🤷‍♀️🧙‍♂️ True or false? 🙄❓

@Fyuuj, i cann tell you there are some companies in the Netherlands who already have a 4 days week.

example is Afas

https://www.afas.nl/persbericht/afas-voert-vierdaagse-werkweek-in-voor-alle-medewerkers

@Fyuuj, i cann tell you there are some companies in the Netherlands who already have a 4 days week.

example is Afas

https://www.afas.nl/persbericht/afas-voert-vierdaagse-werkweek-in-voor-alle-medewerkers

I stand corrected 🙂. We are a more heterogeneous mass than I assumed.

This is interesting: List of countries by average annual labor hours - Wikipedia

It is outdated, but I know at least that Germany still has the lowest labour hours in entire Europe

@Etienne For some time, I thought the same about true democracy not being efficient nor effective, if that is what you were meant. By true democracy you probably mean the most granular decision making process possible?

Not really, it's more in terms of where we're going. I'll give you 2 examples:

- In France, ~60% of people rely on the state in some way or another to get money (students + unemployed + pensioners + state workers). Since it is objectively in the majority's interest to keep pressuring the private sector (companies and their workers), you start a vicious cycle where those who create value bear an ever growing burden of those who don't. In this case, democracy is detrimental to a healthy society and it is a slippery slope (Venezuela and Argentina are more extreme examples).

- true democracy means everyone should have equal say in everything. I think that's silly, I'd much rather want educated and smart elites leading the nation rather than my next door baker, as much as I like him. Don't get me wrong I'm definitely not in love with our elites, but democracy without strong education and moral values isn't worth much either - and I feel like these are rapidly eroding. I'm not too sure what the best solution would be, I just doubt democracy would be the holy solution to all our problems.

Whenever I vote, I wonder about all the independent candidates we know little to nothing about simply because they do not have the financial resources to compete. I once read that in the US, there is a VERY strong correlation between campaign spending and winning party. An we are only talking about 2 parties here.

Yes there is a strong correlation between spending and election scores, just as much as there is between exposure time and score (funds are used to increase exposure, so we're talking about the same thing). That said, the last few weeks prior to presidential elections in France, all media channels are required to give the exact same amount of time to all candidates to address this issue. And it doesn't change the end scores too much.

I think true democracy can actually be great. One would just have to find a smart solution for the decision making procedure.

There are a bunch of videos on YouTube explaining different systems that could work much better than ours. I think I remember the best system to be ranking parties in order of preference instead of just voting for a single one (of course this only applies to elections with 3+ parties/candidates)

Not really, it's more in terms of where we're going. I'll give you 2 examples:

- In France, ~60% of people rely on the state in some way or another to get money (students + unemployed + pensioners + state workers). Since it is objectively in the majority's interest to keep pressuring the private sector (companies and their workers), you start a vicious cycle where those who create value bear an ever growing burden of those who don't. In this case, democracy is detrimental to a healthy society and it is a slippery slope (Venezuela and Argentina are more extreme examples).

I must confess, I do not get the relationship between government spending and democracy. I would differentiate between the means of governing and the outcome thereof. An example of a country with the same offers would even outstanding in many regards is Saudi Arabia and they are far from being democratic.

I would argue that the examples you gave are even in favour of real democracy. We all know how much of an influence corporate greed has on politics. It is not labelled corruption, but come on 😃. You can influence the decision making of the few. You cant influence the decision making of the many once the few are taking out of the equation.

- true democracy means everyone should have equal say in everything. I think that's silly, I'd much rather want educated and smart elites leading the nation rather than my next door baker, as much as I like him. Don't get me wrong I'm definitely not in love with our elites, but democracy without strong education and moral values isn't worth much either - and I feel like these are rapidly eroding. I'm not too sure what the best solution would be, I just doubt democracy would be the holy solution to all our problems.

We pretty much have opposing views here. Yes education is important, but it is no secret, that not only wealth is inherited, but brains as well. People don`t make decisions that are in the interest of the others. The make decisions that are in the interest of their kind. That is the very role of political parties, although one could debate who is meant by "their kind". "Smart elite" is no more than a symbol and stigma and symbols are best left to the symbol minded. First and for most it is "public relations". Being smart and being intelligent are two different things and being smart doesn`t mean you`re an elite and being an elite doesn`t mean you are smart.

