Are you perhaps referring to this: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/

I am.

And ignoring this:

Ignoring? I wrote off Amnesty International when they made their position and criteria clear to me in the first article. I spent no time going back to see more of the same, but for you here, I’m looking agian:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/europe-and-central-asia/eastern-europe-and-central-asia/ukraine/

I see many similar criticisms of Ukraine, so this doesn’t help your argument with me with this one.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/ukraine/

This links back to the same content from the first link. So this appears to be a duplicate.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/protect-civilians-ukraine

This is criticism of Russia, which does nothing to change their position on Ukraine from the first article.

https://amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/ukraine-russia-three-years-since-invasion/

This is more criticism of Russia, which does nothing to change their position on Ukraine from the first article.

https://www.amnesty.eu/news/ukraine-justice-and-victims-rights-must-be-at-the-forefront-to-end-war/

And finally this is yet more criticism of Russia, which does nothing to change their position on Ukraine from the first article.

If anything the links you posted feel like backpedaling for Amnesty for their original 2022 position which caught them so much backlash and donors fleeing.

I’m the owner of a small business, so I am deeply familiar with this equation. The way we solve it is to “look for talent where no one else is looking” (actually strategy)

I applaud your efforts but I’m not seeing how this addresses the problem of bringing someone on that can’t generate revenue nearly immediately. In decades past, the “grunt work” a new person could do would cover some or all of their costs until they were trained up enough to be revenue positive. This system worked well until customers stopped paying for the grunt work some time ago (because of automation).

then train the shit out of and mentor them (informal strategy).

This isn’t without cost though. It could take the form of formal paid training, or loss of revenue generation from your own hours because you’re spending them training up someone from scratch. Where are you deciding for that to come from in the organization? What loses so the new worker wins? Is there perhaps another piece of your industry I don’t know about that invalidates my question?

My managers are expected to be better than and train the staff to do their work

Up to a certainly level I agree, but especially in technical roles there are folks that are fantastic technologists, but horrible people managers. There are good people managers, that aren’t good technologists. Those are two different skill sets. I’m not saying someone can’t have both, but that person is generally much more rare/valuable/expensive than two people each doing their role. There’s the other part that a person may be capable of both skills but doesn’t like to do one of them. Making workers do work they hate is a fast way to have them quit.

Edit: I hold myself to this same standard, which makes it easier to expect it if others.

For short bursts I can see that, but that doesn’t sound sustainable. How do you protect yourself from burnout? You’re wearing 3 full time hats:

• delivering/producing your product or service
• training staff
• running the business tactically (day to day operations) and strategically (vision, goals, investment decisions)

These are all honest questions on my part as I’d love to find out someone has these answers I don’t.

I am no fan of trump nor his destruction of our democracy, but Amnesty International has zero credibility with me anymore after it accused Ukraine of violating international humanitarian law in defending itself against the 2022 invasion by Russia.

Leadership at most businesses have decided it is easier to hire experienced workers rather than grow and develop the next generation workforce.

Sadly this isn’t new to 2025. In 2008 I was working at an employer that said this to my face when I asked for a paid training class on a tool we were using in our production “We don’t train. We hire trained workers.” This was a shockingly bad admission about the corporate culture there with implications I immediately grasped. Whats more, I looked around at my coworkers that had been there for 5 or 10 years, and I saw he was right. All of them were using old skills on old out-of-date tools which I quickly realized also forced them to stay at that employer because no other employer was using those out-of-date tools anymore so they couldn’t switch jobs easily. I’d like to say I quit shortly afterward, but if you see that year you’ll know what was coming. I was happy to have a job during the great recession, even at an employer that had these toxic ideas.

People entering the workforce are at an extreme disadvantage without a training, mentorship and ongoing support.

I agree with this, and wanting to be part of the solution, I thought about becoming a mentor. However, the path I took (entry level, working up) is closed. I can’t say I have a great suggestion for an alternative for those I would mentor. They’re walking a path I didn’t take. I’d be figuring it out with them, but if I gave them bad advice, it could have massive negative implications on their career. Further, they’re saddled with way more debt than I was during that time in life, which means they need to be more risk averse than I was. I’ve done some mentoring to the younger generation, but I haven’t felt as useful to them as I had hoped to be, or as mentors I had coming up, were to me.

