Most of that is simulating what maybe was initially at the base of success at the start of company of tight-knit friends who also were entertaining together. I think, that the problem here is very simple - getting rid of people who feel restless and do not appreciate the effort that is done for them and do not feel belonging to the team(!) and do not have their own suggestions, but have their own enjoyment by being disgruntled, because that is how they feel in general.
The problem here has nothing to do with participating in these awkward events, that probably does some job of bonding, but it has a problem with incompatible people that are brought together and have to withstand each other.
I have experience of working on both sides - where there were group events and where there were none. And the hell that I remember is about where there were none, because at those jobs nobody also cared for improvements for people, who were there "just to do their job". In fact that thinking lead to some of the people in criminal situations with knive fights(at work!!!) and did other crayzeee stuff to just deal with boredom of "just doing a job that they are paid for". You simply have no experience and appreciation of not getting that wish to come true. I had learned that in a hard way and just - no... I'd rather have a work event(and it doesn't matter what I think about them), than "work incident".
In our case, we were a team of frenemies, who bonded over our shared hatred of the execs. "Manny" was my officemate for 4 years. To this day, I won't hang out with Manny, because he drives me crazy, but if he ever needs anything, my immediate reply would be "on my way".
The official (expense account) team activities were the bosses trying to bond with the grunts. Show "appreciation". Vicariously be part of the team.
I stuck with the work (electronic medical record interchange) because I was passionate about the problem, we were first to market with the best product, and I invented some cool new tech that I wouldn't be able to take with me.
Like I mentioned before, I am an introvert(for most of the time) and have been in similar situations... it sucks, but the truth in all of this is being paid worker should not be something to crave for someone who is more individual than others.
You can argue with someone, but that won't change things. You can fight the system or learn how to get to the top and interestingly most of business owners are not extroverts - quite the opposite - they are introverts. Dude/dudette, you are simply in wrong place and should pursue getting your own business - workers(extended family) is for extroverts. You are better than they and that's why you do not like rules imposed on you. Get out!
Well, think about it from that perspective where you are an business owner. Your business is part of your extended family and if someone does not feel great about being part of your extended family, they rightfully will be booted out and the sooner that happens the better for company.
As an introverted person I can only suggest for you to make your own business or go freelance, because you are not going to change rules for other people how they should behave only because your comfortable family scale is much smaller.
Any business is a family - the problem here is that it is not yours(or you don't perceive it as yours).
From the perspective of a business owner, an employee is someone paid to do an actual job. They either do the job they are being paid to do, or they're fired. They're not part of the business owners perceived extended family unless the business owner is mentally ill. Employing someone to be a pseudo-family member is psychotic and probably illegal.
It all depends on what you think as an actual job. An actual job of any worker is NOT RUINING BUSINESS - it is not only illegal but also criminal. So, your actual job is following rules of a company and if they make you wear uniform, because that would make you not stand out, you will have to oblige - according to the rules of a company where you are member of that extended family. Your teenage angst is not only wrong, but will mean booting you out of a company.
Like I mentioned before, if you have problems with business that is employing you and THEIR set of rules, that YOU have to follow and that is part of YOUR ACTUAL JOB, then you better SEEK OTHER JOB or CREATE YOUR OWN. No one is forcing you to follow rules - any rules, even CONSTITUTION(where whole NATION is regarded as an EXTENDED FAMILY), but you have to be ready to face consequences of alternative and that is INSANITY - not illegal, because you have not agreed on those rules, but good luck on imposing YOUR RULES or lack of rules on others... and have probably a very short journey in this fight YOU vs WORLD.
The world sucks if you have to adapt, but it is not right to enforce something onto others for your own comfort unless you pay others compensation. That is the base of any business.
well, there are still plenty of things to do to get to the North Korean level - so far it has been only a nudge to Russians so they become sensible, not something to call sanctions
Maybe, but so far there is no World government and every nation should deal with their own corruption(or cease to exist) - Venezuelans, Russians and Afganis are RESPONSIBLE for their own problems and if the most of Afganis want Taliban rule(and have accepted them peacefully) or if the most of Russians want mafia state, then it is not up to others to correct them - maybe just bar them off and let them enjoy what they dream of. At least US has done one sensible thing, that they are leaving Afganistan - even if that does not look good - they did everything by the book what other empires did by not allowing to form nationalistic states based on ethnicity, like it happened in Europe 100 years ago(all in the name if current mantra of keeping all borders as they are). Maybe divided Afganistan would have chance to develop their own way, but now it is Pakistani expansion of taliban/paki(for those unaware, paki means pure) ideology.
