The way I solved my procrastination problems is that I do at least one thing per day towards my goal. More often than not, this puts me in a mental state that leads me to doing many things. I find that simply starting a task is the most difficult step.
There's three kinds of debt. One is corporate. A company took on debt to buy some equipment. That can be mis-investment, but it's usually pretty good.
Second, there's personal debt. That counts both mortgages (usually worthwhile, unless you buy more house than you need) and stuff like credit card debt, where you're still paying for Christmas five years later. So, some is worthwhile, some not so much.
Third, there's government debt. This can be used effectively to create infrastructure. The problem is, though, that it's allocated not by a careful cost/benefit analysis. Instead, it's allocated by politicians. This kind of debt therefore has the highest propensity to be sheer waste.
Well, there's some situations where it is so obvious to use debt that you don't need a cost/benefit analysis.
For example, let's say you discover a large deposit of gold on land you own. You could use debt to buy the mining equipment to mine the gold.
Another example is if terrorists demolished all the bridges between Manhattan and Brooklyn. The government doesn't need a cost/benefit analysis to decide to use debt to rebuild some bridges.
> Well, there's some situations where it is so obvious to use debt that you don't need a cost/benefit analysis.
For example, let's say you discover a large deposit of gold on land you own. You could use debt to buy the mining equipment to mine the gold.
Many leveraged miners are going bankrupt for having not done cost/benefit analysis on something so obvious...
I don't think it was misleading. He followed the process just as he would if it were a real breakup. It was an accurate test of what to expect.
...and it was certainly a demonstration of the fact that technology does NOT always improve the quality of life. I don't blame the company for existing because I'm fully aware that there are people who'd want to use such a service. But it's still sad that anyone would actually do so.
That's a good way of putting it, I think. Revenue is obviously very important, but there are other values that an enterprise may be concerned with as well.
So you're saying Africa would've been better off without colonization? I bet life would be much worse in Africa if it was never colonized. Did you know the homicide rate was 10-20% in prehistoric societies, and the life expectancy was only 30-40 years or so?
Yes, much closer to one. Somewhere on a scale between what it currently is and a prehistoric society. Why do you think it wouldn't be? Africans wouldn't just magically absorb Western culture without exposure. I'm not sure if 1% were even aware of Western civilization, trade, and such until colonization happened. Do you think Africans would learn how to read and write if the Europeans didn't alter things?
> Do you think Africans would learn how to read and write if the Europeans didn't alter things?
That seems like a point the arguments for which would not stand well under scrutiny. Can you decompress your thoughts in this regard, because it seems like the obvious answer is "yes" (for starters)...
And who would teach them? If a society lives in extreme poverty for all of history, with zero economic and technological growth, what would make them become more developed and educated without external influences?
“That one can survey the length and breadth of sub-Sahara Africa and find not even one work of visual or written art worthy of the name” - David Hume, 18th century historian
> “That one can survey the length and breadth of sub-Sahara Africa and find not even one work of visual or written art worthy of the name” - David Hume, 18th century historian
Somehow, I suspect you'd find a lot of inaccuracies in the writings of 1700s historians.
> African masks were an influence on European Modernist art, which was inspired by their lack of concern for naturalistic depiction. Since the late 19th century there has been an increasing amount of African art in Western collections, the finest pieces of which are now prominently displayed.
There's more to Europe than England, and if England's rate was 60% at the beginning of it, I'd suspect the more feudal parts of Europe were a lot lower.
Well, I do not know nothing about Catholic part of Europe, but there was a man named Martin Luther who lived between 1483 and 1546. The whole point (or cover story at least) of European protestant movement (in contrast to the English one) was to make the word of God accessible to the people (i.e. remove the Church monopoly of scripture reading).
Printing press was already invented in 1440 to print all the bibles necessary.
That's not a factual statement, it's a made-up one taking the form of one. But that doesn't matter. Scattering dramatic claims with no common element other than a generic colonialism-was-good guarantees a flamewar whether factual bits are in there or not.
Repeatedly moving the goalposts to keep the drama going is a sign of flame-fanning as well.
Faulty and weak. The vast majority of Afroasiatic languages are spoken in Africa. In fact, one of the largest members of this group is spoken in West Africa (Hausa).
Although, I suspect saying "North Africa" and indeed, "Afro-Asiatic" is to imply or ascribe non-blackness.
Well one important financial reason is that the more hours you work, the less money you make per hour, unless you have a huge equity stake. So your effective wage actually decreases if you spend more time at work.
Other reasons are work/life balance, enjoying time to relax, spending time with friends or family, mental health reasons, and things like that.
By that logic you should try to get away with 30 or 35 hours a week (behind your manager's back, if necessary) in order to increase your "effective wage," which actually doesn't get you anything.
The vast majority of salaried employees see no change in quality of life if they work 35, 40, or 45 hours one week to the next. In fact, if you work a lot, one would think you're less likely to go out and spend your money in your limited free time.
The times I've worked 60+ hours a week have always been better for my bank account than the times I've worked 35-40.
