I’ve worked for at least two largish NZ firms where I’ve never met my direct manager’s boss. It’s wierd and dysfunctional.
Don't be stupid. Management don't talk to staff, that would be demeaning for them. They might sometimes tell you what to think but they certainly don't want your thoughts. They're managers they don't need your input just your slavish loyalty.
You call that an experiment? No replication, no control?
What you want more than n=1?? Whadarya some kind of referee or something!
i'm not a techie so maybe i'm just not in the target
No the point is Jobs doesn't appeal to techies, he appeals to users.
His contribution is best measured by the difference in apple before and after he left the first time. One man should not have that much influence but the experiment showed he did.
The interesting thing now will be whether the "company" has integrated his influence in a way that won't disappear with his absence.
just make an association from Key to mincing to (presumably) less masculine (or gay)
Pretty sure it was in reference to his performance on the catwalk which, rather than being an example of leet modeling skillz, demonstrated that he should stay behind the desk and resist all urges to compete for NZ Top Model. He really did mince, it was kind of amusing, and I'm sure Colin Marthura-Jeffree would have told him off. Nothing to do with his abilities as a politician.
then voting for Green or Mana doesn’t actually detract from Labour’s chances of winning an election
I disagree. Regardless of how stupid it might be, the public likes to vote for the "winning team". That way they feel like winners. By splitting the leftish vote both Green and Labour are seen as losers even if they combine to form the government . And yes I think that is stupid but it is an effect you see as polls start to influence votes.
In some ways it is still a legacy from pre-MMP thinking and that fact that New Zealanders are still not really used to the idea of coalition government.
One way around it might be for Labour/Green to form a public coalition right now so that it becomes obvious to everyone that the National/ACT coalition is balanced pretty closely with the Green/Labour coalition. ie if you vote Green or Labour it is not a wasted vote and you can be a winner.
What that might require is a commitment from both Labour and Green to stand together on everything. For example the stupid idea of Goff debating with Key as if it was a two party race would be off the table.
Instead we have Goff led Labour (snort) pretending it is a major party and The Greens running around saying "well shucks we can do a deal with nice Mr Key - he even provides vegan food at his meetings so we're all good with that". And yes I was being deliberately insulting because when adults behave like five year olds they deserve to be insulted.
For Labour/Green it is about making certain National/ACT can't sell the country to the highest bidder and then retire to the Gold Coast, if that means setting aside pretenses about being a "major party" then so be it.
if the question’s been framed as “do you prefer the Yellow peril owning all your shit or making some rich prick cry?” (and I can’t find the questions asked anywhere),
Voters were asked which they prefer; partial asset sales or Labour’s capital gains tax.
53 percent of respondents said they preferred capital gains tax
31 percent said they preferred asset sales
16 percent said neither, or didn’t know
Just 51.5 percent of National voters like the idea.
32 percent – one in three National voters – said they preferred Phil Goff’s policy
16 percent said neither, or didn’t know.
The question was reasonably neutral.
It wasn't 51.5% of Nat voters liking CGT it was 51.5% liking asset sales
Only a third of Nat voters like CGT, a large minority but not enough to concern National.
It does remain puzzling that what is largely seen as a good policy by half of all voters (CGT) is not enough to cause voters to vote Labour. My personal feeling is it is a loss of confidence in Labour Leadership and since the election has very much been framed as about leaders ...
Most haiku are about Autumn
not as consciously awful as what senior officers did later
Yeah this is the bit that worries me the most.
which is also not just a matter of handing around a few factsheets
Yeah I don't believe it will be that simple either. I don't think changing attitudes is easy. But I really do think at least at the very front line it was mostly just complete ignorance, they simply had no clue that someone on the autism spectrum might react differently under stress.
I'm just very conscious that us humans can get very stubborn when blame is being assigned. I'd really hope we can avoid getting to the point where police won't listen at all, and yes maybe they are already there :(.
Much as I'd personally like to smack someone over the back of the head for what has happened in this case, I think there is probably a good case for proceeding in a measured careful way from here.
The aim surely is to create understanding and awareness in the police that people on the spectrum are not easy to assess particularly in the heat of the moment where they are most likely to stress out.
As I said going on a hunt to find the particular officers involved might be fun but it isn't likely to engender any kind of willingness for the police to learn from their errors.
One thing it seems to me is needed is some kind of instruction sheet that can help police identify when they are dealing with something other than a bog standard criminal. Ignorance seems to have been the problem and ignorance can be cured reasonably easily.
Given that the police almost certainly know they f'ed up badly and are likely embarrassed at many levels it seems likely that they might be willing at the moment to work quite hard to develop better practices rather than have folks focus on who should be blamed. While less emotionally satisfying it might be the best long term approach.