There is a reason we have a minimum age for voting. We obviously trust the baker to make an educated decision when voting based on what the parties presented, but do not trust him to make an educated decision concerning direct decision making? Also when talking about group dynamics, which we are when taking about democracy, It is important to free ones self from the idea of an individual and rather think about the swarm, because intensive studies on the topic have shown that the nature of groups do not necessarily reflect the nature of the individual. The baker has a vote, just the lawyer, mathematician, historian has. If the majority is not educated enough to make intelligent decisions. We should ask ourselves why that is ?

Also political system and the justice system a very much intertwined and last time I checked, Justizia was wearing a blindfold.

Yes there is a strong correlation between spending and election scores, just as much as there is between exposure time and score (funds are used to increase exposure, so we're talking about the same thing). That said, the last few weeks prior to presidential elections in France, all media channels are required to give the exact same amount of time to all candidates to address this issue. And it doesn't change the end scores too much.

You are absolutely right. I must have overread the part were you addressed exposure

I must confess, I do not get the relationship between government spending and democracy. I would differentiate between the means of governing and the outcome thereof. An example of a country with the same offers would even outstanding in many regards is Saudi Arabia and they are far from being democratic.

I would argue that the examples you gave are even in favour of real democracy. We all know how much of an influence corporate greed has on politics. It is not labelled corruption, but come on 😃. You can influence the decision making of the few. You cant influence the decision making of the many once the few are taking out of the equation.

Yes government spending and democracy are different, and yes there is also some form of corruption in politics (via lobbies and even cronyism). I wasn't referring to government spending per se, but the situation where many individual interests are counter productive to the entire society in the long run. In this sense, you can definitely "influence the decision making of the many". Just like in a fire: it's in your best interest to rush to the exit and push everyone aside along the way, although it's collectively much more effective if everyone walks calmly to the exit. In the first example I shared, if >50% have a personal interest in milking the productive forces of a country, these productive forces will either leave or stop working as well which will end up in a global collapse (again, Venezuela and Argentina are prime examples of this mechanism). I think it's good to have many people involved in politics, but not everyone regardless of their background/situation.

We pretty much have opposing views here. Yes education is important, but it is no secret, that not only wealth is inherited, but brains as well. People don`t make decisions that are in the interest of the others. The make decisions that are in the interest of their kind. That is the very role of political parties, although one could debate who is meant by "their kind". "Smart elite" is no more than a symbol and stigma and symbols are best left to the symbol minded. First and for most it is "public relations". Being smart and being intelligent are two different things and being smart doesn`t mean you`re an elite and being an elite doesn`t mean you are smart.

Yes I agree with you again. Like I previously said, I don't have much sympathy for the elites. Not just because they were able to pull themselves on top (good for them), but because they seemingly keep making bad decisions and never face consequences. I was just merely suggesting that non-elites would not necessarily do a better job just because. I've seen (and you probably have too) countless "regular" people have stupid opinions about stuff they clearly know nothing about. Many people vote for things they have an extremely limited understanding of, which maybe is the reason why so many bad elites are propelled forward. I think a better system could be the right of vote if you are a net contributor to society. Just like children don't have the same weight as their parents: if you can't even manage to contribute, you only get to cruise along. 😛

1️⃣ Every country should have at least several political parties and not just ONE or TWO.

No.Having "one party" is enough and have several advantages over several; especially when the several becomes "micro parties" like in France since a few years. For instance, having only one party means you are more likely to have coherence and stability in your policy; and not have your successor destroys everything you did the 5 previous years.

I also disagree with @Etienne. The question goes beyond the democracy debate, as France is factually not a democracy, but a Republic. France never has been a democracy and the first people in it abhorred it... Representativity was made specifically because they thought peopole were too dumb to represent themselves.

2️⃣ Monday is the worst day of the week.