My general opinion of business leadership is not high, but this situation really exposes the depth of their laziness and lack of forethought.

Perhaps at a megacorp perspective it might be different, but for a small employer its not nearly that simple.

Each employee you have brings a cost (paycheck, employment taxes, healthcare subsidies, HR overhead, IT support burden, etc). These costs are worth it to pay because that employee produces something that brings in revenue at or above their costs. If that new employee cannot perform work that brings in revenue, then those costs have to come from somewhere else. Most solvent companies do have a war chest of savings that could be drawn from, but those savings are also used to weather periods of poor sales to keep paying employees or possible to pay for cost overruns if there is a mistake made by an employee that the company has to pay for. The war chest is not infinitely deep.

Further, this war chest money is also where raises come from. Any extra cost to the company has to be paid, and the raises or bonuses come from what remains. So if you bring on an untrained worker that isn’t able to produce enough to cover their costs, the costs for that worker is essentially being paid through the money that would otherwise be raises for the employees that are covering their costs and generating more. You risk pissing off or discouraging your best people with lackluster raises or bonuses by trying to bring on someone that can’t carry their weight. If you do that too much, your best people leave. Your company will fold shortly afterward with your talent departing. Your middle-of-the-road folks lose their jobs because the company went under.

There used to be “grunt work” that was capable of being done by new workers with little to no training. The work itself was an exercise that did partial training of the new worker. However, with automation, most of that work its gone. With repair costs being more expensive than replacement, that’s another avenue for training lost. There’s a “hollowing out” in the workforce ladder where you, as a new worker, might get one or two rungs up the ladder, but when you look to go higher you see dozens of rungs missing before you’d be able to climb again.

I recognize the problems, but I don’t have a solution. I doesn’t help that many companies war chests of funds are being eviscerated by trump tariffs or poisoning of international markets and business relations by trump’s antics.

The GOP is doing a great job of building the opposition campaign slogan: “The GOP kept the government shut down for X days for the sole purpose of denying Americans access to healthcare.”

All the end game content is multiplayer raids, but this is the problem of putting together a group to run it. Also everyone wants to DPS and not a single player wants to play support.

TIL: god loves tooth decay /s

Bravo to all those reporters rejecting this new opaque authoritarian!

Here’s the second most important piece of into in the article:

Only the conservative One America News Network signed on.

I’m guessing starch.

trump seems to have no problems wearing that title.

…and perhaps most importantly: compound interest

This applies not only to growth, but to debt.

“our fries”.

desires a system where the larger and stronger crabs should have their pick of the housing market and less powerful (smaller) crabs simply have to take whatever smaller, less desirable housing is left over.

Power and strength have nothing to do with it, they aren’t fighting over who gets the bigger shell, they’re trading.

If there are two crabs each with a need for the large shell, they will fight over it. Power of the winner can absolutely determines the outcome of who gets the shell (or who may die trying).

“In the field, we also occasionally observed 2 or 3 tug-of-war queues radiating out from a single vacant shell, with the largest crabs in each queue struggling to gain controlof the vacant shell. Such tug-of-wars between multiple queues appeared to inhibit vacancy chains as in some cases this situation lasted up to 4h without any crabs moving into the vacant shell. These findings indicate that the formation of hermit crab queues and other linear dominance hierarchies involves more complex social interactions than previously thought(Chaseetal.2002).”

source: Social context of shell acquisition in Coenobita clypeatus hermit crabs.PDF

Smaller doesn’t mean less desirable, [snip] They want a shell that fits there size, not the biggest one.

It doesn’t always, but it can absolutely mean less desirable. If two equal size crabs both have a need for the larger shell, and there is only one larger shell, then shells that are too small are less desirable (undesired?).

otherwise the small crabs would not give up the big shell voluntarily.

Apparently there are circumstances when the smaller crab doesn’t give up voluntarily, and is instead ripped in half by the larger crab.

This system takes into account size as opposed to our current housing system, which is all about power (in the form of wealth). We’d be better off if we considered size as we have a lot of small families in big houses (wealthy empty nesters) and big families in small houses (poorer families just starting off in a small apt) and redistribution those could help both parties.

