ADHD and depression are super, super comorbid though.

Take the time to give that information, briefly but politely. It won’t burn bridges and it’s helpful for leadership to know.

Sometimes, sadly, giving up is the right thing to do.

I get it, but if you are just trying to make the point that, if a country thinks they’ll eventually lose, it’s better for everyone if they give up quickly … then this historical example doesn’t seem relevant.

Given that Ukraine already gave up quickly once (in Crimea) and that Russia simply waited until it was convenient to invade them again, I’m sure you can understand why Ukrainians think it’s necessary to fight this one out.

Now, the war of the Triple Alliance is often held up as an example of how a minority of belligerents can create massive devastation by continuing a guerilla war after losing the conventional war; if Ukraine seems in danger of losing the conventional war, I’ll admit it’s a relevant parallel, otherwise it isn’t terribly relevant.

Well, they’re separated by the Panama canal, so by the same token that Africa and Asia aren’t the same land mass, neither are the Americas.

I sure haven’t

Like every ceasefire.

Probably the reason Ukraine doesn’t want a ceasefire…

Yeah, unironically it does in this instance.

The US negotiated with the Japanese.

The allies negotiated with the Nazis.

You know both these groups surrendered unconditionally, right?

Weirdly specific

They are, mate. You act like the West is standing behind Ukraine threatening to shoot anyone that retreats. We’re sending em guns and money, if they wanted to stop fighting they could make that decision tomorrow.

Russia can, very straightforwardly, retreat to Russia. Boom, peace!

Ah yes, “Glory to Ukraine,” seems like a super specific slogan that can only be associated with one movement. In no way is it a generically nationalist slogan.

what a ceasefire would provide

Like the 2014 ceasefire? All it does is give Russia the opportunity to retrench and dig in. When the Ukrainians ask for a ceasefire, then I’ll support one.

Russia’s monetary system is in collapse and its economy is in free fall… the war took up 45% of its budget last year, its foreign exchange reserves have long since run dry and its first defensive line is slowly crumbling.

If it ends up being a war of endurance, Russia’s going to be in a far worse position in a year than they are now.

That’s Iran-ic

I’ll show myself out

The shareholders can go and buy a diversified portfolio on their own, by investing in many companies, so they can derisk their portfolio without conglomeration.

If they already own shares of the conglomerating company, its returns will be lower (they don’t care that it’s less risky; they’ve diversified already). Similarly, the returns of the company that is now becoming part of the conglomeration will likely be reduced, which negatively affects shareholders of that company.

The benefit is really only for the people whose prospects are deeply tied to this company, and only this company… its management employees, who are compensated by the company (often in the form of stock that they can’t sell till they leave, or that vests over a long time frame).

Portuguese, there’s a few hundred million speakers of Portuguese in South America.

I suppose I should have included French and made it four … there’s Quebec, but also Martinique, French Guiana, and so on. Maybe 10-15 million all in all?

Vs. ~450m for Spanish, ~400m for English and ~300m for Portuguese.

Right? People are forgetting that we’ve got essentially three languages in the entire hemisphere.

You speak three languages in Europe? Congrats you speak 12% of the commonly spoken / national languages.

Speak one language in the Americas? Congrats, you speak 1/3 of them!

Sent an application in!

Exactly. "Pay people enough, " is table stakes. It’s good business strategy and it’s a basic moral duty. "Grossly over pay people, " is probably not good business strategy; even if you do, it isn’t going to make up for being a shitty place to work