Jump to content

Samson's Wig

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    2433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Samson's Wig

  1. 4 hours ago, crash_davis said:

    this has been going on for a few months and prob over a year. i remember reading something last summer of a deer walking through the neighborhood with a arrow sticking out of it. it's NOT hunting as there is not legal hunting anywhere near where theses arrowed and darted deer are showing up. 

    There is private land where hunting is legal close enough that an arrowed deer could wander back into the city.  I don't think that's what is going on here, but it has undoubtedly happened at one point or another.

    It's most likely kids or homeless folks, but could be some nutbag fed up with the deer feeding dumbasses in NW Austin who think it's cool to have a bunch of disease spreading vermin wandering around because they're cute.   They need to catch whoever is doing this as it's cruel, but the enabling jackwagons who create the initial problem should also be held to task.  They never will be, so some vigilante asswipe likely decided to do something about it but isn't any good at it.

    • Like 2
  2. 36 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

    Is American policing so shitty that this was a novel concept in 2020/21?

    This has a great breakdown, in Gladwell's simplistic style for dummies, on why this type of policing has been difficult to implement around the country.  The concept has been around for a while, but most cities don't utilize it. 

     

    image.png.c2e9d0e8c363419c007a9a6089bc289e.png

  3. I think football culture as a deciding factor for academically driven kids is dwindling, as is greek culture on college campuses.  Both of those had a major impact for a long time, and as fatty mentioned it plays out in hiring by those generations as well.  Anyone who thinks an education from LSU, Alabama, or Aggie somehow equates to bonus points on a job application has clearly been brainwashed by football.   But those types of folks won't be doing a lot of hiring for much longer.

  4. 12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

     

    I think there are national crime statistics that put the magic year somewhere around 1992 for when violent crime started consistently decreasing.  I may be off by a couple years, but it is in the timeframe.

    And there are all kinds of interesting theories for that, from the legalization of abortion to the elimination of lead in gasoline to the theory that we just hit a point where we had incarcerated so many people that crime in the non-incarcerated population had to go down.

    There's probably some merit to all of those being some factor to some degree.

    Good thing we're criminalizing abortion again, letting criminals out on low/no bail, and putting lead back in our gasoline.  Time to buy some firearms!

  5. The answer is to properly fund our state education system so that we can educate all top quality applicants as well as those who may need a leg up for one reason of another.  But that ship sailed a long time ago.  Improving the existing universities in the state is the cleanest road to solving this issue, we just won't do it.  We don't even sink enough tax dollars in to subsidize tuition anywhere near the levels we olds enjoyed.  That would at least prevent the student debt problem for Texas kids.  That money is better spent on graft, toll roads, and suing the federal government over stupid shit I suppose.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
  6. 36 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

    Interesting piece here. The cultural difference in conflict resolution is pretty telling. 
     

    https://unherd.com/2022/01/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-putin/


     

      Hide contents

    In 1999, Vladimir Putin suddenly sprang from bureaucratic obscurity to the office of Prime Minister. When, a few months later, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and Putin was voted in as President, governments around the world were taken by surprise yet again. How could this unknown figure have amassed national voter support with so little media attention?

    I had first met Putin seven years before and was not surprised by his rapid domination of the new Russia. We were introduced by Yevgeny Primakov, widely known as “Russia’s Kissinger”, who I had met in Moscow multiple times during the Cold War years when I advised Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Primakov was a no-nonsense thinker and writer. He was also a special emissary for the Kremlin in conducting secret discussions with national leaders around the world.

    When Yeltsin tasked his advisor Anatoly Sobchak with identifying and recruiting Russia’s best and brightest, Putin, then a local politician in his hometown of St Petersburg, was top of his list — so Primakov took Putin under his wing to tutor him in global power and security issues. Eventually, Primakov introduced Kissinger to Putin, and they became close. That both Primakov and Kissinger took time to coach Putin on geopolitics and geosecurity was a clear demonstration that they saw in him the characteristics of a powerful leader. It also showed Putin’s capacity for listening to lengthy lessons on geopolitics — as I was soon to learn.

