Those stories aren't very visible because they are BS. Few people are dumb enough to think than a puppet government set up by an occupying force will improve their lives. Those dancers are either paid actors or not very bright.
The double standard I would like to see addressed is this: will any country have enough cojones to boycott the World Cup this year. My guess is no.
The US has already nuked a civilian population. Twice. It remains the only country to have done so. And somehow not poly is it not a pariah state, but people think of it as a leader of the "free world". In fact, all school age children have been brainwashed to accept the "the nukes saved lives" argument for a few decades. A bunch of them are going to show up here and downvote this, or argue how I am an idiot and nukes are good. They are always good for other people though, not themselves.
However, there does seem to be an outsized effort applied to defending this not-real thing. A leader who defies the petrodollar has a good chance of getting killed or kidnapped. In a way, the same principle makes any god real: he doesn't have to exist, as long as people who will beat up non-believers do.
> Power vacuums, despite the appealing clarity of the phrase, do not behave like vacuums in physics; they do not remain unoccupied. Instead they invite attention.
The author may want to consider cracking their high school science book open for some review :)
Ukraine is far from a monolith. It's an agglomeration of bits and pieces attached in the aftermath of WW2 to a Ukrainian core. But there are plenty of ethnic Poles, Hungarians and Russians whose lands got attached that don't identify with it.
Before you downvote (OK, you can downvote first, I don't particularly care) - go look up what folks in Hungarian parts of Ukraine do to army recruiters.
Got to be honest with you, bro. This sounds like pro-russia FUD to me.
I mean honestly, wasn't all of the USSR a big agglomeration? The bottom line now is that Ukraine is a sovereign nation recognized by the rest of the world, and they have been invaded.
Sure - every country has their own angle. And if you don't seek out a varied media diet - you'll only get one side.
If you are curious, open up Wikipedia and check out what year did Lviv get attached to Ukraine, who attached it, and how. Spoiler: somehow Comrade Stalin is a good guy when it comes to taking from the Poles and giving to Ukraine. The mental gymnastics some people perform really are quite amazing.
Ever wonder how those borders got internationally recognized? Seems to me that it had something to do with the world fearing Stalin just enough to let him draw that particular border. War never changes.
This article periodically surfaces in some shape or form. There's this idea that there's a "dual ladder", and the IC ladder offers just as much respect and compensation as the management one. This is a lie, and the sooner we stop telling it to the young generation - the better.
Human societies have always rewarded and valued those who built hierarchies more than those who built things. If you focus on building a thing - you will forever be a cog in someone's big project. There's a reason that management ladder is more competitive.
I think some places pitch the dual ladder a lot morethan they actually support it, but it's still there.
EM vs IC are totally different jobs though. The whole thing where you're a good IC, so you get "promoted" to being an EM is insane. There's some overlap, I guess, every job has pieces of managing other people even if it's not in the job description, but...
Just because EM offers higher positions in the hierarchy (and salaries etc to go with it) doesn't mean that accepting a "promotion" to being an EM is going to make your life better. Personally, I hated being an EM; I don't like the work, and I don't like that when I do a bad job, it directly impacts the careers of my reports.
I don't mind being a cog in someone's big project; but even if I did, I don't see how being an EM avoids it, unless you start your own thing, which I absolutely do not want to do.
I'm pretty sure I did well enough for myself in the IC track. I could have gotten bigger compensation as an EM, I suppose, but diminishing returns wouldn't have justified the additional stress. Obviously, that may depend on individual factors, everyone's path is their own and I got a lucky draw.
> There's this idea that there's a "dual ladder", and the IC ladder offers just as much respect and compensation as the management one
It is not a lie. It is true IF you live and work in the Bay Area, Seattle, and TLV - which represent the bulk of tech industry employment.
Companies where the underlying stack is a revenue generator and not a cost center are companies where these kinds of dual tracks exist, but these are only found in the major tech hubs and are not available if you are remote first.
They also require you to be both technically and socially adept.
>It is true IF you live and work in the Bay Area, Seattle, and TLV - which represent the bulk of tech industry employment.
Is that actually true (the bulk of people in the tech industry are working in "big tech" or startups)?
I don't know if there's any hard data around this, but my understanding has been that people working for these types of companies are maybe a single digit percentage of all tech workers (if that).
People working for those companies are certainly the most vocal online, though, which maybe skews perception.
Sorry, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The ladders are simply not comparable, even in the Bay Area. Sure, at the entry point where one transfers from the IC ladder to management compensation can even drop. However, that's the bottom rung - and one typically can't get straight into management as a new grad. The management ladder goes higher.
Best to remember this isn't a ladder but rather a tree. Yes, it goes much higher, but you chances of ever getting there is minimal because it narrows so quickly.
I mean, this is true and also not true. The management ladder does start higher and arguably does end higher with C-suite titles (though even that may not be the case, e.g. Google now has a Chief Technologist or two, who are SVP/C-suite level). But at the major tech companies under discussion in the parent, yeah the levels do map basically 1:1.
You can maybe argue that it's easier to advance on the management side, and I think that was certainly true pre-2023, but since then there's been a clear tightening of easy empire building advancement, and at least in my neck of the woods, I've seen IC-track advancement has been faster from staff to principal than from manager to director.
The double standard I would like to see addressed is this: will any country have enough cojones to boycott the World Cup this year. My guess is no.
reply