itsprobablyfine

I think you're missing their point. They aren't saying they are going to do that, or that it's a good idea, they're saying enough people are going to react that way for it to be a problem. It's not good enough to be correct, you need to be convincing. Just because I can hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil doesn't mean I'm not concerned that not everyone will.

So dumb. Also insanely naively hopeful/optimistic.

I remember when I was a teenager and starting to question religion I talked to my sister about it a little. She was certain that if we didn't have Christianity that everyone would just be going around raping and killing each other. I was super confused at the time (cause I was a child) but a little later realized oh, she has no empathy or morals, no internal sense of right and wrong....and she doesn't know that other people actually do. The convo was confusing because at the time I didn't understand her at all when she asked things like 'without hell what would stop you from killing people?'. A little later I started thinking about how many people thought this way and if it was possibly enough to f up a democracy. Anyway here we are

I accepted it when I was a teenager. What's difficult is getting people that grew up in loving families to comprehend that I'm not anti family, and would love to have a family I could talk to, but the one I was born into are unempathtic narracisstic Nazis.

'Have you tried x? Have you tried y? I don't think you're trying z enough'

One close friend recently married into a similar family and it's been super eye opening for them.

When I meet magas one of the questions I like to ask is something along the lines of describe your ideal healthcare system. 90% basically describe Medicare for all. I clarify, get more detail (basically make them really think about it as much as possible), and then ask which candidates or party they believe is in line with them. Obvs I want to avoid backing them in a corner so don't say 'Aha you're a socialist!'. Rather, I work though it with them, google candidates and see what their policy is. Bonus points when half the R websites don't even have policy so they can see that. Anyway we generally get to the point that they think they might be left of both parties on that issue. And then I try to plant a seed that this is a totally normal process for figuring out who to support and get out of there while they feel some mutual respect between us. It's harder these days when the fascism is so blatant but I don't know what else to do when I find myself living in a democracy with a bunch of insane people

I recognize you're doing some form or devils advocate and I appreciate that. I grew up in the ruins of one of those cities and it really helped define my political beliefs. I think it's important to not suddenly frame NAFTA as this wonderful thing just because trump opposes it. There is a real reckoning we need to have as a country when it comes to rebuilding our industrial base. Are tariffs the answer? Almost certainly not, but that doesn't mean that the people asking for them are completely delusional. Trump is capitalizing on a real pain that people are feeling, and have felt for a generation now. I wish we had a proper progressive to reframe the debate. It's not about us vs Canada, it's about the disgustingly wealthy vs everyone else. You don't want people to support tariffs? Then we need real left wing populist arguments.

I know it's stupid. Being right should be good enough. But it's not. We need to be convincing. And not 'republican lite' convincing - more like teddy Roosevelt f'ing come at me unabashed progressivism convincing.

I mean presumably he's getting a pile of money. Or there's kompramat. Or, more likely, both. Also he just likes when people talk to him like he's special, I'm sure it took the KGB all of 6 seconds to figure that out and take advantage of it

If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be it's author and finisher

Yeah my assumption would be that it was open on both sides, otherwise it wouldn't be deenergized. But that doesn't mean you can't get induced current flow. Let's say our dead line shares a tower with a high voltage live line. Our dead line has multiple ground connections via undergrowth. The live line experiences a line to ground fault, creating high currents in its faulted phase but also a ground potential rise at the fault location. So now our dead line is experiencing possible potential differences between its many ground locations as well as induced current. This current would be inherently directed to the lower potential ground which in this case is likely via a tree branch. I don't think it would take much current or much time for that to create a fire.

Again, I don't think any of this is particularly likely, but I don't think it's out of the question either. At the very least it's the kind of question industry should always be asking itself

My first reaction is also pretty skeptical. That said, while the article was written by someone not really in the industry it is an interesting question. We know normal line operations create mutual inductances...I think if there were a dead line that temporarily shared a ROW or even a tower with an energized line could be subject to this. Esp during a fault on the energized line.

Basically, I think it's unlikely but it's definitely not impossible and is probably worth looking into

Yeah but I think there is something to be said for him not being like other presidents. As much as I dislike a lot of former presidents I don't think democracy was at stake. I think him being openly fascist kind of changes the game a bit so I don't know how good of comparisons those are. Which is super not comforting if true

This is interesting because I very deliberately try the opposite. My top priority is always making time for helping colleagues. Most of my industry is super green and the young staff require a lot of training/attention if you want them to develop well/quickly. It means when I first started my team things were a bit hectic, but years later it basically runs itself. I always prioritize investing in individuals so that when things pile up I've got 20 people I can delegate to. What's more, this is cultural at this point so they all do the same. It's basically a positive feedback loop at this point where things just sort of work cause everyone knows what they're doing.

There is another team next to mine that is run a lot like how you're describing and they are constantly missing schedules/going over budget/having quality issues cause the lead 'doesnt have time right now'. Except right now is all the time and none of the staff seem to know what they're doing and are all super frustrated.

Anyway, all that to say I think how you structure these kinds of things depends a lot on what kind of work you do, what kind of team environment you have, and what your overall goals are. Could I be individually more productive if I told everyone else to go away? Absolutely yes, I'd get 3 times as much done, but the team overall would be less efficient.

I also don't work outside work hours, and neither does anyone else on my team because we're efficient enough at work to plan out and execute 40 hours of work per person per week. The same can't be said for that other team where the lead goes home and everyone else is left confused working crazy OT.

Your way seems to work for you, but I think it is important to note that there is no 'right' approach for all situations. One needs to define the objectives and then determine what the best approach for accomplishing those might be for that particular role. In short, it's complicated. And anyone who says it's not is generally trying to sell something