If you mean, by reporting statistics, you’re probably right. But men in general are widely used to physical abuse and are expected to take it. Granted, it is rarely significantly harmful and women use it as a way to reassure themselves that men are “in charge “ or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is vile behavior.
Men’s behavior is as much shaped by female expectations as the behavior of women is molded by men.
Like it or not, we’re in this together, and cooperation with mutual understanding and benefit is the only way forward. We can see what happens when this breaks down, as in sharia law. How do you think this ends if we ceaselessly demonize men? Shame has its limits, and they start where the violence begins.
Of -reported- incedents, 1 in 4 women report having been the victim of significant physical harm by an intimate partner, as do 1 in 7 men. Now if you consider the comparative likelihood of severe physical harm in M vs F and F vs M, and factor in the likelihood of reporting for women vs men, I think you can see that the rate is not at all what it seems at first glance.
(FWIW, despite the relative -frequency- of incidents , I do agree that the danger is greater to women just on the basis of the likelihood of harm in a MvF conflict.)
Reported incidence of psychological/emotional abuse are almost exactly at parity, with just under half of both sexes reporting abuse in their lifetime. Physical abuse prevalence in lesbian relationships is also much higher than either heterosexual or male-male relationships.
From this I would estimate that the willingness to act out in violence against a domestic partner is something close to evenly distributed among the sexes.
Collection of definitive data about subjects such as this is notoriously difficult, but reading between the lines both here and in violence among youth (m-m, f-f, m/f) seems to indicate that the predilection, if not the severity, of violence is relatively evenly distributed among.
I work for an global company in the industrial automation space. Not only is there is a major effort underway to offshore jobs and manufacturing from the US, but our customers around the world are pulling way back on capital expenditures, citing US policy uncertainties as a primary reason.
A multi-million dollar company I help start, in the Midwest USA, had manufacturing, customer service, R&D, and shipping all in the same state. After being bought by Texas VCs, everything moved out of the area. They don't want to run and build a business, they want to make X millions in Y years.
To do this, manufacturing moved to South Korea, customer service to some Asian country, slashed R&D by removing QA, and shipped the other jobs to a more _cost effect state_ not in the Midwest. Everyone that had institutional knowledge was fired to reduce cost of employee salaries.
Note you want QA because it is a life safety solution. Speaking with former colleagues, the quality of the solution went down hill while the price kept rising.
In my current company, all assembly jobs were removed from in-state and shipped to a more _cost effect state_ before the end of 2025. This also affects the end user because I can no longer go to assembly and test software changes or custom hardware changes before the product ships.
Jobs are not being lost because of unskilled people, they are being lost to help the rich get richer.
> Jobs are not being lost because of unskilled people, they are being lost to help the rich get richer.
Indeed, imagine you're part of the wealthy elite. What you want is to be able to move your cash around the world, chasing cash growth. You also want yourself to be able to travel wherever you wish with your Gulfstream.
Why would they care about local midwest job growth ?
You don't have to be communist, you just have to be selective about the capitalists you engage with.
An business mentor of mine bootstrapped a highly profitable enterprise software company, growing it to 400 employees. When it was time to sell/retire, he vetted buyers not just for the money they could offer, but for the impact they would have on his team and community. He accepted an offer from a conservatively-run competitor and proudly told me that 5 years later, 90% of the original staff were still happily employed with the new owner.
These arrangements are simply not an option if you're beholden to VC, or entertain offers from Private Equity. You cannot preserve what you do not own.
Packaging. Boxes, shippers, pallets, parts transports for use within automotive and other factories, etc. Very little direct to consumer or display stuff.
Analysts use packaging companies as a canary for manufacturing in general.
Interesting! I am familiar with this space as we developed a software tool [0] to optimize packaging based on 3D packing technology we developed. If it is relevant to you, happy to chat!
We currently use ArtiosCAD and TOPS pro for load and pallet optimization. I'll check out your software and forward over to the people-that-sign-the-checks.
> The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF)
"MP" is the pilot
> A conference hotel is a call that can be initiated by the SOF to speak directly with Lockheed Martin
engineers to discuss an abnormality/malfunction not addressed in the PCL (Tab V-13.1, 14.1, 15.1,
16.1, 17.1). While waiting for the conference hotel to convene, the MP initiated a series of “sturns” with gravitational forces up to 2.5Gs, as well as a slip maneuver (i.e., left stick input with
full right rudder pedal) to see if the nose wheel orientation would change (Tabs N-12, BB-201-
02). Upon visual inspection, the MW reported no change to the nose wheel (Tab N-13).
The SOF informed the MP he was on the phone with the conference hotel and Lockheed Martin
were getting the LG subject matter experts (SME)
So the pilot was, in effect, on the call, even if not directly on the phone. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing an F-35 pilot had radio comms with the SOF who was on a phone line. It's a layer of indirection, but the pilot was essentially exchanging info in real time with the conference call. Its not a stretch to colloquially say that the pilot was "in the conference call"
And you'll see that Washington D.C. doesn't make the top ten for rates of any of the major violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) nor for the "Total" violent crime.
So you're fine with USAID funding the development of Covid-19 through EcoHealthAlliance (it's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt) and you're even finer with USAID then financing media (like the BBC and Politico but so many are very likely recipients of these funds) to do the coverup and pretend that it "couldn't have possibly been a lab-leak"?
If you're not fine with that, how do we suggest we even fix this?
The USAID literally financed the development of a virus that killed tens of millions of people worldwide. And then it greased many wheels to try to make people believe it couldn't possibly have been a lab-leak.
Trump just asked an audit of all the US donations that have been made to Ukraine: this looked like one of the biggest operation of money laundering in a long time.
Could I get a source of proof for the USAID-EcoHealthAlliance funding and development? I’m googling a lot of variations but I can’t find a good article. Just curious. Thanks.
In watch mode, LlamaFS starts a daemon that watches your directory. It intercepts all filesystem operations, updates i and uses your most recent edits in context to proactively learn and how, so you don't learns predict how you rename file. e.g. if you create a folder for 2023 tax documents, and start moving 1-3 file in it, LlamaFS will automatically creates, and move the right!”
Come again? Was AI used to generate the documentation?
reply