains which this quote sums up as well:
"When you become an admiral, you never have bad meals and you never hear the truth. there are all these layers of management and buffer layers and each one is afraid to tell unpleasant truth to the top levels.... “
Not a culture of authenticity where everyone on the team, including management, is encouraged, and expected to be who they are. There is a sense that top management puts up a false front, they seem to want to appear perfect. Illusions of invulnerability exist. They always lead well, they always make the right decisions, they never admit mistakes, etc. Want people to think they got it all together- all rainbows and lollipops. Do not exhibit vulnerability. Toxic positivity is also very much present: Everything is seen as “awesome”. So, there is judgment if you have a bad (not "everything is awesome") day.
The vertical chain of command, results in less collaboration, slow communication, lack of career growth, feelings of subordination, and decreased employee empowerment. Top management sets the rules and standards without any input from the “bottom” employees. Employee questions, concerns or ideas have to go up several steps of the chain of command so that upper management can address or approve. The bottom employees do not have the ability to make decisions related to their work or a particular situation. So, not everyone feels equal.
So, if you are not a spiritual leader, you are just basically told to submit and listen to those who are in authority over you because they are the people that “hear from God” and you are not and so whatever they say goes. And they set up a scenario where they basically kept those of us who were not spiritual leaders dependent upon them.
Many in management are overconfident and overestimate their abilities. They have a simple idea of how things are and how things work. Unfortunately, they make decisions that impact entire departments without gaining the needed knowledge.
The chain of command and lack of ongoing training also results in many employees being promoted so much that they max out their competence and will remain there until they leave or are let go. So, you end up with many in the role of management that lack the training and competence of the respective department. So, employees with the most authority are often not the most experienced and not adept in the particular field leading team members. And employees with the most experience and skills and knowledge and wisdom have the least (or no) authority.
Good leaders don’t always claim the “leader” title. Oftentimes, good leaders are those with more understated temperaments. Leadership is as much about listening as it is about telling. However, people with the most open and receptive personalities often do not have much authority.
Also, how the chain of command should operate when there is a unit that acted without proper authorization, it is not a junior authority who’s going to bear a responsibility for that, but somewhat of more senior status. And that’s true in any military or business or ministry operating by a code of ethics. So, if someone at the bottom of the chain is struggling, failing, or making mistakes, those at the top of the chain bear full responsibility. Everything stands or falls on leadership. Unfortunately, the chain at FCBH is not two directional.
There is also a sense that top management promotes employees who are least-competent but pose no risk to their own position (in-group bias) to management.
*Feedback:
Work environment or culture is not set up for employees to give honest feedback/opinions or to deliver bad news or to question or disagree with management.
Sample bias is also common. Management will send an email asking for feedback but they won't consider how only the people who are open to talking and sharing their opinions will participate while others won’t. Bias arises because employees with specific characteristics (e.g., extroverts) might be more likely to agree to participate than others, making the participants a non-representative sample. People with strong opinions or substantial knowledge about a specific topic may be more willing to give feedback than those without. Management does not follow up to determine why they are unresponsive or follow up frequently to reduce attrition.
Management claims they want to hear from employees, but they only want opinions and ideas on matters that are superficial or trivial. So, few employees give candid feedback on important and significant matters.
Top management does not involve employees in the change process when changes occur.
Management does not ask for honest feedback on their leadership or on decisions that are made that affect employees. Management will not ask how they are doing as leaders, what employees need from them. No regular check-ins or 1:1 on employees’ professional and personal well-being. Are employees stressed, disappointed or feeling burdened physically, emotionally or spiritually? No growth and career discussions.
Management will ignore most feedback, comments, suggestions even when it's common knowledge but will adamantly listen to employees who preface with "God told me to tell you..." Or “I felt God say …” or “God spoke to me and said…”
For example, management started focusing on Gen Z only after a few people claimed that “God told us that Gen Z are important for our future business growth.” In another instance, someone said “God gave us this word: we as a ministry need to really consider how everyone is wired, how each person is different. How people have different personalities.” Then, management affirmed this “word from God.”
If one employee brings something up to management it is often ignored and the employee is gaslighted. If two or more employees bring the same thing to management, then God is communicating something and they take it seriously (per Matt 18). Even if it is just coincidence or frequency bias.
*Groupthink/Conformity:
Groupthink, confirmation bias, in-group bias, illusions of unanimity, and self-censorship is very prevalent in the culture and especially in their meetings. There is a lot of direct pressure to not question, to conform, to agree with the views and personal convictions of the top management. Employees condemn those who disagree or question top management and they accept those who agree, creating immense pressure for conformity.
So, many employees frequently remain quiet, preferring to “keep the peace” rather than disrupt the uniformity. Employees are pressured to hide problematic information (especially from top management).
*Disagreements/Different perspectives:
Top management will also point out the working and living conditions of international employees to “encourage” local employees to not “complain” or give critical feedback or bring up legitimate problems (e.g., fumes or loud noises from construction in the building).
Management also often commits the "ends (or goals or vision) justify the means" fallacy: the work, the production and distribution of bibles (the ends) being done is more important, so employees shouldn't complain at all about the means or their working conditions (broken chairs, broken or inadequate equipment, poor work-life balance, bad management).
And, if management disagrees with you, with your observations, feedback, suggestions, or theology, they will often try to trump you with spirituality or vague meaningless spiritual terminology instead of using Scripture (properly interpreted), facts and reasoning.
In addition, top managers will take great offense when employees question or disagree with the directions and decisions they make. Dissent is not welcomed. Respectful debates/disagreement is not encouraged. Open discussion and alternative perspectives are not encouraged. Management does not value, support, or respect diverse opinions and ideas. They do not actively seek out different viewpoints. Do not allow people to speak their perspective, their thought of mind. So, there is no psychological safety. Employees do not feel comfortable expressing dissenting opinions without fear of retribution or judgment. Afraid of breaking the little glass image. People do not feel comfortable sharing setbacks, mistakes, failures. Management does not encourage open communication. Management often seeks agreement, instead of posing honest questions that challenge the status quo and provoke critical thinking and discussion. They do not encourage employees to challenge them. In fact, they are seen as a type of complaining or critical feedback and so are viewed as sin. This makes top management seem self-centered.
*Appeals to emotion: Guilt and Shame:
