In order for a negative review to contribute to a conversation you should really make it more than a poorly written 10 word sentence. If you don’t, well, there is nothing at all convincing about why the article is bad.
Not everyone will share your opinion that it is bad so if you don’t make a supporting argument then what’s the point of saying anything at all?
Also, I really wish people would leave an explanation about why they are downvoting more often.
I wanted to reply like what is below but got cold feet. But thanks.
>>>> Why? tedious for me w/o a join. Or is there a feature lurking somewhere? At a different level stuff like this it strike me as “… nothing to see here move on .. “
I think most (? certainly many) readers like the links to past discussions. If it were just a list of past submissions, most of which didn't get comments, I'd agree with you.
I also try to drop the ones that got comments but the comments were off topic or otherwise useless.
It actually does make me wonder if we can see a connection between what's happening now and what happened when Protestant Christianity started spreading with the whole "priesthood of the believer" deal where everyone can read the Bible in whatever translation and interpret it just as well, supposedly, as those who are trained in Greek/Hebrew/Latin and actually studied the historical context of it. Seems very similar, in some ways, on a rough look.
For topics france24.com seem
reasonable for me. I’m interested
mostly international topics.
Clear title and short description
no bias listed vertical I prefer.
Wish there is (like reader view)
a browser built-in for
view facts, opinions, what others
are saying —- as researched
expressed by the author of each
article.
I love France 24 for international news, especially to gauge if something ridiculous in America is making international headlines. You’d think the Brits are good for this but it seems they like to sandbag America at the cost of attention to their domestic problems. Thus continental news.
Also, France24’s B-roll is always sidedly endearing to me. Maybe it’s because Europe is a much older, more lived-in place than America. I recommend.
The parent theorized there was no way for a 1:1 to be effective because there are no overlapping common goals and incentives between managers and employees. So then I've presented two common examples of how such goals might exist.
I would be surprised to find that neither of these have ever applied. That would seem to indicate that their entire professional working experience has been only ever adversarial and toxic. Just not a great look, especially if you've also been responsible from the manager side.