userulluipeste
The normal way for languages to evolve is for words to spread into different (adjacent) forms in order to express more nuances of their original meaning(s). The collapse of words' meanings, and for basic things as (nominative case) pronouns no less, like it happened in English for "thou" and "you", is not fitting the definition of "normal" in the larger context of linguistics domain.
That's... a curious thing to have in the body of laws. What's its purpose and who does it serve?
As a tongue-in-the-cheek retort, if the Greeks were really doing that (i.e. only playing ball in the grand building up of civilization), then the Roman Empire wouldn't ended up speaking Greek and looking so different in the period in which it is nowadays being called "Byzantine". Romans revered various Greek aspects, and somehow that privileged status that (everything) Greek enjoyed inside the empire played a role into the movement of the empire's capital to the Greek city of Byzantium (renamed Constantinople). It surely feels more like taking (the reigns, and not doing much afterwards, other than holding out for as long as possible).
In their procedure the (full, diploid) genetic content of a "induced pluripotent stem cells" gets placed into an ovary-like culture of cells in order to make it ultimately evolve into an ovum. This evolution involves a "meiosis" type of cellular division, in which the end result are haploid cells, and the genetic load gets thinned out. Therefore, it will need fertilization -- a complementary chromosome set from another source.
What they don't talk about (but should) is telomeres², that normal cells, upon division, loose genetic material and thus -- degrade from reproductive point of view.
I'll keep this in mind, thank you.
As for your question, I have little to do with USA politics, which includes holding little to no attitude towards POTUS, and I very much hope for situation to stay that way. Prudence compels me to refrain from saying anything more on the subject.
This happens regardless of managerial position. The only difference in management role is the lack of direct control, which when not yet internalized, keeps the mind in denial and torment (especially at home). Yet, demands from above that don't take into account the limits of control, happens a lot in business environments, unfortunately, for both managers and ICs. This (should be obvious that) is a source of stress, that gets spilled outside of work hours.
"You’re not «part of the team» anymore."
Most often, the managers are the ones choosing to distance themselves from the managed lot and seek the company of other managers or people in the power network. Otherwise, as an anecdote, I know a manager that used to organize free time events for his people all the time, like a true socialite (and getting in everyone's heads when given the chance). Therefore, from what I've seen, given the power (and resources that comes with it), being "part of the team" becomes an unchallengeable choice.
"You need to be careful with every word."
This has more to do with being an adult than being a manager. If nothing else, the power that the managerial position brings is not reflected only in the weight on the shoulders that responsible people feel, but also in the means to control the frame of interaction and with it -- the means to get away with a lot (even with abuse), and afford not to be that careful (with the managed).
"You’ll probably feel very lonely."
It's a choice, an empowered one even.
"You will carry knowledge you cannot share."
This is true. But, ICs have to sign NDAs too.
"You need to network and understand the business."
This is more of a choice that leads oneself to a successful career path, so it's a thing that makes sense for managers (with freed attention and time on their hands) to do. It's also the reason behind the above mentioned "not part of the (powerless) team" choice.
"You will miss being an engineer."
I wish this to have been true for a lot of managers out there, but it isn't. Most of the managers are ambitious people, with clear career plans, that haven't gotten in the industry for their passion of software engineering. Being surrounded by this type of people, "miss being an engineer" comes out just as the right thing to declare for others, or... childish and out of place if one truly believes it.
"You will not get the training you need."
This is just something I hear from managers that haven't yet made peace with the nature of having only an indirect control. Sure, the management game(s) require some learning, but the bar one has to reach is not about its technical aspects mentioned in the article. It's about acting as part of the core group of company (like part of command in an army). You aren't supposed to get training on this bit, you're supposed to "get it" on your own (and play ball once you do).
"You need to be the adult in the room."
Unfortunately, I've seen too many times when the managed ICs are treated like children, and "being the adult in the room" was a designed role to be assumed by the manager as a consequence. Yes, management position gives you a lot to play with, even these kind of unsavory social games. It also gives you the power to demand adult behavior from everyone in the managed team, if you choose to do so.
"You need to learn how to sell." "You must learn how to manage up."
Most of this part is just busy work. You were IC before (becoming a manager), you know how little need you had back then from your manager to get you excited to do your work. Now, the managers above you were once in your shoes too, you can bet they see right through whatever you serve them with, and more. The other departments have their own readings, independent of whatever biased information you insist to provide them. Yet, the show must go on, something you have to "get it" on your own. It's because, among other things, this is what makes true the last mentioned bit -- "being a manager can be fun and fulfilling".