Top management often shares their personal opinions and convictions (e.g., spending money only when absolutely necessary, not accepting large gifts, not buying fancy items) as something everyone should do. It’s never direct. It's always through stories. Management loves stories. The personal convictions of management are presented as more than preferences.
For instance, top management encourages extreme frugality and poverty through their personal anecdotes #loudbudgeting and stories from international cultures. Think along the lines of: “we, here in America, have no right to be sad or to complain about things or to request better things or ask for accommodations or for more employee engagement because others (internationals) have it much worse.” Even wanting better equipment and supplies or asking for better working conditions is frowned upon (in some cases seen as a sin), even if your request helps you to do your job more effectively and makes the work better (a new whiteboard, a new office chair, better computers, etc.)
Example: “You should really try to come in to work even if you feel bad, even if you are snowed in and the roads are hazardous because people need to get our bibles. And our international employees work in much harsher conditions.”
You also get this feeling from the way they communicate that top management would rather not pay their employees. They would prefer it if everyone just worked for free because “we are on a mission from God. We are doing the Lord's work.” There is also a sense that employees should be more than willing to sacrifice their well-being, career goals, financial goals, personal goals for reaching people with their Bibles.
Leadership sets the example and expectations, so this all ends up making employees confused and feeling guilty and ashamed. Guilty and shameful about asks, spending money (even their own). Guilty and shameful about having nice things (new car, new phone, new tv), about making needs known, about sharing concerns regarding work, about asking for raises to keep up with cost of living, etc.
Example: An employee has continued to use an old whiteboard. It is so old it is hard to read and difficult to erase. Management likes to tell donors: “We don't spend money on everyday things like whiteboards…. Instead, we use that money for more bible recordings, for people to hear about Jesus.”
This also causes confusion. Every few months there is a meeting where management discusses how sitting on stores of money is bad, but spending it is also bad, but also not spending it is bad... "Being rich is bad. Money is bad. let's not accumulate money, that's bad. We must think about how people will see what we have. So we should look poor and not appear too frivolous." But top management is okay with receiving gifts from donors and other ministries. Management personally does not like to have nice “fancy” things, and as a ministry, they say FCBH should also not have nice fancy things, they should use the money for other more important things. They don't like when other ministries use their money for nice fancy things, but it's okay if other ministries give FCBH nice fancy things like tote bags, key chains, mugs, phone holders, lunch bags. Another example, it took them years to repaint the parking lot. It was at the point where people did not know where to park. Before repainting, management decided to remodel the hallways and install posters and multiple monitors with language stats.
There is also a subtle sense that producing audio and video bibles is the highest calling one can have. And it's implied that FCBH is the main means God uses to fulfill the great commission: “God needs FCBH to do these bible recordings or people (specifically unreached internationals) will go to hell.” So, top management hints that working anywhere else isn't really serving God (or at least, not serving God as well as one could if they worked somewhere else). They imply that working at this ministry is the only way to truly serve God and fulfill your calling. They also use this framing to guilt and shame employees into not quitting. Management implies that employees should not take opportunities to leave or take other jobs because getting the Bible to people is God’s highest calling for us as Christians:
“If anyone leaves FCBH, then they must not really understand the vision/calling. They are not committed to saving people. We should be willing to give up things to fulfill the calling. The apostles did not pursue better jobs and so God will provide if we need better pay, benefits, career. For those of us who join the ministry to hold true to get God's word to every person, it takes discipline because we have opportunities to do other things. I'm sure that Noah had problems with Builders because he probably had hundreds of people not thousands working on the ark. They started their own businesses and started side things going on. pretty soon they'll have no time to work with him on the ark. and you can have all kinds of diversionary things happen. and so we want to understand they focused in the ministry. and that's been one of the things that I've really tried to do is what did God tell me at the time this ministry began because I was not interested in this ministry. I was interested in living by faith and experiencing God through people and seeing people experience God. and when I was praying about that here in Albuquerque the Lord said bring my church together and make disciples. and then he also told me that when his people think the same they are one. so it's not a matter of getting rid of the buildings or the leaders but it's a matter of people thinking the same. They can go to different denominations, different buildings, have different teachers, and different preachers and leaders but once they think the same, they're one and that's what his objective was. and so that's when I felt like the Lord said get God's word to every person. So I'm challenging us to stay true to what God has called us to do. and every time somebody leaves the ministry there are reasons for leaving. but it startles me a little bit, because I think well we haven't, we haven't communicated the vision very well somehow because they didn't get it. like Noah building the arc. it it's a long project it's not a month or a year two years or three years. our immediate goal is 2033 and it means that we're committed to a cause. and that means some of us we give up something. I we've given up stuff we live in a small apartment and that's what we saw that God had us do and that's our lifestyle we we tone down our lifestyle to get the cause committed to the cause. and and I know that's difficult for some, in some cases maybe there's financial needs because of family growth and stuff there they just can't afford to work in the ministry. but sometimes it's a choice and every time somebody leaves it where it's actually a choice. I think we haven't communicated the mission very good the vision very good. I've been looking at is that could you imagine read reading the New Testament. and finding out that Peter about halfway through or Paul halfway through the ministry all of a sudden got a better job offer. and stopped their portion of the ministry they held the course no matter what happened. whether it was good or whether it was bad. Paul talks about this and sometimes we want to follow the Lord. but we don't impart on ourselves the same responsibilities that those disciples did. so when God Empower them is he empowering you in the same way. and you're making choices that maybe you shouldn't make that you will impart and say the Lord is leading me someplace else when in fact maybe it isn't. it's just a better offer. if the Bible in the New Testament was reading a little bit different than Stephen left the ministry at this point or James left the ministry at this point because of something I think we need to be very very careful and why I say that is that as we work internationally.”
SO, there is a lot of guilt and shame about leaving to pursue other interests or meet needs. Guilt and shame about wanting to leave to advance and develop professionally. For this reason, many remain “loyal” and stay at the ministry.
So there is lots of control and manipulation in the work culture.
*Weekly worship meetings:
These are mandatory and there are some legitimate concerns:
Top management seems to have misconceptions about true worship and worship experiences. They often reduce worship to singing by their communication, the way “worship” is used. Worship is seen as something we do on occasion - once a week, when we gather at work for the mandatory worship time. Top management, by ignoring other styles, seems to believe that there is a single style of worship which is correct for Christians.
