So many benchmarks more the models themselves.. just make one unified standard to benchmark all or stop calling it “benchmarking” as this word lost its meaning.
You have to prove it is an evidence of a crime to start with, speculation is not a fact. My property, my business, i can smash the phone and no one has anything to do or say unless there’s an undeniable fact that there’s an evidence there and it got destroyed, else, it’s no one’s business.
What that even means? What’s a “factual account”?! The story/events? The account you used to apply? Or what
That being said, ghosting and generic rejections are alike, usually when you don’t hear from a company within a week (or within the time you ask them when you would hear back), you know they went with someone else, going back at you after that time is a major redflag, either they are chaotic, or the other candidate ditched them in the negotiations because they don’t know how to negotiate and are looking for bargain not a skillsets.
Also, I think instead of the company only, the recruiter/HR name should be there plus the company, public shaming is needed for those individuals, maybe other recruiters are good on following up, which is not fair for the good ones while the bad ones are hidden.
This is how economy should work, based on physical tangible assets that owned/existed, not some imaginary value based on whatever speculation, that what ruined housing market, what inflated stocks and allowed cons to get wealthier, it’s also why a lot of companies make fake job posting or pr stunts, it’s all to inflate that imaginary market currency then use it to get a real cash, that should be illegal and is a form of Ponzi scheme fraud, if a house as-built cost is 70k, it shouldn’t be sold for 800k, and the owner shouldn’t be able to use that speculative value to get a 600k loan.
It sounds like you're suggesting a barter economy. It works like this:
1. Bob grows oranges, and wants shoes
2. Ted hunts for meat, and wants oranges
3. Sam makes shoes, and wants meat
The only way this can work is to have a 3-way transaction. But with a money system, the money is traded without needing a 3-way transaction. It's much more efficient.
Not really, I am not saying to remove moneys entirely and use assets trading only, but the money printed or valued should be based on tangible assets, actual cost, not some made up speculation. As I mentioned above, a house that cost 100k to build and handover should never exceed that value plus profit markup, the older it gets, the cheaper it should be, just like any other assets and like how japan did it to solve the greedy banks/landlords. But obviously such thing needs to be done in an authoritarian manner as in normal democracy it will never be voted for, since most voters are owners. Other examples apply too on why things are waay over inflated for what they worth, including stocks.
This is because our glorious government makes it illegal to build housing. Japan doesnt force anything, their private companies built tons of housing because there is profit to be made and its not illegal without years of reviews, insane taxes, bribes to various orgs, etc.
Your policy doesn’t even work in CA, new housing is absurdly expensive to build and the profits aren't even high.
> Japan doesnt force anything, their private companies built tons of housing because there is profit to be made and its not illegal without years of reviews, insane taxes, bribes to various orgs, etc.
Now, would you want to live in a country with conditions so absurd that "hikikomori" and micro apartments [1] are a thing?
> “A lot of younger people these days don’t have many possessions, unlike older generations – they have a few items of clothing and not that much money, so these apartments are ideal for them,” said Nakama, whose 1,500 micro-apartments have an occupancy rate of 98%.
Yeah fuck that shit. That's just exploitation, and no wonder the few young people that Japan has end up with all sort of mental health issues, no partners and a birthrate near zero. Nothing to own because there's nowhere to store something you own, not enough space to even invite another person over, much less have sex.
Cram me into such an "apartment", I'd go and search for a gun to off myself.
Why use suicidal hyperbole. It’s low class along with the language.
I don’t know if what you stated is enough evidence to prove much of anything either. Just because building housing is cheap and quick in Japan does not mean it needs to be small.
> Just because building housing is cheap and quick in Japan does not mean it needs to be small.
The thing is, cheap housing comes at a cost. Housing barely qualifying as more than "a roof over the head" is the most efficient use under capitalism... but as usual with capitalism, the second-order effects / externalities (most importantly, the collapsed birth rartes) aren't priced in. Unfortunately, for Japan's society it may already be too late to turn around.
And even more unfortunately, here in the Western countries we are headed to repeating the mistakes Japan has already shown.
>Now, would you want to live in a country with conditions so absurd that "hikikomori" and micro apartments [1] are a thing?
If it meant I could cut my rental or mortgage bill in half, absolutely. People have different preferences, not everyone needs or wants the same amount of space.
To the contrary, IMHO. When you have to stay at the office until the boss leaves... you don't need a large apartment, you won't have much free time to enjoy it anyway.
The excessive amount of both fake and real work makes such horribly insane housing practices possible in the first place - if people had more free time, they'd go nuts from being cooped up.
