It’s an awesome start to a stack, you’re right though a typical seat based install runs average enterprises 25+k usd per year. I wish that someone would just make open oodo compatible plugins, because the big fundamental win is a unified data model built on open technologies.
Wow, this reads like dystopian science fiction. As I celebrate the holidays with my newly born human, I sure hope that more people start wanting to bet on brighter tomorrows and actually put some skin in the game.
My kiddo is celebrating their second set of holidays this year. I have many friends who espouse some variant of “I don’t want to have kids because I don’t want to pass on my ‘messed up’ genes/the world doesn’t need more people/some other sad excuse”. It makes me wonder what their lives will look like then they’re 40-80 years old.
Sad thing is, it’s affecting not just their lives when they are 80 years old, but ours too! Every childless old person is a person for which someone needs to take care of who isn’t family.
That’s not to imply people don’t have the right to choose if they have kids or not — but let’s not pretend that we are not all paying the price for that decision.
Plus most of what needs to be done is highly informal and unstructured. Money can only buy so much. It can't buy someone who is going to actually represent your interests, rather than charging gobs of money for the illusion.
We live in such a capitalistic world by now, that most people’s happiness is, if they want it or not, tied to money. And I think society is moving further towards this.
Having kids would be a large financial burden and given my projection, would mean I wouldn’t be able to guarantee a decent living and the mental stability, because kids are brutal and societal pressures are very hard to free yourself from.
I grew up very poor and only very recently I was able to get out of debt i racked up just to survive (and sheer ignorance/living above my means, because I had nothing to lose and no perspective). I would hate myself of putting a child in that position myself.
If money wouldn’t be such a dominant force in current society, I’d very much consider having children.
>We live in such a capitalistic world by now, that most people’s happiness is, if they want it or not, tied to money.
This is how people feel, but that feeling has to be wrong. We know from history that people lived with much less and they were much more mentally stable than we are today. To be fair, if everyone is poor, it's probably very different than just you being poor in a rich society.
social media means people have realized how poor they are relatively. otherwise we are not in a substantially more capitalist world in the west and people are only more affluent than in the past.
obviously social media cannot explain everything about fertility, but i suspect it explains a significant portion of modern economic discontent among the professional/middle+ classes
I tend to disagree, I think a lot more in our society has changed due to the commodification of basically everything combined with the capitalist tendencies to pervert and corrupt anything, as there is no limit to greed. I think the housing market, food pricing and many more aspects of live have started to outpace the average workers wage to a point where it’s hard to be optimistic about a brighter future. The dream of ownership, a car, a family has gotten significantly more expensive in relation to incomes. At least from the POV of an European
Do you mean poor countries? I believe fertility is most closely related to education of women. If they have other options, many choose not to have a dozen kids like our ancestors. It's both hard on their bodies, and they typically get stuck with almost all the domestic and child care duties.
>I sure hope that more people start wanting to bet on brighter tomorrows and actually put some skin in the game.
I'm optimistic about the future but I can't see how's that related to have children. In any case, having children is putting someone else skin in the game, not mine.
"A study from Australia and the United Kingdom by Lorraine Sheridan and David James compared 128 self-defined victims of gang stalking with a randomly selected group of 128 self-declared victims of stalking by an individual. All 128 "victims" of gang stalking were judged to be delusional, compared with only 5 victims of individual stalking."
Gang stalking has evolved to mean that people using the surveillance state, often bored people in Govt or law enforcement with a specific target (and false justification), will all work together against the target and do various things to them. It is meant to be done in a deniable way. Turns out that the same people involved in this also control the doctors and the medical system who can then make a determination that the target is delusional. After all, the doctors, medical professionals, etc all require licenses from the state to continue operating.
This follows from Stasi like tactics developed in East Germany which mirror the methods used by COINTELPRO. The Stasi called it Zersetzung, or deconstruction. One difference is that the Stasi didn't have the massive surveillance state that exists today. They also required in person informants on other friends and family. A large portion of the population became informants and participated in the forms of Zersetzung against the states defined target.
