snooggums

This upsets me and I demand an apology.

Only if I can come up with a way that the thing could possibly be my fault, intentional or not. Like making a decision without asking first, or because I reminded them of something upsetting without intending to like reminding them of something other than what we are talking about. The latter is going to be the ‘I’m sorry I upset you’ not a real apology, because I’m not really sorry for saying the thing, just that it caused them to be upset.

In the past I would apologize for things I didn’t do and all it did was make things worse because it was just a reflex response and it wasn’t like I could avoid doing things I didn’t do in the first place in the future.

At work I will apologize for things that may be due to not having enough information, but in that case at best I’m going to apologize for not finding out what I didn’t know. It is kind of bullshit, but at least they tend to provide more information in the future. It is catering to people who can’t admit their own faults to a degree, but ends up being like small talk, something we do to get other people to work as a team.

Architecture and engineering for construction are on par with doctors and nurses in medicine. Medicine has a ton of grunt work that doesn’t require higher education.

It doesn’t seem like you posted this question in good faith.

You are conflating the result of society filtering people with less education into blue collar work with the potential for the work to involve bigotry.

Saying people should avoid the trades because of the current culture reinforces the current culture by filtering it to the same uneducated pool of candidates. In a first world country higher education should be free so even those that go into trades have the opportunity to further their education without it being tied to their career goals.

What makes you think blue collar contexts have a higher potential for bigotry?

That’s true to an extent, but saying that a feminine woman or a feminine gay man (for example) would be treated better in a blue-collar job than in a white-collar one isn’t really grounded in reality.

Is anyone saying that?

It isn’t anti intellectualism, it is a overcorrection for the decades of insisting that going to college (and taking on massive debt in the US at least) is the right career path although it isn’t worth it anymore. It isn’t saying that knowledge and learning are bad, but they aren’t as economically advantageous as they were a couple decades ago.

The trades are good for a fairly quick return, but you are correct that they and to take a physical toll and the pay is generally exaggerated.

Offices are full of misogyny, homophobiaz and other forms of bigotry too.

A better approach would be to promote both on their own positives and negatives, but humans tend to swing wildly from one extreme to another.

More likely than 50 and 22…

The high school to college transition makes things complicated for reasons other than just ages.

The half + 7 also makes it more likely that the two of you have some overlapping life experiences which helps a lot with compatability.

A relationship will always involve compromise on the details and day to day stuff, but the relationship itself should not feel like a compromise. From the way you are describing it, a relationship is not what you are looking for because a relationship is all of the things other than just the sex that you are interested in.

It really sounds like you want the sex without the effort.

Since using ublock origin I can’t remember the last time it didn’t automatically hide those now empty elements.

No, because it takes slightly more effort to understand and interact with than centralized social media without the firehouse of content.

If we addressed the core issues of people having what they need to live copyright would no longer have a reason for existing.

If the duration of copyright is short enough, why reduce it further based on heartbeat?

Generally they earn a somewhat stable income over time as an employee. Most artists do the vast majority of their work unpaid at the time and then try to make money off of all that work afterwards.

Plus companies wouldn’t be negatively affected by this change, so it is just punishment for individuals.

You own copyright the same way you own a piece of paper that says you own a house. Someone who made a lot of money in a short time from their labor can pass on the rest to their children. Copyright spreads out the income over time by allowing exclusive income on ideas for a limited period of time. It is what allows a musician to make money from their songs without needing someone to directly pay them for writing fhe song at the time it was made.

Copyright as a concept is not horrible when applied to exclusive distribution for a short period of time, and that time period shouldn’t arbitrary end on death any more than someone should lose the house their family lives in because the person whose name is ok the deed died in an accident.

It just needs to be far shorter and companies should be changed so that the way people and companies use it. Otherwise every person would create a company, give it the Copyright, and then fhe company could be i herited.

10 years plus an option for a 10 year extension is plenty.

Copyright should only apply to other individuals and companies trying to collect income (not just profit, making any money) from copying as well. The whole original idea about protecting the creator from being easily copied was a decent idea, and really only makes sense as useful to society in that context.

And yes, I am in favor of every work of art being in the public domain within two decades. That is plenty of time to benefit from exclusivity, they can create additional art or do some kind of promotional work or something else to keep making money off the fact that they created something that deserved to be exclusive.