And it seems like just about anyone can lead worship or be on the team: anyone that can play an instrument. Top management does not require a worship class or agreement to biblical principles concerning worship as a prerequisite for employees who desire to plan and lead worship experiences. So you end up with people who have different views/philosophies on the worship team. Unfortunately, many who lead do not take the time/effort to plan and lead worship experiences, to discern from songs that are better suited for individual or private worship from songs that are corporate or public worship, to discern songs that are controversial/questionable (have bad theology, weak theology), songs that are theologically ambiguous or songs that lean more towards “feminine” attributes. Most, if not all, of our modern “Christian” worship music is written at a simplistic level of understanding and comprehension. Most music tends to appeal to our emotions. Many songs appeal mostly to women. So there is a great need for teaching on the biblical principles concerning worship. Also a need to choose theologically balanced songs with music appropriate for the people. Unfortunately, many of the songs chosen are theologically incorrect (e.g., having elements from the Word Of Faith movement, New Apostolic Church, New Age). Songs are often not theologically balanced. Songs seem to be chosen for their emotional impact, to make employees feel good; many focus on just one aspect of God (e.g., love). Many promote self-centered worship.
Most of the worship leaders just sing the songs: They do not actually “lead” people into worship. They do not help people connect the lyrics of the song to where they are at in their personal life, to teach them something about God or help the people understand what this song means and what God wants them to get out of it, so they're not just singing songs and just doing, going through the motions or help them understand the depth and the richness of what lyrics mean and how it applies to their life. What matters to them seems to be whether songs are impactful, moving, and beautiful. (Whatever that means.) Whether songs make employees feel good. They don't seem to care whether the songs actually reflect truth: Do the lyrics line up with Scripture? Do the songs glorify self or God? How would new Christians or nonChristians interpret the song?
Theology is the study of God and it's very important doxology is an expression of praise to God so the point here is that all theologies should ultimately lead to doxology if theology doesn't lead to doxology then we've actually missed the point of theology so if you have theology without doxology you just have dead hold orthodoxy which is horrible. On the other side you have the people who say “forget about theology I just want to praise.” But if you have doxology without theology you actually have idolatry because it's just a random expression of praise but it's not actually informed by the truth of who God is so God is
concerned with both he's concerned with an accurate understanding of him and that accurate understanding of him leading to a response of praise adoration and worship towards him.
*Leadership quality:
Top management has more respect for donors and guests than their employees.
Management lacks basic core leadership principles/values:
Unfortunately, many employees are not given power or resources: Management just gives them the responsibility to get things done. Before responsibility is given, employees should be equipped: be empowered, have the authority, be given resources and have the experience. Employees are not empowered as individuals to solve their own problems using their own solutions. Micromanagement is often required every time the situation changes or problems arise. Employees are not inspired to act as leaders for themselves, delivering amazing performance without guidance. They have coaching sessions but only when there’s a problem. True coaching occurs regardless of whether the individual is crushing their goals or falling behind. Management does not seem to care about unlocking a person’s potential and getting the most of their performance. They seem only interested in producing more followers, not more leaders.
No method to hold management accountable to core values listed in their own Employee handbook. Employees are expected to abide by the procedures and rules described in the handbook but top management can choose to ignore it when it is convenient for them.
-Top management are NOT learners: No desire to develop and improve their skills.
-They do not ask employees: What’s one thing you see me doing—or failing to do—that you think I should change?
-They do not ask how they are doing as leaders. Or ask employees how they’re doing.
-They do not ask what employees need from management that they are not giving them.
-No performance evaluations for both management or non-managment.
-They often fail to emotionally connect with employees.
-They do not speak to employees' needs first.
-They do not focus on what they can put into people rather than what they can get out of them.
-They do not understand basic psychology, how people think and behave.
-They are often resistant to (and even hate) change: Perhaps because they fear losing control. In fact, new information, objective facts, research, stats, and even new ideas are often ignored in favor of what's easiest to do or because of tradition. If something has been done and “works”, top management does not see a reason to question it or to improve on it. If something was tried 5, 10, 20, even 50yrs before and failed, top management does not see a reason to try it again even if the exact circumstances have changed.
-They do not empower or give the means, the power or opportunity to do to employees.
-They do not trust others to follow through managing processes and performing tasks.
-They do not lead by example.
-They do not know when to move forward and when to back off, what to improve and how radical those improvements should be.
-They often fail to see options, and plan and prioritize.
-They fail to develop leaders around them.
-Their communication is often poor.
-Their listening is also poor: do not listen for more than facts, but also the feelings, meanings and undercurrents.
-They do not take the time to get to know the people they lead: no weekly check-ins which top organizations have to discuss how employees are doing professionally and personally. Management doesn't ask “what was good this week? What was not good this week? How is your well-being? How is your family?”
Competence in leadership skills is also poor.
-They are not teachable: not willing to keep learning, growing, improving in leadership and management practices: FCBH has a yearly “leadership” summit. But, the way it is set up, it reinforces weaknesses instead of challenging leadership growth.
The summit is also just for a select few in top management. Not every employee is seen as a leader so most employees are excluded.
Top managers attend the summit but there is no followup, no post accountability by other managers and especially by the employees that are under the managers. No discussion on how management will apply what was learned.
Some of the past speakers have had questionable characters and even questionable teachings (Judah Smith). Leadership qualifications and theological background seems to be ignored in favor of charismatics, dynamics, popularity.
-Top management does not take responsibility for their part of a disagreement or failure and apologize.
-They often embrace a victim mentality.
-They often limit yourself by your job title.
-They do not invest in better tools or processes.
-They are content with the status quo.
-They allow their past achievements to stagnate their desire to keep learning.
-There is a lack of discernment, finding the main cause of problems/issues.
-They do not anticipate problems.
-They do not accept the truth of the problem: Do not face up to the reality of the situation;
-They get bogged down in the details.
-They often avoid problems.
-They don’t deal well with problems.
-They do not have their team study all angles.
-They often do not value nontraditional thinking: Don’t embrace change, ambiguity and uncertainty well.
-They do not work well with differences.
-They do not have their own mentors or provide mentorship to others.
-They do not invest to improve their own professional or leadership skills.
-They are often insecure, constantly seek validation, acknowledgement and love.
-They limit employee's success and recognition:
-They do not seem interested in making people successful: Don’t attempt to remove barriers that prevent employees from being successful.