Now cell phones and online services, along with constant tracking and surveillance have replaced this need for human informants. They still exist of course, but are just not a requirement.
Some of it is just bored, power tripping law enforcement agents or people in Govt with access to the surveillance state. Even with all the data brokers and sharing, it's possible for a reasonable wealthy person to do this without acting under the color of law.
Hopefully the public will know more about these operations in the near future. The lying, rights violations and gaslighting is all uniquely un-American, and the public needs to hold the state accountable for it.
EDIT: A lot of the YouTube videos about it seem to go off the deep end and include conspiracies like Havana Syndrome or other crazy stuff that does fall under mental illness. This allows actual gang stalking where 3 or more people rely on Govt authority and the surveillance state to target a specific person, usually with the goal to harm them in some way. Often not physically. More reputationally, and so on. Zersetzung was real. Much is known after the fall of the Stasi. It is happening in the U.S.
It is a fair assumption that they do this regularly, politics aside one should ask why were there so many FBI agents at the Jan 6 debacle and why didn’t they do more to quell the violence. The origins of Ruby Ridge and Waco are fine examples of insanity. Nevertheless inciting crime and capturing bad guys seems like a game they like playing.
> The after-action responses – 50 pages in all – were located by current FBI Director Kash Patel’s team and recently turned over to the House Judiciary Committee and its special subcommittee investigating security failures and weaponization of law enforcement during the Jan. 6 riot.
> The document has proven a bombshell to lawmakers, revealing for the first time that the FBI had a total of 274 agents deployed to the Capitol in plainclothes and with guns after the violence started but with no clear safety gear of way to be recognized by other law enforcement agencies working in the chaos of the riot.
The claim from the post above was "why were there so many FBI agents at the Jan 6 debacle" and the response asked for a source.
If you consider the response to the violence part of "the Jan 6 debacle", then yes, FBI agents were present.
The documents would NOT specify they were in "plainclothes" because the FBI doesn't wear uniforms, therefore everything would be "plainclothes" by definition. This is both common knowledge but I can personally confirm from my time there. You can dislike the characterization but it is correct.
The more interesting questions:
- Since the FBI primarily an investigative body (in the name) and these were NOT tacteams providing armed support, what was their purpose?
- Further, why did it take almost 5 years for the FBI to identify the man placing the pipebombs? According to reports, no new evidence came to light.
The context of this thread is essentially false flags, or at least some kind of entrapment to make the agency look useful by putting a stop to an attack they had instigated. So when someone asks "what were all the FBI agents doing there", it makes a great deal of difference whether agents were embedded in the crowd as the riot got started or if they arrived later to disperse the crowd.
The intial claim/skepticism is that there were agents there at all. Proven.
Moving on to the implication and my question:
> Since the FBI primarily an investigative body (in the name) and these were NOT tacteams providing armed support, what was their purpose?
We DO deserve an explanation to that one and unfortunately, "they showed up to address the violence" doesn't resolve this because - as noted - they are NOT uniformed. Therefore, a Special Agent drawing their weapon looks like a random civilian which would only increase the chaos and danger for everyone.
They're not even particularly useful for crowd control because a) they're not uniformed and b) as an Executive agency, they don't have authority in the Capital unless US Capital Police authorizes it.. though that may take the Sergeant at Arms or the Speaker specifically, I haven't reviewed that in quite a while.
Finally, since the FBI has a multi-decade history of instigating issues to be able to stop them, we SHOULD be skeptical until we get a complete and documented explanation.
Gosh this article is such a nothingburger. It's an endless litany to hammer that there was "political bias" in the deployment of the FBI.
It's mostly hearsay the only facts are that there were FBI agents deployed and that they were unprepared for riot control. But is riot control their role ? Weren't they supposed to be witnesses to see what was happening and inform other police ?
It was probably messy and you can probably find mismanagement everywhere if you look hard enough (and people to complain about it) but how do you handle a riot organized with the purpose of gaining more time to overturn the result of an election anyways ? (Check out the fake great electors scheme) This is the elephant in the room. To come and whine about political bias after that should be laughed at.
reply