There are no moneys, only money. I don’t understand your reasoning. Why should a house never become more expensive? I built a house in s remote area, 20 years later the region is much more appealing, public transport, shopping, why should I charge less than the market is willing to pay?
Because a house is a shelter, not an investment, go start a business if you want that. Japan did the right thing and made it a depreciated asset to end this ponzi scheme
>than the market willing to pay
That’s the crux, a market speculation. Well, the market is also willing to pay more for death match gambling, that doesn’t mean it should be there.
A cave is also a shelter. You gotta distinguish between some investment money buying properties in thousands, and an individual buying a house to maybe sell it for care at a later stage. If I buy a house and renovate everything, bring the standard up, why should I not be allowed to recoup the money.
Never been to Japan, they seem like smart people but they do have some issues, especially with elderly care. Maybe if they could sell their property they wouldn’t suffer loneliness so much.
yes, your plan would require extreme levels of oppression. it's a non-starter in anything remotely resembling a democracy. and if implemented, the outcome would still not be what you expect.
houses get more expensive due to changes in scarcity, i.e. the number of people who want to buy houses (and can afford to) in an area increasing faster than the number of people who want to sell houses there.
the main lever a government has, is to make new construction easier and cheaper -- that increases the supply. commies don't seem to like that, often because they're NIMBYs, but also because new construction tends to be in the high end segment. commies don't seem to understand that people who move into newly built high end housing do so by moving out of existing, on average slightly less high end housing, which then becomes free, and so on... all the way down to the lowest end housing. increasing supply at the highest end increases housing supply in all segments, though with increasing delay.
an option that doesn't help much with existing scarcity, but with future changes in scarcity, would be a recurring land tax (proportional to the local value of owned land). in order to be democratically feasible this would have to be introduced very gradually (over the course of 30+ years) and combined with tax decreases elsewhere.
> money printed or valued should be based on tangible assets
The US had such a system before 1914. Money was exchangeable for gold at a fixed rate. That system was destroyed in 1914 with the Federal Reserve Act, and the inevitable result was endless inflation and debasing of the currency.
The once common compliment "sound as a dollar" has vanished from the lexicon.
The USD is considered the most sound currency in the world and has been for generations; maybe it's the most sound in the history of humanity (possibly a consequence of modern international relations and communications). The great majority of international transactions are in USD. At small shops in a lot out of the way places, they accept USD; many prefer it to their local currency.
But in reality this won’t happen, because China won’t be happy and will force Iran to a deal like last time or they will lose all the parts and intelligence tech they are providing to them.
> because China won’t be happy and will force Iran to a deal like last time...
Iran's political leadership is amenable to negotiating but their incumbent military leadership which now calls the shots aren't [0][1].
The current incumbents in the IRGC and Artesh are now vets who were deployed on the frontlines in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq and are deeply anti-Western as a result.
> or they (Iran) will lose all the parts and intelligence tech they (China) are providing to them...
This is why Iran has been leveraging Russia as well [2][3].
Russia is trying to link the Ukraine War with the Iran War ("stop giving Ukraine targeting capabilities and we'll stop giving it to Iran").
Iran's military leadership doesn't trust China because they undermined Iran's position on Hormuz by backing the UAE [4], and because hardliners still harbor negative views of China and Eastern culture as undermining the precepts of the Islamic Revolution [5][6][7] and still calling them "uncultured orientals" (شرق زدۀ بی فرهنگ)
> leadership doesn't trust China because they undermined Iran's position on Hormuz by backing the UAE [4]
Would you say that in the broadest possible sense, this is because China cares much more about keeping an unrestricted flow of (not $140-160 a barrel) oil coming from the Persian Gulf, oil/gas exports and outbound flow unrestricted for their own domestic consumption. They think that's much more important, given a choice and the impact of oil NOT flowing to their economies, than supporting the continuation of the IRGC and status-quo leadership in Iran.
But the issue is China doesn't have many options to push back against the IRGC's wish for shahadat.
The political and private sector economic leadership in Iran was neutered after Rouhani was not re-appointed by Khamenei, so opposition within the regime is weak and is largely purged.
Supporting opposition against the regime is also obviously a no-go as it would both be a diplomatic bruise for China's image as well as risk a Neutral or worst case Pro-American Iran, as well as send a message to Pakistan, North Korea, Laos, and Cambodia that Chinese commitments are only fair-weather.
