Your site doesn't accept .me emails. When making early-stage design decisions might be a good idea to priotize minimizing friction for new users, even edge case ones.
Subsist. Accept that you may need to prolong the status quo for a period of time.
Conquer your vision, (i.e., accept its limitations and buy into what the CEO wants, or learn how to demonstrate value via Dale Carnegie or Ray Dalio's methodologies) or plan your exit strategy. With specifics.
Or alternatively, you could conquer yourself. But probably not in the environment you're in.
If you need someone to talk to, email me for my number. kqtgtq3pk at hushmail dot com. Tell me as much of your story in as few words as possible so I know it's you.
I'll be asleep in a few hours for around nine hours because it's late here. Good luck, my heart is with you.
Will take it into consideration. I'm especially recalling that reveal Google just did about FBI requests issued, and your comment is definitely putting it into perspective. Thanks.
If you don't think you could pull that off without it being awkward, I feel like I'm not the best person to offer an opinion, since I'm probably not in your target audience. But if I was the person in charge of the decision I'd choose female. This isn't a knock against females, but there's something about a female talking deeply about something incredibly technical that I think a lot of guys will find really sexy and compelling.
However, I really think that the most serious metric you should be considering is charisma in general. Can this person project that they really care about what they're saying? You're gonna get better response to an excited-sounding male than a terrible female actor, and vice-versa.
Well, I'd argue that cynical responses like these are the most detrimental response of all.
Pessimism is not realism. Getting the full verbal support of a second-term lame-duck administration with nothing to lose is not a negligible achievement. Some progress != no progress. You're right that petitions have limited scope and effect, but in successful efforts like these, they can generate publicity and political momentum, giving ammunition and gravitas to Congressmen who would co-sponsor legislation. At the very least it is a step in the right direction.
The system is broken, but sitting back and needlessly berating those who would try to take small steps to achieve small goals is hardly an acceptable response. It's calculus; if you integrate a positive attitude over a large enough population of believers, you can effect large-scale change. If you integrate so-called "cynical realism" over the same intelligent population, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism which is nothing to pat yourself on the back about, either. I applaud sinak's achievement and I hope that this conversation shifts to what steps need to be taken next.
The term "lame duck" typically refers to Presidents at the tail end of their term, most often used in the time between an election and a transition of power. That isn't the case here.
Right. I was just trying to refer more specifically to the fact that since the term-limit is already reached, this administration has more political flexibility to back more contentious issues.
From wikipedia:
A president elected to a second term is sometimes seen as being a lame duck from early in the second term, because presidents are barred from contesting a term four years later, and is thus freer to take politically unpopular action. Nonetheless, as the de facto leader of his or her political party, the president's actions affect how the party performs in the midterm elections two years into the second term, and, to some extent, the success of that party's nominee in the next presidential election four years in the future.
But you are certainly correct about typical usage.
