> he doesn't have the humility of accepting when he's wrong
Isn't he pretty far on the autistic spectrum? It can be very difficult for that kind of personality to re-evaluate something, once they think they have reached a "logical conclusion".
I'm not making excuses, just agreeing that the chances of him changing seem low.
I don't know, but I doubt it. He's too well adjusted at being social (his hobbies have him interact with people on the regular, and he's streaming on twitch, and doing public speaking at conferences) for me to think that.
> I don't understand how that kind of clause can be legal.
Arguably they promote a chilling effect around acquisitions, which does help competition: "don't try to buy something unless you're prepared to deal with a possible fallout" should result in fewer attempts at consolidating dominant positions.
I'd almost be tempted to posit that such a clause should become mandatory for deals over a certain threshold (e.g. $1bn), with amounts determined according to certain parameters.
It's not an easy call. Sometimes, one or two dedicated and competent people can vastly outperform large and bureaucratic consulting firms, for a fraction of the price. And sometimes, somebody's cousin "who knows that internet stuff" is trousering inflated rates at the taxpayer's expense, while credentialed and competent professionals are shut out from old boys' networks. One rule does not fit all.
It would work if old boys' networks were not the de facto pool that the establishment hired from. The one time where UK GOV did go out and hire the best of the best in the private sector regardless of what Uni they went to we got GDS and it worked very well, but it seems like an exception to usual practice.
No, it's designed to maximize what they can raise without pissing off too many voters. Even as it is, it's going to raise barely half a billion pounds, which is relatively insignificant in a budget worth hundreds of billions; but it's something, and something they (think they) can sell to their core electorate as a bit of token redistribution, when in reality it's just a cash-raising exercise.
If they'd targeted the really rich harder, it would have looked more consistent but would have probably raised even less (because, when a tax starts being significant, the really rich have the means to find ways to avoid it). As it is, it looks insignificant enough that the really wealthy will just pay it and move on.
> because, when a tax starts being significant, the really rich have the means to find ways to avoid it
Taxes on property are something they cannot avoid though.
One of the reasons the rich are able to find means to avoid taxes has always been government reluctance to stop them. There are many deliberate tax breaks for the rich - think of how long it took to get rid of non-dom status, so I really do not think the government has ever tried very hard to stop avoidance by the rich.
There are plenty of loopholes and corner cases, you just need skilled accountants and lawyers (companies registered abroad, etc etc). That's why there is legislation about "ultimate ownership" and such: authorities are increasingly desperate about being able to prove who owns what.
Starmer does not really care about not pissing off too many voters. He already has but he is also safe from them as the next election is far away. On the other hand, he is at risk, high risk, from his own party so he does what placates them. We've seen it before with private schools, now again with the 2-child cap, for instance.
Regardless of agreeing with the advice, a 41yo giving advice on surviving the 40s seems a bit arrogant. Being 41 is different from 46 which is different from 49, and he just doesn't know yet. The right title should be "how I feel after a year in my 40s".
It's his strategy going forward. He isn't saying he completed his 40s at the age of 41. You would prefer he share his strategy for 40s at 50? Seems pedantic.
Relationship with fathers are not easy even at the best of times, there are a bunch of factors that complicate things. Somewhat ironically, having a relationship with a stranger can be much easier and liberating. It's a bit like talking about your problems with a barman.
I have much easier relationship with other son's peers than him. And I love him to no end and we do lots of hugs and are generally close.
But your own kids have seemingly this special superpower to get you pissed off to extreme levels (both for men and women) that no other situation in adult life can ever come close to. We as adults learnt the easy or hard way some form of basic empathy required when communicating with others, while kids lack it. Like doing 20x the same thing that pisses you off while ignoring your kind calm words - where else do you experience it, in your face, with big grin on top of that?
I've see it many times - people who are otherwise calm and relaxed get turned to 11 in seconds by their offsprings doing something stupid, arrogant or dangerous. Bonus points if its any form of unprovoked aggression towards other kids, especially younger/weaker.
I don’t share the nostalgia for burbonic rule, but I have to point out that the fact that they lost does not mean that they were not invaded. Both things can be true.
In some cases it has to do with nostalgy, for whatever reason.
In most cases it has to do more with the fact that the South is primarily used as a way to steer/control the elections.
Garibaldi used local (criminal) lords, the "picciotti", to achieve what he needed. A bit like today they would use local criminals to subjugate the population. Those criminals stayed until Mussolini decided to deal with them. And again they got freed by the Allies to save the country from Fascism.
You could wipe out the mafia, make the land rich and use it, but there is not just enough interest to do so.
On the contrary, the only interest is to use that land to move to the next step, never to actually use whatever is there. This is what makes people nostalgic or sad.
Isn't he pretty far on the autistic spectrum? It can be very difficult for that kind of personality to re-evaluate something, once they think they have reached a "logical conclusion".
I'm not making excuses, just agreeing that the chances of him changing seem low.
reply