Supporting any intervention by neighboring countries would be diplomatically bruising for China's image and risk a Neutral or worst case Pro-American Iran, as well as send a message to Pakistan, North Korea, Laos, and Cambodia that Chinese commitments are still dependent on American power projection.
And the clerical leadership and IRGC (two sides of the same coin - to join the Pasdaran you need to be ideologically vetted by clerical leadership, and a large portion of recruits are products of the religious education system) have complete control over all the organs of Iran's armed forces and it's economy, and hold resentment against both the West and East for being morally and religiously lax as well as capitalist.
Within the neighboring region, China has also been sending extensive signals of "we support you and will engage in full trade with you, and retain full diplomatic relationships, etc, no matter what you're doing to your own people domestically" to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Stuff like offering full accreditation to the Taliban-run embassy in Beijing and issuing visas/support for a whole cadre of Taliban officials.
If China did an about-face on maintaining friendly relations with the IRGC, that would also be a big signal to the Taliban that maybe their "all weather" relationship with China was a bit more precarious than they previously thought it was.
With the recent minor border war between Afghan Taliban and Pakistani forces, closing the major land cargo trade routes of Torkham, Spin Boldak (and flows of cargo) along the AF/PK border, Afghanistan has very recently become much more reliant on import transit trade via Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Much of that for manufactured goods and technology that Afghanistan can't build domestically (just about everything of any technical sophistication) is ultimately manufactured in China and goes through UZ and TJ.
> China has also been sending extensive signals of "we support you and will engage in full trade with you, and retain full diplomatic relationships, etc, no matter what you're doing to your own people domestically" to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Stuff like offering
China has started disengaging with the Taliban now that Pakistan is fighting a war against them and after the Taliban are sending their leadership to India almost every month [0][1], backing the Taliban's position [2], and the Pakistani Taliban (which has the same leadership as the Afghan Taliban) has continued to attack CPEC [3] and targeting Chinese personnel [4].
> If China did an about-face on maintaining friendly relations with the IRGC, that would also be a big signal to the Taliban that maybe their "all weather" relationship with China was a bit more precarious than they previously thought it was
China snubbed the Taliban by not condemning Pakistan's strikes on Afghanistan [2] and not pressuing Pakistan to allow Afghanistan's ascension in the SCO [5].
And there's a reason the Taliban are sending their wounded for treatment in India and not China [6].
> With the recent minor border war...
The Taliban are treating the war as existential. And they are now diverting Afghan cargo to Indian operated Shahid Beheshti Terminal in Iran [7].
> and the Pakistani Taliban (which has the same leadership as the Afghan Taliban) has continued to attack CPEC [3] and targeting Chinese personnel [4].
Is it a fair assumption that a major factor in this in China's long term and continuing military cooperation with Pakistan? Joint fighter/attack jet development programs for air force, etc. It's my understanding that China has very friendly relations with the generals who actually run the Pakistani state, no matter who might be occupying the PM/president role at any given time.
China's on the fence about transferring newer Chinese tech like the J-35 to Pakistan because the F-16 remains the backbone of the PAF [0] and American military personnel remain deployed in Pakistan to maintain the fleet.
Also, the current dictator in charge of Pakistan leans pro-America after the US allegedly helped overthrow Imran Khan [1][2].
And this is what makes it so difficult for China - opposing the IRGC makes it easier for Pakistan, Cambodia, Laos, and others to justify enhancing engagement with the US at the expense of China while supporting the IRGC means dealing with the extended logistical shock while backing an organization that views both Western and Chinese investors negatively and undermining long-term engagement with the GCC.
I have been hoping China would force this issue. Send an oil tanker through and see if the US has the balls to stop it. Either the US does and everyone gets peeved or the US lets it float away and look incredibly impotent.
Sometimes I think that's Trump endgame. Destroy world's economy, solve debt with massive dollar de-valuation, and uses its resource advantages to reindustrialize itself.
Of course, that would fuck most of the world population, including the American Poor and The Middle Class.
But I don't think this would weight too much on Trump's conscience.
This is a nice idea. I will build this a feature on the scenarios menu. And it would give an estimate of how much time doing this buys China under different configurations
The problem isn’t spam, the problem is you becoming the spam.
I did test email selfhosting before and there’s a substantial amount of times my emails were never seen by the recipient, sometimes it did cost me good jobs/deals.
So now I use paid email while I control the domain and everything else, so I have the portability feature if I wanted to switch providers without any efforts, but I know now my emails will be delivered whenever I hit sent.
That being said, I self host everything else in my digital life, and I believe everyone should.
reply