Your are stating a subjective opinion. Your opinion is certainly valid, but it is not a fact.

The problem is that we are in a “bigger is better” mindset, and that empty nest family doesn’t want to give up their house even though they don’t need it.

Its not nearly as simple as “bigger is better” for that empty nest example. If it were, we’d see empty nesters (which are typically at the height of the lifetime wealth) automatically purchasing even larger houses when the kids leave into adulthood. That isn’t typically what happens. They keep the current home they had when they had children.

Again, I’m playing devils advocate here to highly a cynical take. This isn’t my position.

The crab that waved the others down doesn’t benefit more than any other crab, it’s just a mutually beneficial redistribution of shells

You’re assuming a perfect distribution of resources equal to the needs of all, but studies show it doesn’t always work out that way and there’s a hierarchy and a struggle for the prime resources in the hermit crab society.

“In the field, we also occasionally observed 2 or 3 tug-of-war queues radiating out from a single vacant shell, with the largest crabs in each queue struggling to gain controlof the vacant shell. Such tug-of-wars between multiple queues appeared to inhibit vacancy chains as in some cases this situation lasted up to 4h without any crabs moving into the vacant shell. These findings indicate that the formation of hermit crab queues and other linear dominance hierarchies involves more complex social interactions than previously thought(Chaseetal.2002).”

source: Social context of shell acquisition in Coenobita clypeatus hermit crabs.PDF

Once again, I don’t have a horse in this race, I’m just participating in the discussion, not advocating policy or reflecting my views on our human society.

The crab story could just as easily be cynically re-written as an example of capitalism/free-market approach.

Conclusions are in our own interpretations. Here’s an example of a cynical take of the same situation:

I just learned that if a hermit crab finds a new shell that is too big, it will wait for other hermit crabs

So a less powerful crab cannot take full advantage of the shell, but recognizes its value to larger more powerful crabs. This is also an argument for scalping. If you find an expensive console or GPU which you can’t afford long term, but you know you could carry the debt temporarily, you could buy it yourself then sell it to someone else later who could afford long term and you would personally pocket the profit. It could be argued that thats what the original-large-shell-finding small crab here is doing: scalping.

who need new shells to gather and then they will organize themselves by size and trade shells.

The original smaller crab knows that larger crab will cast off its current shell, which would be substantially better than the shell the smaller crab has, so it can still personally gain from finding the big shell it can’t use, but its accepting a hand-me-down cast off only when the larger more powerful crab gets something better.

and I am pissed that the crabs have a better housing market than we do.

So the poster desires a system where larger and stronger crabs should have their pick of the housing market, and less powerful crabs simply have to take whatever smaller, less desirable housing, is left over.

Again, this is just a different interpretation for the meme. I’m not advocating for a position.

Kind of. AI is now the catch all now but that’s because LLM were called generative AI. So the older terms all followed suit to catch the hype train. But most of the problems with AI are LLM specifics.

Generative AI is a specific subset of Deep Learning, which is a subset of Machine Learning, which is a subset of AI. Generative AI includes more than just LLMs. It also includes the image and video AI creations. There are also GenAI than makes music.

Machine Learning is typically creating versions of things that existed prior, or recreating things from behavior extracted from prior data. Deep Learning is similar but employs neural networks of various types. The distinction between GenAI and Deep Learning is that GenAI creates something that never existed before, essentially original works.

Your base point in this conversation stands though. The Deep Learning used in science for analyzing patterns or behavior in, say, biology, is very different (and its more useful) than GenAI and the slop it can produce.

You…are aware that in this posting the original image is blurred right? No amount of settings will change that for this joke post @cm0002@sh.itjust.works. Are you trolling me instead?

I mean, if you don’t want it blurred in the thumbnail, turn off that option in your Lemmy profile:

Great example of this is Oklahoma.

A counter example is Kansas. GOP Sam Brownback, elected in 2011, destroyed the state’s economy following harsh right-wing philosophies turning the state into what many called “Brownbackistan” referencing his authoritarian approach. Brownback resigned at the lowest point after all his damage was done. The GOP lieutenant governor finished out the remaining 1 year of the term. At the next election in 2019 Democrat Laura Kelly won the office. She’s still governor to this day having been re-elected in 2022.