For any smokers out there reading this and thinking, 'God I will never quit if I have to spend the rest of my life resisting the urge for a cigarette', like this article says, note that it doesn't have to be that way. I quit smoking six months ago and every day without cigarettes is a blessing. I _hated_ smoking, and I wanted to stop, and for years and years I couldn't stop. And then I did, and I am free, and it is wonderful. Why the hell would I want to go back to the thing that I hated and was killing me, like this person? If you see cigarettes for what they really are, as a non-smoker sees them, how could you ever want to smoke?
These arguments come from Allnn Carr's stop smoking methodology. You can read his book or do a seminar. And for those out there who say 'it doesn't work': I read that book the first time in 2003, and probably more than ten times since. I attended the seminar three times. It was finally the online seminar that made the ideas click for me. (The breakthrough was the realisation that the response that says 'I want a cigarette' is a broken thought process that was learned, i.e. is not natural, and can be unlearned.) Now that the ideas have clicked into place for me I am absolutely certain I will never smoke again. When I hear the 'I want a cigarette' thought, I don't have a melancholy response that I can't smoke. I hated smoking! I have a happy response that I have learned how to get back to very close to the state I was in before I ever smoked at all.
Anyway, I am sure this article is well-intentioned, but I would strongly strongly suggest that if you haven't tried Allan Carr's method you give it a shot, and if you have tried it, give it another try. Smoking is a nightmare from which we all can awake.
If you hate smoking then it makes sense that when you manage to shake the addiction you'll be glad about it. Many smokers, myself included, enjoy cigarettes. I'm quitting currently, but if I could get rid of the health risks then I'd keep going forever even if I wasn't addicted.
Have a look at the book or seminar - the enjoyment of cigaretts is dealt with at length and forms a core pillar of the argument. If you don't want to quit though, then you don't want to quit and nothing is going to make you open the book with an open mind.
What do you mean "see smoking as it really is"? Obviously we do see the negatives, otherwise we wouldn't quit at all. That doesn't change anything about the fact that smoking can be an extremely enjoyable activity.
Also calling shenanigans. The sentence 'As a graduate student at Harvard she had become familiar with the Bing search engine's advanced capabilities' reeks of marketing.
Slightly off topic: Are there no male executives left in the world? All that politically admirable use of 'she' was linguistically very jarring, and an unnecessary distraction from a fine article. Have we not pretty much agreed on 'they' as being the gender-neutral acceptable alternative to 'he'?
If the idea of female executives it that shocking to people, it's probably a good idea to sometimes use a female gendered "generic" executive. Had the author said "he" rather than "they" I highly doubt that anyone would have made this comment. Further if they had, any complaints about it would be ridiculed as overly feminist or sensitive.
A lot of people fine the use of a collective pronoun (they) for a singular generic to be extremely jarring. The argument against using "they" is actually pretty good - as when it is unexpectedly countered it can cause confusion in the reader, causing her to re-read the sentence wondering what this group that suddenly appeared is. Even when readers know the modern usage of they/them, they will be caught off guard.
Until we all can read "she" in a "male role" and notice it as odd, or until there is a singular, gender-neutral, non-dehumanizing pronoun (calling people "it" is bad too), the use of "she" for generics is a darn good idea.
Well - except in traditionally female roles, then perhaps we should use "he" as the generic pronoun. (e.g. talking about daycare providers, nannies, nurses, etc as "he" in the generic gets equally weird responses).
Using "she" is confusing in a similar way as using "they" - just to a lesser degree.
If typical executive is a male, then using "she" needlessly attracts reader's attention due to the unexpected word usage.
Granted, using "she" helps making overall idea of female executive more acceptable, but main focus of this article is "hiring experienced/old employees", not "shifting cultural norm to making females more acceptable for executive roles".
This is disingenuous to an appalling degree. How does shifting the cultural norm happen if not by doing things that aren't (currently) the cultural norm? Why does one have to toe a line when she doesn't find that OK?
Equally disingenuous is the notion that the author must strip out everything not related to the point as you dennisgorelik sees it (as opposed to the author keeping exactly what the author wants to keep in the article). Perhaps in an article about finding the right experienced employee, where a major theme is "you have to look at it a bit differently than you'd expect", the use of the unexpected gender is a subtle reinforcement point. But sure, people who write never try to use multiple methods to get the idea across - that would be silly and go along with everything most writing courses/books/guides suggest. It must be a political agenda.
This is slightly off topic, but I would just _love_ to know how Musk manages his time. He has the same number of hours as the rest of us - how does he divide them between his personal research and actually getting stuff done? What percentage does he spend on marketing versus engineering, PR versus logistics, and on and on... Man I would love to have a drink with that guy. There has been no other contemporary person in any sphere of human endeavour I have been so fan-boyish about.
-> Interesting. They put a Sales/Ops guy at the helm of Motorola, which implies that (in a way, naturally) all strategic decisions will be made by Google and passed down to the subsidiary.
This absolutely does not follow. Woodside is a senior trusted Google executive.
Really like it! Only feedback so far is 'Create report from template' is not intuitive to me. Would something like 'Enter today's data' work better, or is there an angle here I'm missing?
She does sound like an incredible person, but what are we supposed to do with that information? Does it mean we should not try and do anything, given there is always someone out there who has a 'better' (for very wide definitions of 'better') story? I don't write this to be snarky, and I used to think in a similar way myself, but this is not a good way to see the world.
I think OP is just making a general call for people to be a bit more humble. Fueled by this particular case where a guy declares himself to be awesome, because he wrote a blog post every day for a year, and self-published 3 PDF's.
I would bet my house this is supposed to be a joke. It just falls slightly short of the mark in a way that's hard to define, and so looks like it might possibly be serious. It comes from the same school of humour that occasionally gets Irish people arrested by Homeland Security when they're asked if they have anything dangerous in their bags, and they roll their eyes and say 'Yeah, a bomb.'
Same thing here, also 2008, but with an Allied Irish Bank ATM in Dublin. The machine crashed as I was using it and permanently relieved me of my bank card, but the up side was that I got to watch the entire OS/2 Warp boot sequence play out.
These arguments come from Allnn Carr's stop smoking methodology. You can read his book or do a seminar. And for those out there who say 'it doesn't work': I read that book the first time in 2003, and probably more than ten times since. I attended the seminar three times. It was finally the online seminar that made the ideas click for me. (The breakthrough was the realisation that the response that says 'I want a cigarette' is a broken thought process that was learned, i.e. is not natural, and can be unlearned.) Now that the ideas have clicked into place for me I am absolutely certain I will never smoke again. When I hear the 'I want a cigarette' thought, I don't have a melancholy response that I can't smoke. I hated smoking! I have a happy response that I have learned how to get back to very close to the state I was in before I ever smoked at all.
Anyway, I am sure this article is well-intentioned, but I would strongly strongly suggest that if you haven't tried Allan Carr's method you give it a shot, and if you have tried it, give it another try. Smoking is a nightmare from which we all can awake.