Or if they get the wrong address.
Or if they don’t like your skin color.
Or if they don’t like your tone.
Or if they just generally feel like it while their body cams are “malfunctioning”.
Basically, if you want to kill people with impunity, become a police officer in the US.
If these posts are made in a relatively short time then it could appear as spam. I browsing New is my default and, on a couple of occasions, I have blocked a user simply for being too active and flooding my feed.
I’d like to know more about how this is supposed to work.
What is considered a wage? Is it net worth, increase in worth from one year to the next? Liquid capital?
Are benefits (insurance, child care, etc) counted towards this wage cap? What about company cars or housing? What about profit sharing through bonuses and / or stock grants?
Would loans be counted towards the wage cap? If not, can you borrow more than the wage cap?
What happens if you own a home or business that is worth more than the wage cap? Would you only be able to sell that commodity for the wage cap or would any excess of the wage cap be spread over multiple years?
Would inheritance or “gifts” be tallied towards the wage cap? Would donations to charitable organizations offset the wage cap?
Would companies be subject to these caps? What if a person incorporated, had all of their wealth and earnings go through that incorporation which they had sole discretion and control over the use of those funds?
What about foreign entities? Would people, companies, or even governments from other countries who exceed the maximum wage be allowed to buy / sell goods, direct / manage corporate interests, invest in land or stocks, or even reside in a country with a maximum wage? What authority or oversight would exist to even identify such a wage of a foreign entity? Or
Every single one of those questions represents a potential loophole that could be exploited to circumvent a “maximum wage” and I’m sure that somebody who has studied or worked in finance could think of others.
There are studies that show introvertion is not a “preference”, but rather the result of increased blood flow to certain parts of the brain. Ref: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9989562/
There are other studies showing a “high reactive” or “low reactive” response to unfamiliar events and stimuli in infants and it’s correlation to behavioral inhibitions as toddlers. While it requires some extrapolation, this suggests that introvertion may be a a condition of “nature” rather than “nurture”. Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283938/
Let me know if you are interested and I can send you additional peer reviewed studies and papers on the topic. Personality and human behavior is a fascinating topic.
Yes, I did read those articles. Allow me to highlight some of the points from those articles which bolster my argument that the avoiding our limiting of social interactions of introverts is rooted in finding those interactions to be exhausting and mentally draining.
they enjoy one-on-one engagement in calm environments, which is more suited to the make-up of their nervous system. Evidence suggests that, unlike with extroverts, the brains of introverts do not react strongly to viewing novel human faces; in such situations they produce less dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward.
Introverts gain energy from reflection and lose energy in social gatherings.
Highly stimulating situations with lots of social interaction are draining for introverts, while these types of encounters tend to fuel extroverts.
Introverts usually like to be alone and recharge by spending time by themselves.
A person with introverted tendencies might still like to go to parties and socialize with others. However, they will likely need to spend time alone afterward to recharge.
Being introverted has to do with how you gather energy.
Hanging out with friends on Friday might max out your energy, leaving you craving solitude on Saturday to rest and refuel.
If you have any articles or research studies to suggest that introvertion is not associated with a psychological drain or that it is a condition of choice, I would appreciate reading them. I’m always receptive to new information that may change my mind on a topic.
I would consider that definition to be overly simplistic and failing to capture an important point that is often referenced when describing traits of an introvert. Introverts find social interactions, especially in large groups, to be draining. I believe this to be a key distinction between people that avoid social interaction out of misanthropy or frustration or fear or depression or any of a myriad of other reasons that a person might seek solitude over the company of others.
The reason and motivation behind the desire to avoid social interactions plays a role in determining a course of action in responding to them and ending them early. If you find them draining, a simple “sorry, I gotta get going”, when you start to feel drained, is all you would r really need. However, if social interactions trigger a negative emotional response, then more tools would be needed.
Here are a few references on the topic of introvertion:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/introversion
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/introvert-definition
Mutually exclusive or not. Nothing in the description nor the original post depicts introvert behavior.
Thanks. Fixed my comment.
What you described is being antisocial asocial, not introverted.
“inflammatory”, “ibuprofen”… I see what you did there. It took me a while, but I eventually got there.
I am happy to take your word for most of it, but it does not change my view. I am completely in favor of identifying and taking steps to remediate the underlining cause of all forms of crime rather than simply punishing violators. That being said, the hubris that an individual, or group of individuals supercedes the survival of an entire species is repugnant to me. I have no sympathy for anybody that actively contributes to the the extinction of another species (except mosquitos).
The one point of your argument that I do question is the “kill a rhino and get enough money to last a few years” claim. While I have not looked into the details in India, as I understand it, poachers in Africa can make roughly the equivalent of an average 1 month salary for killing 1 rhino. If, in India, they make enough money to last a few years than either poachers are almost exclusively first timers, which seems highly unlikely to me, or they are doing it for greed rather than survival, which would negate your argument of the restrictive hunting laws.
And if they were hunting non-endangered species for food, then I would be outraged by a lethal response, but that’s not the case here.
You are using 2 different analogies that contradict each other. The poachers are cultivating a product, similar to poppy and coca plants, not the street dealers, and the wealthy are the buyers / “users”.
So if they are poor and eradicating a species off the face of the planet, then they should get a pass? They have the equipment and skills to hunt non-endangered animals which would provide food for themselves and their family. Excess meat could likely be traded or sold. Poaching is not a crime of necessity.
I just don’t get it. That money has already been spent or guaranteed for the current leases. It’s a sunk cost either way. If they end up not needing it that office space then, once those leases are up, that become a cost saving and improve the bottom line of corporate profits right?
Only thing I can think of is that a a considerable percentage of upper management are getting kick backs by property owners who can see what WFH policies mean to their business model, or there are a lot of managers that don’t know how to evaluate employee performance based on their deliverables.
While I understand your perspective, you failed to mention their actions which specifically targeted new mothers in developing countries with unethical actions that resulted in the slow deaths of infants.
This is why I boycott Nestlé. Not poor treatment of employees, nor a disregard for the environment.
Nestlé implemented a plan that caused babies to die a slow and painful death while their mothers could only watch helplessly.
Fuck Nestlé.
Because the reason oil companies have been making record profits is because production was not cheaper?
Is that the argument being made? Oil faced with higher costs = higher profits,therefore lower costs = lower profits?