If you want to get extremely pedantic, "Queens English" was defined as the reference. The rich toffs of the British empire got annoyed at their servants having various accents, and either being hard to understand, or mishearing them.
In this case however, it was meant as a local accent, so none noticeable.
Early on they learnt (either from example or experience) that money can buy happiness. Therefore more money=more happiness. Unfortunately, money has a strong diminishing return on happiness (when you're poor, a small amount of money buys a lot of happiness. When you're rich, you don't gain much from even a lot more money).
They end up chasing happiness in the form of money. But not matter how much they get it's not enough. Maybe the next thousand/million/billion will do it...
90% of people would be fine with it too, maybe more. Unfortunately, it would be VERY easy to catch someone in a very bad state, and make it even worse. Without the context of what sort of person they are, and what they are currently in for, it's FAR more likely to run into someone who wouldn't see the funny side.
Don't get me wrong, it could be hilarious. E.g. the guy who did the same at a nursing home, where he also lived. The heart attack induced was just an unfortunate outcome that put it in the news.
Likely if he had done it to people he knew, and by extension that this particular prank wouldn't excessively affect them negatively.
Pranking your friends in public, poor taste, but possibly acceptable. Pranking random members of the public, at what could be the worst time of their life...
I had a friend who worked at a wine shop. He was also 1/4 french, though with no accent at all.
Some other friends went in to see him at work. They found it hilarious that he had this excessive french accent. It turned out he did it as a joke 6 months before, and got a good reaction from customers. His subconscious apparently ran with this, without his notice. The more he racked it up, the better the customers respected his opinions on wine. He was, however, completely unaware he was doing it!
As a counter example, I remember listening to a radio interview with a woman who accidentally joined a boxing gym, and decided to roll with it. Even after 3 years training, it apparently took new men about 6 weeks to blast past her in strength.
And jumping back to my earlier comment. Societies tend to amplify differences. Men are stronger, so are expected to do jobs requiring strength. This, in turn leads to stronger men, reinforcing the stereotype.
In short, there's not much baseline difference between men and women. There are however differences. Societies and cultures often amplify them, particularly when it improves division of labour. In an agrarian society they might not be able to afford the split, so the situation you read about plays out. Men can't afford to powerhouse, while women need to pick up significant physical labour.
It's also an unfortunate fact that testosterone makes it a LOT easier to put on muscle mass. A good chunk of men don't take advantage of it, but the biology still holds. It's also worth noting that men are on average taller than women. Our volume of muscle is often bigger to start with.
My wife does quite a bit more strength based exercise than I do. The force multiplier on my exercise however means I can easily out power her, when it comes to brute strength.
It's worth noting however that a lot of the initial strength gain of exercise isn't muscle increase, but better control. Both men and women can increase this, fairly evenly. The difference tells most once that caps out.
The 2 often feed off each other too. E.g. men are slightly stronger than women, on average. Men are then expected to take on the strong protector role, while women are expected to act weak and subservient. This amplifies the original slight difference massively, reinforcing the social stereotype.
Women seem to have a preference for cooperation, with their ranking within the group mattering most. Men seem to err towards intergroup competition, where your teams ranking matters most. These necessitate different types of social skills, which feeds the stereotype, which feeds the original difference.
👍 Which is why I didn't say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly.
I will settle for a company who's demonstrated long term strategy is mostly in line with my interests. It's not perfect, but I'll take "morale because it's profitable" over "enshitifcation for a quick profit"
I heard there was also a quirk of electing a replacement. Prior to August 3rd, it would have been a new election. While republicans would normally win, they have an issue with their primary. The other republican could have run and split the vote. This could have let a democrat sneak in for 6 months.
It's a terrifying abuse of human brain's defense wiring.
At a tribal level/time when we are not under stress, we often disagree and bicker. However, when the tribe is threatened, those disagreements take a back seat to survival. If the stress is constant, our brain structure begins to change. Empathy is reduced, to better allow for defence/warfare.
The modern right is designed to hijack these mechanisms. The constant flow of fear puts the brain into a warfare state. Tribe becomes everything, with internal issues being put on a back burner till the threat is over. However, the threat is never over. It shifts and changes, but is never gone. Eventually, out-tribe empathy becomes harder and harder, while internal disagreement becomes almost impossible. In a tribe preparing for war, this is life-saving. For a political party, it's an unthinking, pliant mob to control.
Breaking out requires breaking that internal cycle. Recognising you are being manipulated, and internally countering the effects. Most people just can't do that. Deprogramming the damage is a job of generations, and that's assuming it's no longer being reinforced.
If you want to get extremely pedantic, "Queens English" was defined as the reference. The rich toffs of the British empire got annoyed at their servants having various accents, and either being hard to understand, or mishearing them.
In this case however, it was meant as a local accent, so none noticeable.
Early on they learnt (either from example or experience) that money can buy happiness. Therefore more money=more happiness. Unfortunately, money has a strong diminishing return on happiness (when you're poor, a small amount of money buys a lot of happiness. When you're rich, you don't gain much from even a lot more money).