• They often feel threatened by accomplishments by employees who are not management:

If an employee who is not management has a great idea to improve the work, management often does not support it and may secretly try to shut it down.
When a team succeeds, management will not give other people credit and instead take the credit themselves.
It seems like some of the people working there were given the title of management, the position, and that alone made them qualified. Management or leaders assume that their position alone qualifies them to make critical decisions where they may not have the best data, insight, wisdom, skill, experience. Just because one may have the word “manger” in the job title, does not automatically make them a great leader. Leadership is about dealing with people, and the dynamics between those people, and influencing people.
*Dead end career path:
For the most part, top management assumes that team members are fine and "settled", rather than taking the time to understand their true feelings and needs. They do not ask employees where they are struggling, where they are having trouble, what frustrates them the most?
Management does not seem interested in making employees better both personally or professionally. They do not have a growth plan or professional development plan for employees. No job related training. They do not provide what is needed to help employees to grow and improve. They don't provide opportunities for employees to apply their talents and expertise. They don’t ask how they can better support employees. Employees don’t check on each other.
One is expected to work until health deteriorates and skills become obsolete so you leave in a worse place than you started. For most employees, there is no long term future with the organization. Management does not let employees know how they are doing and what the future looks like for them. What the opportunities are. They do not take the time to learn from employees what they want to be. No honest conversations to understand employees goals and ambitions. So, because there is no growth or development plan, no career path, once your skills are outdated, they will probably let you go or they will keep you in the same position and your salary will max out.
Management does not coach employees on how to manage their time, priorities, and energy; no teaching on how to problem solve, or make better decisions, or how to set boundaries or how to minimize context switching and zoom fatigue.