I think it's actually Sunday. It's not Monday that you are worrying much about the next day, but Sunday

Hello everybody!!! 🙋‍♀️

Merci beaucoup and danke sehr @Etienne, @Fyuuj and @Lianshen for posting about the last statement!! 😊😇 Today i have TWO new statements:

1️⃣ Having vacation or at least some free days after 6-8 weeks in school is good for concentrating!! And for people who work too!

2️⃣ In all big cities in Europe it becomes more dangerous almost every year.

I dont want to say yet what i think about the statements so others can first say what they think!! 😃 But of course i will also reply soon!! 😛

What do YOU think about the statements? Do you think the statements are true ✅ or false ❌

1️⃣ Having vacation or at least some free days after 6-8 weeks in school is good for concentrating!! And for people who work too!

It depends I think. What I remember from school is that we were always given stuff to do during most vacations. It's nice to have a few days off, but you have to be able to actually enjoy them.
What I have prefered by far was to have no vacation at all and get a full month or two during winter, and then during summer. Days weren't too busy either though, so my mind was more at rest and I could comply with all my tasks in addition to be able to get some time for myself daily.

2️⃣ In all big cities in Europe it becomes more dangerous almost every year.

Unfortunately yes, and not only big, but also medium and now small cities. Brittany was popular for being a peaceful province a decade or two ago; but it has quickly caught up with the rest of France and some cities are now among the worst.

Merci beaucoup @Lianshen!! I think both statements are TRUE. And about 1 i understand what you mean. With some vacations we normally have a test week after it. So you get a lot of exams immediately when you go back to school. And that way i think it is not really vacation bc you still have to do a lot. 🙁 BUTTTT this Easter vacation it is not really so bad so we have almost every day that you can relax like today!!!! And it was not super stressy today outside and with some friends who are back from their holiday!!!!! 🌞🌈🌞 I hope that you also had a nice day @Lianshen!!! 😊😊

I remember for my bachelor, we had 2 weeks of vacations for Christmas, and then a week of exam right after (January 3). We didn't really have time to get ourselves back from New Year that we were already on the exam table 😂

It's much more appreciable when you have your exams first, and then your vacations, free from all constraint

Thank you very much @Lianshen!! Merci beaucoup!!! 🙏🙏

For today i used the things i mentioned in this forum: Today Facts (look at 3 May if you read it on a later day). So i have TWO statements:

1️⃣ Today is World Press Freedom Day and a free press is less certain than for example 10 or 20 or maybe 50 years ago.

2️⃣ Today is International drone day and the statement is that drones can do good things but do even more harm (like killing a kit of people in wars).

About the first statement: i know that several persons on the forum already said that they think free press is more and more a problem. And i think that is right depending on which press you read bc it can vary A LOTTT of course.

About the second statement: i think that drones could be super useful in a lot of ways. Like making super nice photos from above or to maybe even deliver packages. But they are also used in war and i dont know how many people were killed in a year but i guess MANYYY. Also a lot of innocent people.

What do YOU think about the statements? Do you think the statements are true ✅ or false ❌

Hello everybody! 🙋‍♀️ I did not post in this forum the last weeks bc i think everybody is too busy with other things to respond so i will not bother everybody. But i will give two new statements and if anybody wants to react to the new statements or the older statements that is also possible of course. 🙂

So the new statement of today is:

1️⃣ Violent games and movies make people more violent.

2️⃣ Human cloning should NEVER be allowed.

I dont want to tell yet what i think about both statements bc i want to read first what others think and also bc it is already super late now!! 😛

But what do YOU think about the statements? Do you think the statements are true ✅ or false ❌

1️⃣ Violent games and movies make people more violent.

This popular claim that has never been proven. Besides, video games tend to be a form of catharsis to channel violence into a game rather than in the physical world. If somebody becomes violent after playing games, the problem typically comes from their mental health rather than the game itself (same reason why cars don't kill people; drivers do)

2️⃣ Human cloning should NEVER be allowed.