     

    In 1992, I received a call from a meeting organiser at the CSIS think tank inviting me to join a US-Russia St Petersburg Commission to be chaired by Kissinger and Sobchak. The purpose would be to help the new Russian leadership in opening channels of business and banking with the West. Most of the Western members would be CEOs of major US and European companies, as well as key officials of the new Russian government. I would attend as an expert. I was told that a “Mr Primakov” had personally asked if I could make time to participate. I could hardly refuse such a request, and I was intensely curious about the emerging Russian leadership, especially about Putin.

    Arriving at the first meeting, I saw several people gathered around Kissinger and a man I was told was Putin. An official identified himself to me and said he had been asked by Primakov to introduce me to Putin. He interrupted the conversation with Kissinger to announce my arrival; Putin warmly responded that he was looking forward to chatting with me about how I see the world from inside Washington.
     

    We spoke on several occasions between meetings, and he arranged to sit next to me at a dinner, accompanied by his interpreter. At that dinner, he asked me: “What is the single most important obstacle between your Western businessmen and my fellow Russians in starting up business connections?”

    Off the top of my head, I responded: “The absence of legally defined property rights — without those there is no basis for resolving disputes.”

    “Ah yes,” he said, “in your system a dispute between businesses is resolved by attorneys paid by the hour representing each side, sometimes taking the dispute to the courts which normally takes months and accumulation of hourly attorney fees.”

    “In Russia,” he continued, “disputes are usually resolved by common sense. If a dispute is about very significant money or property, then the two sides would typically send representatives to a dinner. Everyone attending arriving would be armed. Facing the possibility of a bloody, fatal outcome both sides always find a mutually agreeable solution. Fear provides the catalyst for common sense.”

    He used his argument in the context of disputes between sovereign nations. Solutions often require an element of fear of disproportionate responses if no deal is struck. The idea of forcing adversaries to face horrific alternatives seemed to excite him. In essence, he was describing to me the current Ukraine impasse between the US and Russia. Putin knows Russia cannot afford a prolonged ground war with Ukraine. He also can see Biden is facing crucial midterm elections with a domestic congressional impasse, and cannot afford a major foreign crisis distraction. The two sides have no choice but to strike a deal.
     

    On a different occasion, Putin asked me how decisions are really made in Washington, with its complex division of Presidential and Congressional powers. He said Kissinger could explain the broad parameters of a Presidential policy decision, but could not clarify how political consensus was achieved between the House, Senate, and the Executive Branch.

    It was evident he had been given a deep intelligence brief on my career. He said Kissinger enjoys the public theatre of powerful people meeting in elaborate dinners or meetings with many aides ready to guide them. And he told me he had been informed that I preferred backroom meetings to shape consensus and provide room for negotiating details.

    I tried to explain the elaborate process of balancing the interests of the many players in Washington, including Congress, the major agencies, and the intricate business arrangements that might be affected by any decision. I told him of my first personal meeting with Nixon, who had said he was impressed that I had strong personal support from leaders of both major parties. However, he added, this raised worries among his staff in the White House — so he really needed to know whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. To which I replied: “Yes.”

    When Nixon asked what that meant, I explained that I was not a partisan warrior, but rather a problem solver. To get a solution I would always be ready to work with key players of both parties depending upon the specific problem. This seemed to amuse Putin.

    The impression of Putin that I was left with was of a man who was more intelligent than most of the politicians I had met in Washington and in other capitals around the world. I was reminded of my childhood: I grew up in a predominantly Sicilian neighbourhood, with a mafia maintaining order. No disorganised crime allowed. Putin did seem to have the instincts of a Sicilian mafia boss: quick to reward but quick to pose mortal risk in the event of non-conformity to the family rules.
     

    On a different occasion, Putin asked me how decisions are really made in Washington, with its complex division of Presidential and Congressional powers. He said Kissinger could explain the broad parameters of a Presidential policy decision, but could not clarify how political consensus was achieved between the House, Senate, and the Executive Branch.

    It was evident he had been given a deep intelligence brief on my career. He said Kissinger enjoys the public theatre of powerful people meeting in elaborate dinners or meetings with many aides ready to guide them. And he told me he had been informed that I preferred backroom meetings to shape consensus and provide room for negotiating details.