They end up chasing happiness in the form of money. But not matter how much they get it's not enough. Maybe the next thousand/million/billion will do it...
90% of people would be fine with it too, maybe more. Unfortunately, it would be VERY easy to catch someone in a very bad state, and make it even worse. Without the context of what sort of person they are, and what they are currently in for, it's FAR more likely to run into someone who wouldn't see the funny side.
Don't get me wrong, it could be hilarious. E.g. the guy who did the same at a nursing home, where he also lived. The heart attack induced was just an unfortunate outcome that put it in the news.
Ignorance, rather than stupidity. In many ways it's worse. Stupidity can at best be outgrown with time. Ignorance is, in the modern world, a choice.
20% on target, through enemy air defenses, could still be devastating.
Armour that blocks 80% of bullets would be great against a sniper, far less against a machine gun at close range.
Likely if he had done it to people he knew, and by extension that this particular prank wouldn't excessively affect them negatively.
Pranking your friends in public, poor taste, but possibly acceptable. Pranking random members of the public, at what could be the worst time of their life...
I had a friend who worked at a wine shop. He was also 1/4 french, though with no accent at all.
Some other friends went in to see him at work. They found it hilarious that he had this excessive french accent. It turned out he did it as a joke 6 months before, and got a good reaction from customers. His subconscious apparently ran with this, without his notice. The more he racked it up, the better the customers respected his opinions on wine. He was, however, completely unaware he was doing it!
Having rehabilitated a very fat dog previously, you're doing an awesome thing then. It's not an easy task! 👍
As a counter example, I remember listening to a radio interview with a woman who accidentally joined a boxing gym, and decided to roll with it. Even after 3 years training, it apparently took new men about 6 weeks to blast past her in strength.
And jumping back to my earlier comment. Societies tend to amplify differences. Men are stronger, so are expected to do jobs requiring strength. This, in turn leads to stronger men, reinforcing the stereotype.
In short, there's not much baseline difference between men and women. There are however differences. Societies and cultures often amplify them, particularly when it improves division of labour. In an agrarian society they might not be able to afford the split, so the situation you read about plays out. Men can't afford to powerhouse, while women need to pick up significant physical labour.
It's also an unfortunate fact that testosterone makes it a LOT easier to put on muscle mass. A good chunk of men don't take advantage of it, but the biology still holds. It's also worth noting that men are on average taller than women. Our volume of muscle is often bigger to start with.
My wife does quite a bit more strength based exercise than I do. The force multiplier on my exercise however means I can easily out power her, when it comes to brute strength.
It's worth noting however that a lot of the initial strength gain of exercise isn't muscle increase, but better control. Both men and women can increase this, fairly evenly. The difference tells most once that caps out.
The 2 often feed off each other too. E.g. men are slightly stronger than women, on average. Men are then expected to take on the strong protector role, while women are expected to act weak and subservient. This amplifies the original slight difference massively, reinforcing the social stereotype.
Women seem to have a preference for cooperation, with their ranking within the group mattering most. Men seem to err towards intergroup competition, where your teams ranking matters most. These necessitate different types of social skills, which feeds the stereotype, which feeds the original difference.
Fair, fair.
Retirement age can be gamed. Even worse, it's to the rich's benefit, and our cost. Life expectancy is harder to game in a way that hurts the plebs.
👍 Which is why I didn't say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly.
If it's a cow, it's also got too much fat on it. Cows are remarkably lean.
Hate to be that person, but are you aware your dog looks very overweight in that picture?
I will settle for a company who's demonstrated long term strategy is mostly in line with my interests. It's not perfect, but I'll take "morale because it's profitable" over "enshitifcation for a quick profit"
I heard there was also a quirk of electing a replacement. Prior to August 3rd, it would have been a new election. While republicans would normally win, they have an issue with their primary. The other republican could have run and split the vote. This could have let a democrat sneak in for 6 months.
Term limits just push things to the unelected "advisors" and aids.
An age limit would be a better option. I would push for 90% of life expectancy, which is 71 in the US. If you're over that age, you can't run again.
It's a terrifying abuse of human brain's defense wiring.
At a tribal level/time when we are not under stress, we often disagree and bicker. However, when the tribe is threatened, those disagreements take a back seat to survival. If the stress is constant, our brain structure begins to change. Empathy is reduced, to better allow for defence/warfare.
The modern right is designed to hijack these mechanisms. The constant flow of fear puts the brain into a warfare state. Tribe becomes everything, with internal issues being put on a back burner till the threat is over. However, the threat is never over. It shifts and changes, but is never gone. Eventually, out-tribe empathy becomes harder and harder, while internal disagreement becomes almost impossible. In a tribe preparing for war, this is life-saving. For a political party, it's an unthinking, pliant mob to control.
Breaking out requires breaking that internal cycle. Recognising you are being manipulated, and internally countering the effects. Most people just can't do that. Deprogramming the damage is a job of generations, and that's assuming it's no longer being reinforced.