There is a quote from either a movie or TV show that I posted on Fb two yrs ago and have no Idea what it's from! My own fault! I'm in USA and here's the quote (between two people)... "did you think of me?" "always" Help!!

I may have missed some more recent (late 2023-24) declarations, so let me know if I should add anything I've missed.
Stugotz personal record book. Sorry if the links are expired on some things. They're old.
[Time Stamps] Started to use them in late 2019. They may not be exact based on what podcast app or service you use. But they'll be close.
I DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY OF THIS:

FOOTBALL

(1) UCF is the 2017-2018 national champion.
(2) If Kirk Cousins goes to the Jaguars and not the Jets, no championship he wins will count in the personal record book.
Note (2)(a): Still pending sort of since Kirk is with the Vikings now – possible in future he could go to Jags.
(3) Eli manning has 1 ring. He doesnt get one for throwing a ball into David Tyree's face / Tyree getting a football stuck in his helmet.
(4) Carson Wentz has a Super Bowl 52 ring.
Note (4)(a): Foles does not have a Super Bowl 52 ring.
(5) The Raiders defeated the Patriots in their divisional playoff matchup in 2002 (Tuck Rule game), and then would defeat the Rams in Super Bowl 36.
Note (5)(a): In this scenario also, Bill Belichick was also "fired and looking for a job" after the Tuck Rule game and has 0 rings.
(6) If the 2017 Patriots won Super Bowl 52, James Harrison would not have a ring (Patriots lost to Eagles).
(7) Peyton Manning has one ring (Broncos ring does not count).
(8) Peyton Manning must give such ring he lost (above) to Von Miller, who thus has 2 rings.
(9) Aaron Rodgers can have all the rings he wants for keeping all of central Wisconsin employed.
(10) Brian Billick has 0 rings (2000 Ravens Super Bowl) because that defense carried him.
(11) Tony Boselli is a Hall of Famer.
(12) Tarik Cohen is an honorary Jew.
(13) JuJu Smith-Schuster is also an honorary Jew. L'Chaim.
(14) Drew brees has three rings for winning the super bowl for the city of New Orleans.
Note (14)(a): There was discussion on this where the number started at three, went up to five, came down to two, but it ended up at three.
(15) Mike McCarthy has no Super Bowl rings.
Note(15)(a): Dan also has this in his record book, and it is the first entry into the Le Batard Personal Record Book.
Note 15(b): In fact, McCarthy has -3 (Negative three) rings.
(16) Any Super Bowl rings Antonio Brown gets with the Patriots will not count in the Stugotz personal record book (9/9 Weekend Observations National Hour 2).
(17) Ohio State's 76 to 5 victory over Miami (Ohio) on 9/21/19 does not count.
(18) Due to Bill Belichick's 219 wins with Tom Brady, Bill's week 7 2023 victory over the Bills was actually his 81st victory and not his 300th victory.
(19) The 2002-03 Miami Hurricanes actually won the Fiesta Bowl/BCS National Championship game against Ohio State.
(20) If JJ Watt joins the Texans for the 2024 season or later on, none of the Super Bowl rings will count in Stugotz's personal record book