    I tried to explain the elaborate process of balancing the interests of the many players in Washington, including Congress, the major agencies, and the intricate business arrangements that might be affected by any decision. I told him of my first personal meeting with Nixon, who had said he was impressed that I had strong personal support from leaders of both major parties. However, he added, this raised worries among his staff in the White House — so he really needed to know whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. To which I replied: “Yes.”

    When Nixon asked what that meant, I explained that I was not a partisan warrior, but rather a problem solver. To get a solution I would always be ready to work with key players of both parties depending upon the specific problem. This seemed to amuse Putin.

    The impression of Putin that I was left with was of a man who was more intelligent than most of the politicians I had met in Washington and in other capitals around the world. I was reminded of my childhood: I grew up in a predominantly Sicilian neighbourhood, with a mafia maintaining order. No disorganised crime allowed. Putin did seem to have the instincts of a Sicilian mafia boss: quick to reward but quick to pose mortal risk in the event of non-conformity to the family rules.

    Looking back to those times of growing disarray in Russia’s leadership, I can recall the prolonged, multi-year paralysis of the Brezhnev Presidency, which was followed by the brief Presidencies of Andropov and Chernenko. Gorbachev was not strong enough to impose his will. Yeltsin had good ideas but was easily distracted and lacked follow through. Russia was in urgent need of a strong leader — and so Putin stepped in.

    As for how Putin sees himself, he did bring up several times his admiration for Peter the Great, so much so I was convinced he sees himself as his incarnation. I have not been a guest of the Kremlin since 1988, but I am told Putin had portraits of Peter the Great hung in several important meeting rooms there — rather than portraits of himself, as would be more customary. What this means for Biden, Nato and Ukraine is slowly becoming clear. There is more to Putin than meets the eye.

     

     

     

    Definitely interesting, thanks for posting.  The takeaway is ultimately that yes, Putin is little more than a thug.  But he's a smart thug.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  7. Unfortunately, this discussion has become too political in Austin to even reasonably discuss it, with both sides entrenched in completely irrational takes.  I expect this thread to follow the same pattern as every stupid Next Door thread on the topic.  Politics has left even the squishy middle incapable of discourse on just about every topic. No, check that. Every topic.

    • Hook 'Em 6
  8. As a general rule, you don't go in house to make more money.  But the serious reduction in stress and improved work/life balance can be well worth it depending on your situation.  Landing somewhere that you'll cash out with a bunch of money is almost a fairy tale any more.  VC will squeeze any value out of equity compensation, even though folks in all roles still fall for it.   If you're already on track for savings/retirement and enjoy long lunches, going in house from private practice can be glorious.

  9. 1 minute ago, dcbc said:

    So he told you she was infected?  Or did he lie and say it was allergies?

    Also, if she had the lemon cookies, those are bomb.

    I'm having one of the lemons cookies right now.  The bomb, indeed.

    He didn't lie, per se, but didn't correct me when I brought up how bad her allergies seemed.  He told a mutual friend about the Covid, which is how I found out. 

    • Rage+1 1
  10. A neighbor brought his daughter around the neighborhood door-to-door selling girl scout cookies this weekend, knowing she had an active Covid infection.  We discussed how bad her allergies seemed to be on my porch while I bought a bunch of fucking cookies.   Just counting the minutes till the symptoms kick in at this point. Also spending some quality time devising a plan for how to make the dad suffer interminably.

  11. 6 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    I told my wife that even if you are one of the smart kids that heads there for a value-priced good degree plan like engineering, with the way they accept marginal students those are the people you will be surrounded by for the first couple of years in dorms and basic freshman classes. So that’s the culture. 
    you either need to have been raised redass, be malleable enough to conform, or hate it. and if you hate it, what are your actual options?  Big decision for a 19 year old to have to make, on the heels of making the big decision of where to attend out of high school and having to/being able to admit that decision was a mistake.

    especially when you tell people you are going to aggy and half of your friends’ parents drone on about how it was the best thing they ever did, between whoops. 

    What do you mean by, "those . . .people"?

