Thanks for the explanation.

Perp walks. Teachers in school in front of class. Other kids in school being mean. Public dress downs at work. I'm sure there are more. Not all perps walked reoffend. Kids get their shit together because they don't want to be made to look silly in front of their peers. I think for some employees this works similarily.

Shaming only works if the shamed feels any. The doublers-down are often the ones who don't feel shame. So it was the wrong tool for the job. Won't work on 47 if you know what I mean.

Just to clarify: I would personally put this tool in the "break glass in case of last resort" section of the tool box. But I've worked with bosses who didn't put these restrictions on themselves and it can work.

You could question their leadership qualities if you wanted to. That's a benefit of arm chairing this stuff in an internet forum.

I was shooting for "neutral you".

I think you missed.

I assumed that you were also a fan.

You know what you do when you assume, don't you?

Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.

If that's what you think I'm surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you're moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.

So I wonder what "you" you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral "you," which can be replaced with "one?" The reason I'm wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn't make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be "dominance-humping" and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn't judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn't clear.

If this was pointed at my personally then you in particular and one in general should keep in mind that the person answering a binary question of the calibre "Which is worse, the plague or cholera?" doesn't necessarily need to be suffering from either disease to make an assessment. So looping back to your OG query: I would say it's better not to shout at anyone in general. But I'm also sure you and I after careful deliberation could agree on some exceptions relating to your query that aren't monkey business. E.g. the idiot could be in danger, the idiot could be a racist abusing the marginalized, the idiot could be hard of hearing, etc. This sort of longer discussion isn't encouraged by a binary prompt.

If we have defined "idiotic" to a sufficiently objective degree, I think the idiot wins the race. The shouter - although not in the best manner - is at least trying to make the idiot aware of their transgression. It's a reaction to the idiotic behavior, not out of the blue. And while it will not work in correcting the idiot's behavior all the time, there is at least the chance that the reaction is memorable to the idiot - public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection, and thus prevent a recurrence. It's these small odds that tilt this seesaw of a question for me.

European-Americans

Why only those?

need better leadership role models to show them that education and hard work

Compulsory education in the US is straddled with numerous problems. Underfunding is maybe the biggest one. The fact that schools need to be converted into bullet proof bunkers doesn't help. Standardized tests are not a foolproof way to assess people's aptitudes. The curriculum in some states leaves a lot to be desired. A defective system cannot produce perfect students. And we're not even talking about the insane for-profit higher education system that gives people debt for life. The system produces undereducated leadership role models. The good people tend to find other areas to work in. You cannot demand new role models without a complete, well-funded overhaul of the entire education system.

Hard work can be helpful to get ahead in life. But it's no guarantor of success. It's more luck or inherited wealth that get you ahead. You seem to adhere to the good old American dream idea, rags to riches stuff. It's a mirage. Like the melting pot theory or manifest destiny it deserves to be deposited on the trash heap of history. There was probably more truth to the dream when rent/mortgage was a fifth of your average paycheck when it's now most of your average paycheck. That is if you still have a home. Times have changed, ideas are still catching up.

— not violence, promiscuity, and criminality — are the right ways to get ahead.

Violence? Agreed. Crime? Also agreed. Promiscuity? You'd have to define that first. And I have an inkling I may not agree with you once you have.

Fundamentally, you could make a caveat even for violence and crime under certain circumstances. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. To the Brits George Washington was a violent criminal. Violence is baked into the birth of a nation, along with the prolonged history of slavery and segregation.

I also think that former criminals can be valuable role models. It depends on many factors, e.g. have they paid what we call the debt to society? Have they atoned? Etc. But if I'm not mistaken you're looking more at financial fraud and maybe sexual misconduct - don't have a clue why those two popped up first in my head - and I would say that disqualifies perpetrators from being leadership role models. People who vote for people like that to get into positions of power anyway are a real thorn in my sight as well.

So I find bits of your statement that I can warm up to. Overall, I think it's a bit populist for my taste. I disagree with some of the assumptions I think you've made. And it does nothing to address any underlying problems as I see them.

I'm no expert. Stop reading here if that's not good enough.

My understanding is that in cathode ray screens, the old-style non-flat types, heat would make a difference. In LCD and LED screens, so little heat is produced by showing images, it is probably negligible. One of them, I forgot which type, does black by just turning the light off in that spot. So the type of screen used probably matters here.

You can see massive ad screens even in hot places. Now, there may be insulation in use and/or A/C. My guess would be if they can operate a huge ass screen in 100F 40C weather to get me to buy shit, the combined energy costs cannot be exorbitant. And my guess is further that's mostly to prevent the hardware from melting in the sun, whether the screen is on or off.

Glad to hear it! I thought I heard a sigh of relief so massive it circled the world twice.

You said they should still be considered Starfleet if they're time-shifted. I'm saying protocol accounts for it and once you're time shifted you get frozen in rank. Forever!

I'm just messing with you. I think he never got promoted as a message between the lines to the actor, who at that point was merely saved from show death by appearing in a good looking Asians list or something weird like that. They never promoted Kim as a reflection on Wang's standing with the production team.

I'm going to say yes and no to that one. At the time they establish forevermore what is left-wing and what is right-wing, we're past the estates general being called and I think also past the tennis court oath. For me, that's already revolutionary times, they just haven't cut Louie's head off yet.

Before that, I don't think there was much exchange between the second and the third estate. I am sure there were nobles who were willing to change things around. But it also wasn't a case where the second and the third estate, and maybe even the king, could agree on something and that would've been the end of that. France was riddled by internal fiefdoms with their own dumb trumpian tariffs. Any relief for the third would have had to involve rationalizing the economy and there were powerful lobbies (like the farmer general) who wouldn't like that. Plus, people were hungry and hungry people don't think straight. And Louie would've preferred to stick his head in the sand anyway and other than maybe Necker none of his ministers satisfied the requirements of "forward looking."

I don't think the odds are calculable. But once you've reached a certain level of fame, some good historic knowledge of how to protect yourself from unwanted attention will surely kick in. You don't want to get SWAT teamed, so I suppose you try to keep your address undoxxed. And I guess you could use an alias on your delivery app.

I think you may also be overestimating the level of fame of streamers. They'll be world famous within their bubble but two feet away from it nobody knows who they are. The odds are probably in their favor that the uber eats driver doesn't know or care who they are.

No healthcare is free. It is paid. Whether through taxes or mandatory insurance schemes. The money doesn't grow on trees.

It is a US BS narrative that 'socialized healthcare' is lefty silliness. And while there are conservatives in Europe who float the idea of abandoning government-organized healthcare every once in a while, every time they do they are met with a lot of frantic finger-pointing across the Atlantic. Everybody else sees a societal value in taking care of each other without any, or at least many, preconditions, like employment.

Europe is not one homogenous political body. Much like the US on the state level isn't. The only difference is that the US shares a party structure on both state and federal levels. But there are just two relevant parties, twice as many as in North Korea! The party spectrum has always been broader in European democracies. As a result, the European Parliament often creates strange bedfellows.

There are marked differences between European countries and what they consider left and right. You're looking at a lot of separate and shifting Overton windows. The suggested social cuts of the center-left Labour UK government would probably cause another revolution in France. The right-wingers of France are pro-Russia. The right-wingers of Poland absolutely aren't. The list goes on.