partial_accumen

Probably will have some delays as the software get updated, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a bunch of Chinese goods get re-routed through Vietnam or other countries with lower import tariffs.

trump hit Vietnam with a 46% tariff, so lower than China currently, but still a huge hit.

I was planning on buying a pair of sneakers within the next couple of months. When these tariffs hit, I knew I needed to buy them right now while shelves are still stocked with pre-tariff merchandise. My (popular) brand of shoes are made in Vietnam (46% tariff) and Laos (58%) tariff.

Many popular brands of shoes are made in these two countries so you also may want to do the same.

I’m not sure it would help for your proof. It just shows the new higher price now.

the USA will import nothing in the next few years.

I don’t think its going to take very long for tariffs to bite American consumers. A month ago I bought a $1000 technology item that is manufactured in China. I see that same item’s price has raised to $1200 in the last week or so. This was an item ordered from online, so its possible they didn’t have a large inventory onshore in the USA.

There are bricks and mortar retailers that have weeks or months of inventory warehoused in the USA just as part of their normal supply chain. However without replenishment, popular items will sell out and simply not be stocked again because the tariff affected margins will price out consumers for many of those goods. I’d say if these tariffs stay as they are (or get worse) our retailers are going to have lots of empty shelves in 3 months.

I can see that you were very angry when you wrote this

I’m not angry. I’m shocked at your position though. I see your position as dismissive of someone who is actually doing something about the crisis she will inherit with the tiny fractional power she had before adulthood. She, and her generation, have no time for a timid approach. We’re going to be long dead and she’ll still be here trying to live through the mess we, and our parents, have cause her and everyone else her age.

so I think it’s better that we stop here.

Thats fine. I don’t see a path to anything that would yield productive conversation from here.

Wait, you think Putin has credibility when speaking on climate change? To quote the late Sen. John McCain describing Russia as “a gas station masquerading as a country”. Putin’s life and livelihood depend on continued world’s unchecked consumption of fossil fuels. Putin has zero credibility on the subject. Why would anyone consider him an objective source?

While the public saw Greta behaving like a petulant child during the speech

You and I must have seen different speeches. Part of Thunberg’s appeal was her eloquence in speech especially speaking truth to power. Here’s part of 16 year old Greta Thunberg’s speech in the UN:

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

“So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.”

source

I can’t imagine a world where you’re calling that “petulant”. At 16 years old she had more poise and gravitas than many of the world leaders she was speaking to. You say she hasn’t done anything. I beg to differ. Further, if what she has done is nothing, it raises the obvious question: what have you done to avert climate catastrophe?

George W. Bush and Barak Obama’s secret love child:

George Takei and Megamind’s secret love child:

(George, keep being your awesome self!)

Tony Sirico’s secret love child:

Anthony Bourdain’s secret brother:

Solutions?

Carbon tax.

In this micro example, imagine if you could access all of your data for free when there as abundant sunshine (carbon free), or had to pay for carbon based energy at night. You’d start to sort your data for what you really wanted so that you’d only be paying a small amount for a small amount of data.

He’s in the same bucket as Greta Thunberg. They just like to scream and blame people instead of providing practical solutions.

Greta Thunberg is 22 years old right now, and was “screaming” and “blaming people” when she was 11 years old.

She saw the world she was going to inherit and forced conversation to work toward solutions. Expecting an 11 year old to provide answers that none of the established world has is silly.

The font-ends I use are called serifs.

Worse, they even forced it on Windows Server 2008 (and 2008R2). That interface had no business being on servers which many times only were only accessible by narrow higher latency remote links and many times without mice.

You cited a US law there. If you are a citizen of the United States through any other means beside birth on US soil, I would not do anything currently to put a spotlight on that like making a name change. The current administration is obsessed with expelling people and their efforts are coming up short so they keep lowering the bar for who they go after seeking the smallest excuse to deport people to make up their quota.

Maybe revisit this idea in a few years or if you decide to leave the country for more sane lands.

At least one.

I’d recommend you increase your sample size to give you additional perspective.

The problem is, I know, and everyone else knows, work culture originates top down. We’ve all had power hungry managers and we know their games.

This is too simplistic a view.

Yes, work culture originates from the top, but once in place the corporate culture is supported and re-enforced by middle managers and even the workers themselves. So once that original corporate culture is in place, swapping out the CEO doesn’t change it. It is very very difficult to change an org once it’s culture is set. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that a process can’t be changed “because we’ve always done it like this”. Sometimes purging existing culture means firing a number of managers and workers that are unconscionably enforcing the existing culture before new work culture can exit. Sometimes it means the entire org has to go.

What it sounds like you’re describing is more of a middle management problem. As in, you’ve been under micromanagers or straight up narcissistic psychos that rose to a position of power, and use their power to abuse those under them. If those kind of people ever rise to executive leadership or even a CEO that usually means the pretty quick firing of that person or the org goes under/gets acquired.

My experience with executives is that they don’t necessarily want yes men, but there’s a range of acceptable criticism or feedback that they’ll accept. As long as you’re within that range, it’s fine.

I’ll agree with this.

If you try to address fundamental problems that might require real change… well those people tend to get suppressed.

