Control of the gold and oil wealth was given by the remaining government and its release wasn’t enough to topple the Venezuelan government.

I don’t want the USA to invade Cuba, but I don’t think that Cuba could credibly resist an occupation.

Cuba is isolated from any ally who could offer military supplies, including drones. It is also fairly close to the US mainland, allowing for easy supply from the US.

What I expect would happen is that the US would force some minor restoration of capital to pre-revolution owners and install a government filled with a mix of government collaborators and Cuban-Americans with a mandate to transform the Cuban economy.

Unless the new government is wildly incompetent and corrupt, I expect that there would be enough stateside support to ensure that the new government is successful for the first few years. Keeping enough collaborators, which is something likely to happen with Trump, would likely prevent the whole government from engaging in an organized resistance. The likely dropping off the embargo will also allow an increase in economic conditions on the island, muting resistance of the rest of the citizenry.

Yeah. The USA engaged in one raid to take the current head of state but left the rest of the country mostly intact.

I’ve heard some companies still post to monster.com

God, they are the worst who do this.

Yeah. I feel like Japan has the best solution, which is to use specialty incineration plants with massive outlet filters to scrub the exhaust of toxic chemicals.

It depends on the consequences of being wrong. If it is going to kill people, keep fighting.

HR reads the forms. The hiring manager reads the resume.

The value of experience is logarithmic. You’re going to learn far less in the tenth year of doing something than the first year. Since management usually doesn’t start at year one, they are still in the part of the curve that rises faster.

Also, a lot of the value in higher levels of experience is usually management adjacent, like knowing what order to perform different tasks on a project and identifying when there may be issues beforehand. Someone who remains an individual contributor isn’t going to be providing value for technical roles adjacent to management.

This video has a quick synopsis: https://youtu.be/NmhDcZHg7ik

I’m just surprised that you’re getting your bananas from Florida. Most bananas come from Central and South America.

Have you tried touching grass?

A lot of conspiracy discussion websites were manipulated in a way to get Donald Trump elected president.

Not really. He seems to have been very aware that his position is tenuous and he can’t risk moving a large part of his military out of country to do something unpopular. If he was going to join the war, he would have done so already.

Yeah. I feel that a lot of later 20th and early 21st century work has shifted from deconstructionism to some form of constructionism, attempting to build from culture rather than demolish it to its core items. I just don’t know what that will look like.

For physical labor no one wants to do, you can finesse your response to be less “not my job” and more “I have other tasks I need to do now as part of my job”. It may sound similar, but one is making it so that you are determining what is and isn’t your responsibility and the other is pushing that decision on someone else.

Someone else hired you to push people around. You can’t override your boss, so you need to focus on the work they give you and take the breaks you can on their time table. A nurse may have deserved status, but unless the chain of command runs through them, you got to follow the chain.

Still applies more to Trump than Biden or Harris, given Trump’s open corruption feeding into crony capitalism.

Like I’ve said before, it feels like the term is being changed because the argument behind how I’m using it is hard to refuse, so the choice is to try to redefine the word rather than discuss the argument.

No. It means picking the person who will accelerate into whatever calamity which will cause a collapse.

I feel like there is a lot of revisionism of the definition because the definition is inconvenient to the opposing argument.

An accelerationist is picking someone who will collapse the empire due to incompetence and destroying American institutions. Between Trump and Harris, I don’t see Harris causing a collapse of American institutions like Trump.

Also, in regards to Iran, Trump has been far more antagonistic than Biden and Democrats in general were. The Biden administration at least needed a false flag attack to support Israel and a lot of the opposition came from Democrats. Trump got rid of Obama’s multilateral nuclear treaty and has participated in Israeli attacks where Israel was the aggressor.

Next time you want to say “that’s not my job”, change what you’re saying to “I don’t have the authority to do what you’re asking and you have more authority in asking the admins to do it than I do”.

That way, you’re not communicating that you won’t help, but that you can’t help. It also comes off that you’re trying to help with the situation rather that being a road block.

No. Wanting Trump to win is accelerationist because he’s going to cause the empire to fall faster due to incompetence.

You aren’t angry at Democrats for war crimes, you’re angry at them because they are better at governing.