Navalny is not speaking for all Russians, even if he is on the same path as Nelson Mandela. Besides, there is slight problem, that even Navalny does not comprehend as a naturally chauvinistic and also naturally imperialisticly minded Russian, who thinks about keeping as much as possible remnants of Russian empire - corruption free Russia can't exist in current borders - actually, a corruption free Russia is oxymoron, because Chechnya without corrupted Russia would not be part of Russia - they exist there, because Putin is giving them support and money. And if Chechnya is let to go, then borders of Russia will shrink very quickly to what was Muscovite state. That would be a catastrophe to Russians and that is why most of Russians intuitively does not agree to what Navalny is offering. Russians want Tzar - not eradication of corruption and possibly destruction of Russia and erasing of Russian identity.
> Chechnya without corrupted Russia would not be part of Russia ... And if Chechnya is let to go, then borders of Russia will shrink very quickly
You seem to be saying "Sure, maybe things are bad under Putin, but if Russia had a less corrupt leader then it would fall apart into chaos overnight." You may genuinely believe that, but it sounds a lot like the sort of propaganda that a corrupt leader would try to indoctrinate his populace with, preying on the sort of psychological biases that give rise to Stockholm Syndrome and emotionally manipulative relationships.
For comparison, I believe that the Chinese government convinces much of its population that multi-party democracy leads to chaos and civil unrest, so having a one-party state is the only way to deliver unity and prosperity. Other authoritarian countries settle for pointing at a common enemy to convince people that the leader shouldn't be challenged and free speech should be suppressed.
> Venezuelans, Russians and Afganis are RESPONSIBLE for their own problems
That's a really unhelpful thing to say. You are correct to the extent that the people in a country have the collective duty to fix their problems, but it's unfair to suggest that they are morally culpable for all the disasters that occur in those countries. Firstly there are natural disasters which occur in countries, and historic problems which pre-date the birth of most citizens, but also we can't assume that a government reflects the will of the people if there is electoral manipulation (or no elections at all).
To give just one example, you say "if [] most [] Russians want [a] mafia state", but in the 2011 legislative elections, Putin's party won less than 50% of the vote, despite widespread cheating in their favour. To suggest that most Russians wanted that outcome is blaming the victim, and ignoring the huge power imbalance that makes it very hard to effect change in that country, or even to be accurately informed about that government's failings.
Besides, CSV can be written by a human and initially it was the way how data was entered and read, because it is a text file - database. If there is a need for something more convenient, then there are other file types. Nonissue, IMO.
There were plenty of Russian soldier deaths and no one can care about those questions - the best that Russians can do in these situations is standing on their knees when facing their leadership and accept their mistakes as some deeper maneuver that will bring fruits in the future. Also, the answer to those questions of unhappy population has been given already - "It sunk".
The reason why Wagner exists is quite simple - primarily it vents out all the people who has not found their place in Russia(and prevents their use against those who are in power in Russia) and their main and primary reason to serve in Wagner is being killed in the name of Russia. They are not expected to get back - in Ukraine conflict Wagner people were bombed by Russian army, when they decided to go back. They are expendables from the day they signed up.
No. The main difference between grouping is that phytoplankton receives most of energy by environment(usually Sun) without consuming other plankton and zooplankton does exactly that - it consumes other plankton(both phytoplankton and zooplankton).
Phytoplankton does not belong to Plant kingdom and neither do Zooplankton to Animal kingdom. Some Zooplankton are animals, which is subbranch of Eukariota to which most zooplankton belongs. Some of phytoplankton, like cyanobacteria are not considered to belong to plant kingdom, also most of plankton are supergrouped together with plants where most of them are not plants, but also belong to Eukariota.
TL;TR: Animals and Plants belong to Eukariota, to which belong all plankton - even if most of them does not belong neither to Plants nor Animals.
Well, look again - some of the group of points reach right to 200ppm.
Equation of line has nothing to do with reaching 200ppm, as that is average - adapted to whole timeline. Would look completely different in a different scope.
> Despite feedbacks with weathering rates, much smaller imbalances would have resulted in the complete removal of atmospheric CO2 in less than a million years. Without evidence of such dire consequences, lignin production in the absence of lignin decay for more than 100 million years into the early Permian is untenable.
The study addresses CO2 levels closely, as well as other significant pieces of evidence. I would tend to assume the peer reviewers at one of the world’s most prestigious journals thought to Google up historical CO2 levels.
The problem here has nothing to do with participating in these awkward events, that probably does some job of bonding, but it has a problem with incompatible people that are brought together and have to withstand each other. I have experience of working on both sides - where there were group events and where there were none. And the hell that I remember is about where there were none, because at those jobs nobody also cared for improvements for people, who were there "just to do their job". In fact that thinking lead to some of the people in criminal situations with knive fights(at work!!!) and did other crayzeee stuff to just deal with boredom of "just doing a job that they are paid for". You simply have no experience and appreciation of not getting that wish to come true. I had learned that in a hard way and just - no... I'd rather have a work event(and it doesn't matter what I think about them), than "work incident".