Potentially true. I remember trying this too when I was really young in my career and getting sidelined. What I know now is that I had no idea what the hell I was talking about. I thought I knew enough, but really I just had a fraction of understanding. I had an older mentor give me some guidance around that time I didn’t understand until later, but after decades in the workplace I know how I screwed up.

They’ll happily take feedback on meeting structure or project planning or whatever. But try to do a retrospective on what the true longterm costs of their decision to go with the cheap, but unreliable solution and they’ll blackball you.

There’s some truth to your statement, but you may be missing the bigger picture, and at a lower level, you’re not privy to information you would have needed to arrive at the decision leadership did. Your job at the lower levels is to execute on the plans of leadership. You do have a responsibility to use your mind and if you’re seeing risks (short term or long term), communicate those up the chain. However, leadership may already know those, or may know about bigger risks from not moving forward you’re not aware of.

Again, good leadership isn’t absolute. There are certainly idiot leaders and CEOs. There are also good people that are leaders and CEOs that are just out of their depth in areas. Both of these can result in the same thing that they make a bad decision and the organization and the workers could suffer.

They always want people to agree with them and they certainly have a bloated ego.

Your description doesn’t match my first hand experience of working with CEOs. A couple have acted like that, sure, but the vast majority were very stressed or miserable fighting to keep their organizations going. Honestly, seeing the job, I know I don’t want it.

How many CEOs do you know or have worked with directly?

If they do that then they’re removing the “intelligence” leaving them left with only the “artificial”.

I disagree with your showerthought though. CEOs aren’t typically looking for “yes men”. That’s a stereotype. Some are, sure.

CEOs are ecstatic about AI because of the possibility of replacing expensive human labor with cheap fixed costs of hardware, software and electricity .

I’ve given you my opinion. I don’t have to back anything up.

Don’t sell yourself short. You’ve got apathy, malice or ignorance.

I don’t think things are getting worse. You do.

So you refuse to defend your spoken position with anything concrete, even though I’ve asked you about multiple specific examples that contradict your position.

And I don’t think any of this should add to the “hate” problem that some see on Lemmy. Which is the point of OP’s post.

Well why would you? You seem to be just fine with the destruction of lives around you, even making supporting statements that you think its good these things are happening to these people. Why do you think that your positions don’t deserve hateful responses? Lemmy doesn’t have a “hate” problem. Today’s leadership in the USA, and as a consequence, our society now does.

Hate isn’t the answer

I agree with that statement. However, your chosen positions are steeped in hate yet you defer or ignore it. That wreaks of hypocrisy on your part, and points back to the intellectual dishonesty I accused you of earlier.

You’re being intellectually dishonest if you are claiming your statement is true.

Just because I said something that you didn’t agree with doesn’t mean I was being “intellectually dishonest,” and it’s rude of you to imply that.

You can keep your false righteous indignation. How can you claim to tell person in an El Salvador prison right now its “no worse off”? Please, explain that to me. How about a fired federal worker? Is it “no worse off” for them now they’re unemployed?

I lived through the 80’s. Try living then and telling me that life is worse now. lol

I already told you I’m an older, well off, white man. Yes, I lived through the 80s too. How is that relevant at all? You’re we should be happy now because we don’t have 12% interest rates yet and stagflation is how we should be okay with trump destroying the world economy for likely the better part of the upcoming decade? Why stop your measure over 40 years ago, long before most of the people here were even born?

Why not tell interracial married couples “Try living in 1966 and not being able to get legally married to your spouse of a different race. lol”

Why not tell women and “Try living in 1918 and not being able to vote. lol”

I don’t think any of that is any worse off than it was a few years ago though.

You’re being intellectually dishonest if you are claiming your statement is true.

Can I ask if you are a white, well off, man?

I don’t think the world is getting “worse,” it’s just the doomscrollers on Lemmy wanting it to be worse to fit their own twisted narratives.

For many MANY groups it is getting objectively worse.

For those in the USA:

• if they are trans they are at risk for violence or legal consequences for simply going in a public bathroom.
• if they work for the federal government they have lost or are at risk for losing their livelihood.
• if the weren’t a natural born citizen of the USA they are at risk for deportation to a prison in El Salvador irrespective of their circumstances of student visa, asylum visa, green card holder, even naturalized citizens.
• if they are a women, their lives are now at risk from preventable disorders if they get pregnant
• if they are old or disabled they are now at risk of being declared dead and having their retirement Social Security income cut off
• if they are a child they are at risk of dying from preventable diseases (like measles or whooping cough) even with decades old effective vaccines available, but not used.
• if they are poor they are at risk for possible hunger and starvation as basic food assistance has been cut around the country deemed as “waste”
• if they are a veteran needing medical care they are now at risk from cuts to staff that facilitate care for the people that stood in defense of our nation.

For our great historical allies of Canada and Mexico:

• they are getting their economies destroyed because they trusted the USA to honor its own written treaties.

For the rest of the world:

• they just today the world got an unjustified kick in the shins with nearly global trade tariffs from the USA.

The only group that aren’t generally hurt yet are: well off older white men

As a member of that group I find it fucking disgusting what is being done to everyone that isn’t in this group at the hands of this group.