Desocupado Lector,

I would definitely not drink wine at breakfast. Would you?

Drinking wine at breakfast, meanwhile, proved a particularly divisive idea. Some oenophiles considered it an inconsequential act, especially in the case of Champagne, alone or mixed with orange juice, as in a Mimosa. One friend said she’d drink Champagne at breakfast “because it’s not really wine.” A few respondents considered drinking any sort of alcohol at breakfast a very bad ideal; to Dr. Feuer it signaled “a sad downward spiral.”
...
Though drinking wine early in the day was clearly controversial among the wine drinkers I talked to, no one seemed to think it’s ever too late for a glass of wine. If the company is good, and/or dancing is involved, and/or the wine is great, then why not?


https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-not-drink-wine-for-breakfast-11563468650

(no subject)

I'm getting really pessimistic about whether at this point it's even possible to un-tribe American society.

(no subject)

I'm also puzzled why in peaceful and prosperous times the question about who loves America the most and what's the right way to do it suddenly becomes so important to the president and his supporters, e.g. here: https://chasovschik.livejournal.com/1242903.html

Is this just another opportunity to express tribal loyalty? Or maybe people feel that peace and prosperity are sitting on quicksand of borrowed money and when the whole thing starts shaking they will end up holding an empty bag of government promises, instead of jobs, pensions and healthcare. Love implies a certain level of irrationality and sacrifice. For the sake of what? What is it that is going to require sacrifice from the citizenry?

From an investor perspective, Ray Dalio says that low-yielding debt is worthless even as a store of value. At the same time, the government creates this worthless debt on a massive scale and stuffs it into all major social programs as a source of future payments. This doesn't make any sense, unless the value of government promises is going to be a lot lower, than today. Clearly, neither demographics, nor productivity gains support this outlook.

Philosophy, Business, Math

Let A be person, B - tool, C - work.



Heidegger's "ready-at-hand" means that the triangle commutes. Similarly, Christensen's "job-to-be-done" requires that an innovator solves for h = g after f, rather than building straight f. A section would do, but an isomorphism like "xeroxing" or "googling" would be much better.

Начинаю с себя.

В целях улучшения качества общественного дискурса обещаю себе не посылать оппонентов на три буквы. И на четыре тоже.

(no subject)

"Art Pepper You'd Be So Nice To Come Home Meets The Rhythm Section 1957" (Watch on YouTube)

The ultimate sacrifice for the country

"Weekend Update: The Gay Couple from New Jersey on Being in the Military - SNL" (Watch on YouTube)