I think we instinctively want to be against the cloning of humans. We are first and foremost our physical body, so it's like getting robbed of our very soul. There would be great benefits to cloning though, especially in the medical field, or in terms of eugenics, and I wouldn't be surprised if in the far future we start going down that path in some form or another. For the time being I'll say no to cloning 😛

This popular claim that has never been proven. Besides, video games tend to be a form of catharsis to channel violence into a game rather than in the physical world. If somebody becomes violent after playing games, the problem typically comes from their mental health rather than the game itself (same reason why cars don't kill people; drivers do)

thanksss for writing a reply monsieur @Etienne! i agree that the video games dont make persons more violent. bc for example in our school i think maybe ALL guys like video games and many act cool BUTTTT are not violent. so maybe they just like to play the games and if they are violent it can also be other things like THEIR group or hanging with others or bc they ARE that way and not bc of the video games.

I think we instinctively want to be against the cloning of humans. We are first and foremost our physical body, so it's like getting robbed of our very soul. There would be great benefits to cloning though, especially in the medical field, or in terms of eugenics, and I wouldn't be surprised if in the far future we start going down that path in some form or another. For the time being I'll say no to cloning 😛

I agree that cloning should not be done and i think my dad agrees with the statement THE MOSTTT!!! I think if my mom or I am cloned that my dad gets CRAZYYY bc he says that now we already talk too much. But if they really clone a person than maybe a week later they clone 1000 persons and after that even more. So i think you should not start with the first one and every person is special and with clones you try to make it the same but i think it is never exactly the same.

Hello everybody!! 😊 I have two new statements that i want to write and i am curious what others think:

1️⃣ Some superstitious things that people believe are actually REAL!!!!! Examples are walking under a ladder, a black cat, broken glass brings luck, knocking wood, Friday the 13th etc.

2️⃣ Technology makes people lazy (sometimes smarter but often also more lazy)!

I am not telling yet what i think about both statements bc i want to read first what others think about them. 😛 😛 So i hope people will write what THEY think about the statements? Do YOU think the statements are true ✅ or false ❌

1️⃣ Some superstitious things that people believe are actually REAL!!!!! Examples are walking under a ladder, a black cat, broken glass brings luck, knocking wood, Friday the 13th etc.

No 😛

2️⃣ Technology makes people lazy (sometimes smarter but often also more lazy)!

Mostly true. Anything that makes your life easier will also tend to make you weaker, just like a muscle that isn't used much will gradually shrink. However you can definitely use new technology to learn even more things, or to stimulate creativity. Just like any other tool, its outcome can be good or bad depending on how it's used.

Thank you very much @Etienne for your answers!!! This time i agree with BOTH what you said. I am also not superstitious. BUTTTT i do believe in stuff that you cant see like certain spirits and things that can be haunting. But that is something different bc that is supranatural and not superstitious. 🙂

And with technology i think it is also true for the most. And the BESTTT example is ChatGPT. In our school a LOTTTTT of others use it but i really dont like it. Bc if you trust that and you make the exam you fail it. So i think it is not really smart UNLESS you understand everything already. And i think if you just copy it can even be wrong bc how can ChatGPT know what is really right or they just copy stuff from websites. And you can see if somebody writes or if ChatGPT writes. 😬😬 BUTTT it can also be useful if you dont use it for homework. But then it is more like google and i dont think that is a problem except that maybe you cant ALWAYS trust it.

Hello everybody!! 🙋‍♀️💁‍♀️ I have two new statements for this forum today and i am curious what people think about them:

1️⃣ In school you should be able to choose yourself when you have vacation and not only when everybody else has vacation at the same time!

2️⃣ In the future you can download things from the computer in your brain (like 20 books in 1 minute).

For the first statement i think it is nice if not EVERYBODY goes at the same time and you should be allowed to choose more than now. BUTTTT our school also has for example topics in classes for everybody at the same time and exams and tests at the same time. So it cant be really completely free but maybe a bit more than now.

For the second statement i think it can be true in the future that you can download things in your head. And in that way it is like AI but not AI in digital stuff but AI in your head!!! And it is artificial because you did not learn it yourself but it comes from a computer.

But i hope others want to write what they think bc i think they are interesting and nice statements. So do YOU think the statements are true ✅ or false ❌