LOL. My first reaction was: Do the French not want Rich people to live in their country?
If many of them leave, there will be no fortunes to tax. Oops. Meanwhile the eejits are planning to ratchet up the spending, because they plan to have MOAR moneez, because they said so.
Yeah, that's going to end in tears.
That took me a while to process. I read the article yesterday, and thought about it. Here is a (long) answer:
The analysis is pertinent, because I have been investigating, in the context of local government, the split between strategic management and pragmatic management. So a similar split exists between executive management and operational management - this has been discussed ad nauseam in academic papers, because the issue causes friction - often with the complaint that the street bureaucrats tend to ignore stuff if they perceive it is Bullshit, and that is infuriating to those who made Strategic (lol Big Boy) decisions.
The argument in the OP article is that people Bullshit when they need to fill a space in the conversation, and don't know much about the subject. We see Annalina Baerbok and AOC doing this: they are talking out of their hat. But the idea worked on me. What if the person may be technically competent, but it is impossible to make a cogent answer, because the question is bullshit?
What happens is: An executive, or some Big Boy (usually an engineer with NO pragmatic or discretional logic training) decides that X has to occur. This is pushed down the hierarchy until the street bureaucrat has to implement the directive and finds out that it is impossible to get it 'correct'.
The context is: In NZ Building law, there is a need for the street bureaucrat, i.e. the processor, or inspector, to record a decision. OBVIO. Everyone wants to know whether an item passes muster. So that's a Yes, or No answer. What the Big Boys have decided is that a reason for decision must also be recorded. The latter is NOT in the building act. But hey, here is a spreadsheet of items, and here is a box for the reasons-for-decison - that was easy. So, auditors, competency asssesors, and executives are all saying the same thing: There must be MOAR reasons for decision. It turns out, that's an ultimate and ubiquotous criticism of someone's work, because there can never be enough information to satisfy that mysterious directive, because there will ALWAYS be not enough information. To add to the frustration, there are no instructions on HOW to make it satisfactory, because how would one even start to write an operational or contextual set of instructions? Just think about that:
Put a list of materials? Just look at the plans, already, right there, in the project. Record every item that one looked at? - LOL a diary - how about record the footage on some camera glasses - yeah, nah - too onerous? Is an inspector expected to re-process the plans by recording every item, AGAIN? Well they do to some extent, but that could potentially take thousands of words. One would be there all day. And if the thing complies, why does one need to write a thesis about it already?
What happens is that these people do not find statement like "Such and such element complies with the law" or "As per the consented plans", to be enough of a reason. So how many words are enough then? Is it quantity one is concerned about? A paragraph? Two sentences?. No, they say, it is not about quantity, but quality. OK thanks for that.
The result, of course is Bullshit. The Bullshit directive (because it's not in the Act) engenders MOAR bullshit LOL. The argument is: In the case where there is no point in regurgitating the placement and type of every fastening, for example, it would be easier, and more efficient, to say: "as per the consented plans", with some photographs of critical junctions, and maybe a photograph of the plans on-site - because that is proof of what the builder is following, after all. In any case, if something complies, and one trusts the builder because one knows the earnest and licensed fellow - it passes, in one's professional opinion. And that's what's in the Building Act, after all.
Also, a customer really only wants to know WHY something has failed. But woe betide those inspectors who DARE to only record reasons for failure - in this rabid search for "reasons for decision". The auditors etc. want a paragraph in every box.
So one is forced to produce a lengthy paragraph to satisfy something that is Bullshit, and TMI in most cases. And it makes up more Bullshit (with the result that competency assessments take literal months to process, because the assessor has to wade through tomes of bullshit - and surely that situation is counter to the idea that one is to Cut Red Tape (another Bullshit directive, floating around)?
https://files.catbox.moe/32pfyh.mp4
The Russian Ministry of Defense reported that the destroyed HIMARS in the Kherson direction are the same installations that launched ATACMS tactical missiles at Sevastopol on June 23.
Then, as a result of a cluster warhead strike on the beach, 4 people were killed, including two children, and another 155 were injured.
Intelligence had been hunting this unit for a couple of weeks and finally located them while deploying for another strike. However, the Iskander missile destroyed all three HIMARS along with their crews (at least ten people, three per vehicle and battery commander).
Posted on /CHUG
Source un-verified, of course.
So to double-check, I googled the whole string of words, and found this X-post: https://x.com/Cyberspec1/status/1810420140137488605 and more from this poster here: https://t.me/s/CyberspecNews?before=57675.
Oh and two moar
Questions like: What if the vax administered to the 'sitting prez' was a saline shot, in which case they knew the damage the regular vax was causing. On the other hand, what if it was the real poison? And here are the results: Accelerated Alzheimer's, or Turbo-Diabetes, or something.
Prolly we'll find out that eating ice-cream after the vax causes the sugar-crystal-related degradation of brain-matter.
Well he was very publicly vaxxed, multiple times with varying degrees of hair on his arms. So, in this current milieu of vax-injury data, it is a legitimate question to ask.
IF the vax-routine in the fake set-WH, was scripted as 'showing peeps what this vax can do' with hooks, then I still have questions.
However, Orban holds the Council of the European Union presidency.
So Stoltenberg can suck eggs, IMO.
A true diplomat talks to all parties, including Russia - who happen to have strong trade relations with the ex-Soviet Hungarians. The idea that somehow some politician can tell Orban what to do, is simply ridiculous. (looks askance at Bearbock, who is demanding 'answers' in a private meeting with Orban to discuss this outrage - and of course Hungary refused to meet).
The Russians have been leaving Grafitti and messages on Telegram channels advertizing a 'safe' line, where Ukrainians can co-ordinate a surrender, from behind front-lines, with the promise humanitarian treatment, hot food, medical treatment, and a bed, upon surrender.
So the existence of that safe line is common knowledge in Russian media. Hence, the mild confusion upon seeing a reference to the policy, which is not as widely known in the West.
I was just going to say:
InB4 trigger-warning this guy uses clickbait techniques for his titles, but it is entertaining to see all the clips he references - all in one place. It's a smorgasbord of MSM, for a quick pick-me-up.
America is flying drones and planes from Bulgaria and Poland and NATO is having Military 'exercises in the Baltic'?
Anyway, Belarus is claiming that there is a build-up of Ukrainian forces at their Southern Border. I suggest that they would know, because they can see. They are wondering why, and preparing themselves, as they should. BTW, several attempts at a color revolution in Belarus have been foiled, which makes the globalists Big Mad. For example: https://www.politico.eu/article/belarus-dissidents-bypol-group-prepare-coup-alexander-lukashenko/