BASKETBALL

Kevin Durant
(1) If Westbrook wins a championship and beats Kevin Durant along the way in the playoffs, Westbrook will have won 2 championship rings.
(2) "STRAP IT ON BOYS, GONNA TAKE YA FOR A RIDE:"
Kevin Durant has 0 rings (Zero rings)
Kevin Durant has -1 rings (Negative 1 rings).
Kevin Durant has -4 rings (Negative 4) (As of 4/11/18)
Note (2)(a): This number is subject to change based on Stugotz altering rings to the "-4" current total. Specifically as seen recently when Stugotz adjusted the number from (i) 0 rings to (ii) -1 rings to (iii) -4 rings.
Note (2)(b): Here is a tweet transcript of the conversation where this was discovered.
Archive link
(3) If Kevin Durant wins an NBA title for the NY Knicks, he will gain 11 rings.
Note (3)(a): As seen above in "(2)," Kevin Durant has -4 rings.
Note (3)(b): [Math] If Durant were to remain at -4 rings, and subsequently win an NBA title for the Knicks, he will have 7 rings total. This was specifically stated (-4 + 11 = 7), and a question about a non-specifically stated Personal Record Book entry is posed below in "Note (3)(c)(i)."
Note (3)(c): If the Golden State Warriors had won a championship playing 3 on 5 with Kevin Durant, Kevin Durant would have 1 ring.
Note (3)(c)(i): [Confusion] I am unsure if "Note(3)(c)" means he would gain +1 ring, and therefore be "up" to -3 rings total. Possibly, Stugotz means if the Golden State Warriors had won a championship 3 on 5 with Durant, Kevin Durant would be at +1 rings total (Positive 1 rings).
(4) Kevin Durant's dagger in Game 3 did not count, because according to Stugotz, none of Durant's stats count. KD's official statline last night was 0/0/0 and the Cavs blew the Warriors out by 40.
(5) Anything Kevin Durant has done with the Warriors so far is not in Stugotz' personal record scroll.
Note (5)(a): Stugotz did not take his feathered pen and write anything in his scroll (King Roy approves).
(6) Westbrook has ALL of KD's rings.
(7) For every time KD says he doesn't give a BLEEP, Stugotz adds 2 "I do give a BLEEPS" in the personal record book.
(8) Per Dan, speaking on Stugotz' behalf, Kevin Durant has no Olympic Gold Medals (9/18/19 National Hour 1 @ 00:07:50).
Michael Jordan
(1) Jordan has 9 rings because:
(a) The Rockets have to give their 2 rings from 1994 and 1995 to Jordan (+2); and
(b) The Bulls would have won the 1999 Finals over the Spurs if Jordan didn't retire (+1; 9 total).
Note (1)(a-b)(i): Put LeBron's rings in a box and put Jordan's rings in a box. Jordan is +6 by the way over LeBron box-minus, despite box-minus sounding like a dumb stat.
(2) Michael Jordan was suspended for 2 years for gambling (Said 4/25/18 Hour 2, 14:30 in podcast).
Note 2(a): HOWEVER, MJ still has 9 rings as see above in (1)(a) and (1)(b).
(3) Any game Michael Jordan played wearing the uniform #45 does not count.
LeBron James
(1) If LeBron James goes to the Golden State Warriors, every Championship he wins will result in a deduction of 2 previously won championships.
(2) The Miami Heat LeBron teams were the GREATEST teams in the history of sports (5/7/18 Local Hour).
(3) The Miami Heat LeBron teams were also the MOST INTERESTING teams in the history of sports.
(4) If, after the 2018 NBA Playoffs:
(a) LeBron does not make it to the finals and the Celtics do; and
(b) The Houston Rockets do not make it to the finals and the Warriors do; and
(c) LeBron goes to the Houston Rockets for the next season, THEN
LeBron is allowed to win rings that count in Stu's personal record book.
Note (4)(a-c)(i): HOWEVER, Harden & Chris Paul - if they remain on the Rockets with LeBron on the team - are not allowed to have any of the rings won with LeBron count in Stu's personal record book.
Note 4(a-c)(ii): To quote the big man Stu (with Dan agreeing of course), "Do it on your own” (Dan agrees here).
(5) If LeBron wins an NBA Championship with the 2018 Lakers roster (as of 7/23/18), then that wins counts for 6 rings.
Note (5)(a): Thus LeBron would have 9 rings.
Kyrie Irving
(1) Kyrie Irving hit one of the biggest shots in NBA Finals History, but was only in that position because of LeBron James. Kyrie Irving, did hit one of the biggest shots in NBA Finals history that won everyone on that team a Ring, except for you (Kyrie). (3/9/20 Hour #3; Google Podcast @ 07:00).
Note (1)(a): Stugotz: "A little revision to the uhhh Stugotz Personal Record Book that I'll come around to writing...or Mike will." I'M WRITING IT YOU IDIOT MORON JACKAL
Misc. Basketball
(1) The Houston Rockets have 0 (Zero) NBA Championship victories.
Note (1)(a): See "Michael Jordan (1)(a)" for reasoning.
Note (1)(a)(i): [Restated Reasoning] Michael Jordan is actually in possession of those 1994 and 1995 Rockets rings because Michael Jordan would have won those championships if he stayed in Chicago.
Note(1)(b): [CONFLICTING HOT TAKE] Stugotz has also said Jordan didn't get the Rockets' rings because he was actually suspended for gambling.
Note (1)(b)(i) NEEDS CLARIFICATION PLEASE. Stugotz keeps going back and forth. In "Michael Jordan Note 1(a)," the opposite of "Miscellaneous Basketball Note (1)(b) is stated because he has gone back and forth on this issue.
(2) Steve Kerr has no rings as a coach. In fact, he has never even coached a game.
(3) Mychal Thompson (Klay's dad) has no rings. (Said on Zach Harper podcast).
(4) Clyde Drexler no rings (Said on Zach Harper podcast).
(5) Giannis Antetekoumpo is pronounced Yani Adababoombo.
(6) As long as James Harden has his beard, he cannot win any championships.
Note (6)(a): If the Rockets win a ring, then the ring goes to the beard.
(7) Lamarcus Aldridge cost the Spurs game 2 of the 2017 Western Conference Semifinals, even though they won.
(8) If the Sixers happen to win a championship, Sam Hinkie gets a ring.
(9) Chris Paul has NOT made a Western Conference Final since he had to join the Rockets to do so.
(10) Michael Jordan winning the NBA Finals in 1999 also means that Tim Duncan only has 4 rings instead of 5 rings.
(11) The Warriors only have 1 ring
Note (11)(a): Durant still has -4.
(12) Boogie Cousins cannot win a NBA Championship and have it count if he does so with the Warriors.
(13) Billy Donovan was the NBA Coach of the Year in 2017 (12/13/17 @ 28:10 Hour 1).
Note (13)(a): The Thunder blowing the 3-1 lead to the Warriors that year had nothing to do with Donovan. It was Durant's fault.
(14) The OKC Thunder actually did win the WCF against the Warriors in 2017 when up 3-1.
Note (14)(a): This does not apply to Durant though.
Note (14)(b): The Thunder also beat whoever they would have played in the Finals. Durant still no ring.
(15) Embiid has his 2023 MVP taken away and given to Jimmy Butler.
(16) Caitlin Clark's NCAA all-time scoring record still belongs to Pistol Pete because unlike Pistol Pete, Caitlin didn't do it in 3 years and she did it with a 3 point line.