The shops staying empty is one problem. The call for bailing out or helping in any way the creditors that took loans in bad faith by relying on that kind of help (to prop them up along the way) is another problem. I very much want to address the first problem, but not by enacting perverse incentive inducing rules. A better solution (in my view), which I think was mentioned in other comments, was to disallow tax reductions for unused spaces, and maybe even rise them above the tax level for what that space is when rented. In this case the landlord may be incentivized to find ways to make their spaces (at least) look busy (if not be busy with something of real value), which may be what the cities and community think of as an improvement.
"and isn't investing into a property that they then fail to rent out in a profitable manner also already a failure to act within their own limits?"
Yes, it is "already a failure", and it was the reason behind my initial objection. The bad decisions should meet their bad consequences. A "remedy" "to find ways to change the conditions of the loan so that building owners can continue to pay off their loan" sounds to me like a measure to shield decision makers from facing their failures. It is also, in the context of imminent failure, a call for someone else to hold the bag, which is in itself unfair.
Where do we draw the line between reality and fantasy then? If the terms of a deal are not reflecting the reality of the moment (i.e. the office rent market demand quotes) but some figure people come up with on their own, then let's call it what it is -- gambling (in which case it should be treated as such).
There was and still is a lot of hazard (and lack of control) in anyone's life. It gets either mitigated (somehow, when possible), or assumed & ignored. So, no need for parables, as this just sounds like life, as it always been, no more and no less.
The Christendom ceased to be unified a whole lot earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism
¹ Today's amount of water spread all over an Earth with no relief gives you a kilometers-depth ocean. Even with only some modest amount of relief (as it should have been at the beginning), if it didn't reached the water surface to produce shallow waters, then that's a non-starter for life. The life should have waited a lot of time for the Earth to cool down, for the crust get ticker and thus for a more prominent relief to appear in order for it to finally get any chance to emerge. Therefore, it was very important for life to encounter an environment with just modest amount of water.
Well, our planet has magnetosphere and it also had life for a long time already. Although the magnetosphere reduces the influx of Hydrogen in form of solar wind proton bombardment, it also prevents the loss of Hydrogen that managed to get captured on Earth by not letting it be blown away from the upper layers of atmosphere. Life at one point, almost two and a half billion years ago, caused the Great Oxygenation Event, in which the entire atmosphere got Oxygen rich. This very special atmosphere (for all that time) made it possible for the incoming Hydrogen (be it from the Sun, other stars, or just as the most common form of dust in the universe blown in here from whatever direction and cause) to ultimately be collected as water. Two and a half billion years, that's a lot of time to accrue water. It ought to show, at some point. So it's at least one pair of factors that could have led to a surplus of water we see today, besides what might have existed from very beginning.
Because it's easy money as taxation goes. Facing growing fiscal deficit and worsening credit score, the first thing the government in Romania did last summer was to rise the (general) VAT quota and cut on some VAT exceptions. It works quicker and more reliably than other means for securing the budget needs.
The VAT related fraudulent schemes are a problem in EU as many other things are, but they are investigated, often prosecuted, and written about. For anyone interested, more can be found at the European Public Prosecutor's Office's site: https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/media/news
I've touched this idea before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26575155
The most shocking aspect here is the mindset of these people that come to value this access, and the fact that they have to have their own self-perceived worth at some lower (i.e. improvable) level in comparison. It has to be, otherwise the value of that access can't make much sense, otherwise that association to a brand (as chosen not chooser) can't be perceived as something of value. The only (sane) question worth asking, knowing that about the people falling into this game is - do I want to count myself as one of them?
They do, but that's not the (full) story here. Companies tend to easily migrate upwards, to a higher volume and/or higher profit margin market, and hardly (if ever) in the opposite direction. The painful restructuring necessary to enable this kind of reverse change is also damaging to the company brand, culture, and self-perception. If they ever get in such position, they may of course recover, but I wouldn't bet money on that.
"Then you have a very limited imagination."
This is not about imagination. Given the space of possibilities to act or evolve, if mentioned expansion cannot somehow be ruled out, then it makes sense for it to be assumed (with enough time, for whatever time can mean in this context) as a certainty, even for non-organic "life".