    I don't know why anyone goes to aggy.  Weird decision that many make though.  In spite of recognizing the difference in rankings,  I'm not sure the gap between an engineering degree at UT and A&M, or even TTU for that matter, is that significant in terms of earning potential and career prospects.  The ceiling may be marginally higher for UT grads, but the floor for a graduate from any of them is about the same.  The specific discipline certainly comes into play, with each having their respective weaker and stronger departments.  Culturally, of course, there is a world of difference between the three, and this is what matters most for those selecting where to study.  Someone who isn't comfortable with authoritarian circle jerking would have a hard time in college station, I would think.  But UT has gotten so difficult to get into, due to population growth more than anything else if we're being honest, that these kids have to go somewhere.  If you're a socially functional eighteen year old, I can't imagine staring down the barrel of attending aggy.

    • Haha 3
  12. Graduation rate is a data point that interests me in these discussions. UT, like every other school, massages these numbers to the point it's hard to really know the reality.

    I'm all for letting in kids who had a tougher road to get to the door over kids who perhaps had an easier go.  I think you have to be very careful with this type of system, however, as where to draw the line is not something you can really plug into analytics and get a concrete answer.   Ultimately, a flat meritocracy is the only truly clean way of handling admissions, but as other have noted it doesn't necessarily lead to the best overall result.  Figuring out how to balance more nebulous criteria will always be difficult and controversial.

    Back to graduation rates - if you let in kids who are weaker students based on their background, whether it's because of race/socioeconomics/disability or because daddy is buying a new library, you have to also supply resources that will help them take that step or you're just setting them up for failure. There's no glory in admitting a shitload of kids to your school when half of them never make it out, no matter what criteria you use to screen them.

    I also think that there is a lot of generalizing about "rich" kids in this thread, which I suspect also pervades admissions offices.  In our current climate, there are plenty of professionals with kids heading to college in the next decade who won't have their own student loans paid off by then.  Millennials had to borrow out the ass for school, especially for professional degrees, and then entered a world where they're having to pay double or more for a family home than what was happening just a few years ago.  Just because mom's a lawyer and dad's a pharmacist doesn't mean they can just pay for junior to go to school out of pocket.  The landscape is changing and tuition continues to skyrocket, and there won't be many people left at all who can afford to just pay their kids' way through school.  The notion that a successful mom and dad also means Junior will have an easy time finding work is also convoluted.  In some cases it will help, sure, but not all.

    In the end, American higher education is fucked up and needs serious fixing.  Other developed nations tend to have more specialized public universities, which are smaller than giant American public unis, and provide a solid landing spot for kids from all backgrounds and interests. In America, we tend to let expensive private college fill this niche, which makes it inaccessible to almost everyone.  Texas might be the most egregious example in the world of a government putting too many eggs into one basket instead of spreading public funding of higher education out.  The other, perhaps more important, part of the equation is that we don't spend near enough on higher education in general, leaving tuition too high and opportunities limited.

  13. 1 hour ago, Snake Diggity said:

    Same here, I subbed a total of <10 days a few years ago and it was enough to cure me of any notion I had that teaching was for me.  NOBODY subs for the money.  They are doing it out of boredom, training/experimentation, or charity.  You might get more applicants if you got up into the $30-40/hr range but I doubt it.

    I actually think that rather than throw money at salary increases they should instead dramatically lower the student/teacher ratio.  Not only would get better outcomes for the kids but also provides better insurance against staffing shortages.

    That would mean hiring more teachers, which would mean reducing bloated administrative costs, i.e. never gonna happen.

    • Like 1
  14. 11 hours ago, tchookem said:

    AISD raising substitute pay. Good for the people that are subbing, but I don't know that more money will really get many more people. Subbing is one of things that everyone thinks they can do... until they actually do it. I don't know if there's enough money to throw at this problem.

    https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/austin-isd-to-implement-substitute-pay-increase-beginning-next-week

    I did a bit of subbing as a young man between undergrad and law school.  It was one of the worst things I've ever done. 

    If I could take the time off from work now I might sign up just to help out, but I'm really glad that I can't.  Kids are acting like complete asshats for their regular teachers these days.  Can't even imagine what subs are dealing with.  Anyone doing it deserves respect.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...