BASEBALL

Babe Ruth
(1) Babe Ruth is black.
(2) Babe Ruth never hit a baseball. Not once.
(3) Babe Ruth is the number two black baseball player of all time behind Barry Larkin.
(4) Babe Ruth is NOT a top 20 Baseball player of all time. He's a pitcher.
Note (4)(a): However This is somewhat confusing/interesting because:
(i) Stugotz has said "Babe Ruth is the number two black baseball player of all time behind Barry Larkin; and"
(ii) This MUST mean Stugotz can only have 1 black player in his top 20 Baseball players of all time Barry Larkin; because
(iii) The only way this can work logically is if in the list of greatest players #1 through #20, only Barry Larkin is on the latter top #1 through #20 list. I would like some clarification on if he wishes to change this take/record.
(5) Babe Ruth is also not a top 20 pitcher of all time.
Misc. Baseball
(1) Stugotz has declared that in his personal record book, Baseball no longer allows pitchers to hit (Stated on 05/03/2018 @ 12:38:52 P.M).
Note (1)(a): Excludes Bartolo Colon, and Shohei Ohtani.
Note (1)(b): You are either a pitcher or a hitter. Not both.
(2) If the Dodgers won the 2017 World Series Clayton Kershaw would not have had a ring.
(3) Wade Boggs DOES have a ring because he rode around on a horse with a beer afterward.
(4) Clayton Kershaw did not win an MVP award because the award for pitchers was already given, the CY Young award.
(5) Miami beat LSU in the 1996 College Baseball World Series.
(6) The 1986 NY Mets did not win the World Series against the Boston Red Sox.
Note (6)(a): This "pains" Stugotz.
(7) The Red Sox retroactively winning the 1986 World Series may result in taking a ring away from the Mets.
Note (7)(a): Stugotz has to think about it though, he's not sure yet.
(8) Bryce Harper did not win the 2018 home run derby because he cheated.
(9) Kershaw's Earned Ring Average (ERA) is 0.00.
(10) Mike Minor (Rangers Pitcher) does not have 200 strikeouts in 2019. He's at 199 (National Hour 2, 10 mins 40 seconds in).
Note (10)(a): Chris agrees too. And who really cares (15% on poll do care).
(11) The 2020-2021 Mets, during the Coronavirus outbreak, are 0-3 and Jacob deGrom is somehow 0-1 with a 0.00 ERA and 1 complete game. The deGrominator. (Google Podcast 3/30 Hour #3 @ 19:20)

HOCKEY

(1) Ray Bourque doesn't have a ring.
(2) Alex Ovechkin may or may not have won the Stanley Cup against the Vegas Golden Knights.
Note (2)(a): "I mean he beat an expansion team . . . bunch of players nobody wanted" (We get the sense that Dan agrees).

