Interesting definition, so if his crypto platform (hypothetical) is getting used by mafia and for 'tax minimisation' thats apolitical? And if I raise a stink about it, I am an activist?
Probably because none of these things exist in a vacuum. Simply because we give a title to an "area of political focus" doesn't mean that it exists in it's own silo, unimpaired by decisions in any other area of political focus.
What happens when your area of political focus crosses tracks with another area of political focus and you're faced with a trolley problem? Do you simply steam ahead regardless of the overall impact or do you consider the overall impact?
"That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen" [1] applies to all policies, not simply those undertaken by states.
For the record, I am pro sustainable fishing, sustainable foresty, tackling climate change, and eliminating malaria.
I think governments and dedicated organisations are best placed to do this: they can better enforce compliance, and have greater visibility on all of our pressing needs.
Of course it says that he left. That's how business works. "We agreed upon parting ways, so XY can focus on other projects." It's never "we kicked his ass and threw his stuff out".
> No. I don't think I am depressed. I just don't want life.
I'm sorry to hear you're going through this. In case you haven't tried professional support, it might help. In my experience they're pretty good at finding the cause of issues, which is a step towards improving it.
Polling has repeatedly shown very widespread public confusion over what Brexit will actually do. Even many remain voters don’t realise all the downsides.
The upsides of Brexit are generally, at best, very subjective and ephemeral (‘sovereignty’ in the sense of passport colour change) or outright imaginary (the EU is banning kettles and jam).
As a remain voter, I'm not best to advocate for the strengths of leave. As I'm sure you're aware, debate between remain and leave is difficult. Characterising sovereignty concerns as "passport colour change" won't start the conversation on the right path, however.
Please don't discredit the positions or the book solely from my my hazy memory of the book, but here goes:
* EU is a weakening trade bloc, so we're better off out of the customs union, and making trade deals that work for UK, rather than that work for the EU (example: cheaper tomatoes from Africa, that the EU will not make, since it'll make Spain/Italy worse off)
* UK's voting patterns within EU was anomolous: UK voted against policies far more than other countries anyway.
* UK public seems to have a max acceptable rate of immigration, and we may prefer more selective immigration policies (e.g. target the high skilled workers in India, China, Australia)
Those are meant to pique your interest in the book. I don't think starting a debate on HN will be productive, at least because I barely remember the book.
> Characterising sovereignty concerns as "passport colour change" won't start the conversation on the right path, however.
By that I meant that the Brexiter conception of sovereignty is heavily based on surface symbolism; the archetypical Brexiter is fine with taking US rules on food safety, in which they have no voice in making, if it means they can change the colour of the passport (which, of course, they could do within the EU anyway, but never mind). That is, Brexit is not generally actually concerned with sovereignty in any real sense, and Brexit Britain will lose control, not gain it.
I run and cycle, and don't bother tracking. I haven't put much thought in this decision.
I'm just interested in being fit (which I achieve with just shoes, and going for a run every ~3 days), not in achieving peak fitness or optimal training strategies.
I believe others benefit from tracking, which is fine too.
Great point. Maybe this is it?
I have been skeptical of work activism, but maybe it makes given the size of the lever (vs alternative activism options).