TENNIS

(1) If anyone wins a major in Female Tennis without Serena Williams playing, it does not count and they have 0 rings.
(2) If Maria Sharapova wins a grand slam in which Serena isnt competing it doesnt count.

GOLF

(1) If Jason Day wins the 2018 Masters, it counts as an American winning (as far as bets are concerned).
(2) Vijay Singh did not play in the 2018 Masters.
(3) Steph Curry did not win the 2023 American Century Celebrity Golf Championship Tournament . Mardy Fish was the real winner.

SOCCER

(1) Lionel Messi is stripped of all his achievements for using HGH. He never played soccer. He is still 5'1". "Fraud."
(2) Soccer is dead.

NCAA DIVISION 1 WOMEN'S LACROSSE

(1) Rachel has more rings than Kevin Durant

MISCELLANEOUS

(1) Aqua?
(2) Rings plus-minus is the only way to measure greatness.
(3) The HBO Andre the Giant film was good, not great, and Stugotz didn’t learn anything.
(4) Benoit Lecomte (guy they interviewed) can not and will not swim from San Francisco to Tokyo in the personal record book because he is most likely taking a dip for a few minutes then coming back on the boat and enjoying some filet mignon by the pool.
Note (4)(a): "Do it without a yacht. And how about ya do it without the little magnetic field around you that keeps sharks away. How bout that. Allows dolphins through though? Anyway.."
(5) Justify (the Horse) only has a double crown.
Note (5)(a): This is the first ever double crown.
(6) Tango and Cash is in the action movie Hall of Fame. and Cliffhanger has the greatest 5 minute intro of any movie of all time.
(7) Maximum Security (a Horse) won the 2019 Kentucky Derby.
(8) Fruit Stripes Gum is NOT a 1st Ballot Hall of Famer in Stu's "Gum Hall of Fame." (08/12/2019 Hour 2 @ 15:25).
Note (8)(a): "It loses it's flavor so quickly"
Note (8)(b): Also, "[...] Bazooka...1st Ballot Hall of Famer." Also, "Big League Chew..1st Ballot."
(9) Chris Cote owns all intellectual property rights to the "Friends" (TV Show) Movie with a misleading preview that eventually has a climax leading to an intense murder mystery. (10/29/19 Hour #2 @ 03:15).
Note (9)(a): "If they make this without crediting Cote, they're stealing it."
(10) That guy killed the pigeon (12/10 Hour 3 @ 08:20).
(11) Billy owns the record for world's longest Plank (2/25, Hour #3; Google Podcast @ 30:55).
Note (11)(a): Possibly in just the Non-Marine edition.
(12) Zach Buchanan won a Pulitzer Prize for his story on the Madison Bumgarner / Mason Saunders rodeo fiasco (2/28/20 Hour #2; Google Podcasts @ 21:35).
(13) Findlay the Golden retriever holds the Stu Gotz Personal Record Book record for most tennis balls held in a mouth at one time by a dog at 6 (2/11/2020)
(14) Ace Davis (The kid who "proved" Tom Brady was cheating with science) and his fathefamily are heroes (4/1 Hour #3; Google Podcast @ 18:50).
(15) Dan did NOT do more push-ups than Domonique Foxworth (Dan did push-ups on a non-linear platform) (4/28/2020 Hour # 1).

SPORTS MEDIA DREAM TEAM™

Sourced from Google Podcast; 05/06/2020, Hour 2 @ 09:00
(Head Coach) Ernie Johnson - "When you look over to the bench, what you need is someone to stand tall, someone who is confident, someone who is competent, someone who has all the credibility -soaked in credibility - when you have the Head Coach of the Sports Media Dream Team."
(1; Point Guard) Mike Greenberg - "Doesn't really want to answer the big questions, but has no problem distributing those questions to other people who are happy to answer them."
(2; Shooting Guard) Stephen A. Smith - "Never met a topic he doesn't like. Short memory, doesn't care, Greeny could throw him anything and Stephen A. is gonna run with it even if he knows nothing about the topic. That is how it works. Stephen A. is the greatest of all time."
(3; Small Forward) Chris Fowler - "A do it all guy. Studio show? Great. Play by Play? Even better. Can do everything."
(4; Small Forward Replacement) Maria Taylor) - "Need Play by Play, need Sideline, need Studio Host - she can do it all"
(5; Power Forward) Dianna Russini - "You need some crazy, some don't mess with us, someone to tear someone's head off in the event that they come after one of us."
(6; Power Forward Replacement) PFT Commenter - "He just comes in and acts crazy, throws his arms and hair around, and give ya 5 to 10 really crazy minutes."
(7; In honor of the Chicago Bulls, Stugotz needed a Wennington, a Purdue) Scott Van Pelt - Dan debated whether or not SVP should be on the Sports Media Dream Team™. That's what he's doing.
(8; Bench Player w/ No Position Specified) Doris Burke
(9) Teased...