The talk juice it or lose, by Martin Jonasson & Petri Purho, is all about this. Gotta be one of the best talks for anyone trying to make things interactive that also feel good.
Well the difference is these stories are really really rare where as stories of struggling college graduates with mountains of debt are pretty commonplace.
Might as well tell people to gather inspiration from tales of lottery winners.
They may be lottery winners, but you have to buy a ticket to play. Maybe the goal of stories like this is to inspire people to try, even if winning is very unlikely people have to play for there to be some winners.
Being a immigrant in my opinion is absolutely no like winning the lottery as adapting to the new culture, schools, and language was a terrible experience for many that are apart of the Vietnamese American story. Enduring the trauma of racism, bullying, gangs, xenopobia was not be what I would analogize as winning the "lottery".
I'd dare you to ask Thuan, with a straight face, if he feels like he won the lottery. There was a element of luck but by no means you should think that refugees are winning the golden ticket by merely escaping.
With what capital? More likely that these old mining towns and more rural communities wont exist in a few generations. With younger people moving to the cities to find whatever work they can.
I don't really see any negative spin at all. Amazon is portrayed as a business just trying to get things done in "backwards" Washington DC.
They are made out to seem like they don't even know what they are doing, "Amazon is really having to learn how to navigate all these things," even though they are spending nearly 10 million dollars on lobbying, have numerous contracts with the federal government and have a former whitehouse press secretary as a senior vp?
It's what zwily said. Among the majority population, lobbying is seen as what businesses do to get laws written that are favorable to their interests, including tax breaks, energy subsidies, etc. In concept people understand that when a congressperson needs to learn about something in order to make a decision, he or she should be talking to experts. In practice (the perception is) those experts tend to try to persuade more than educate. So, in the example of the drones flying for example, the lawmakers may be learning of all of the good outcomes of easing FAA regs and letting Amazon fly drones, and may even distinguish between large companies (or another grouping in which Amazon falls) and a grouping that their competitors may fall into (say, smaller companies) in a way that becomes a barrier to entry for the competitors. This will obviously be seen as reasonable in some sense, but there may have been a better way to do things that didn't raise the barrier for competition. Amazon lobbyists are unlikely to help the congressperson understand that other way.
Are you saying this is not how it is? There is a lot of downvoting of anti-lobbying sentiment here, but I haven't seen a reasonable explanation as to why yet, and I'm curious. Everything I've read tends to indicate that it's a net negative for society when well funded, non-objective parties essentially write the laws.
I think it can be that way, but I don't know if it always is. For instance, in making marine laws for pleasure boaters lobbying occurs where a group (BoatUS, for example, or the non-profit United States Power Squadrons) will push for a law (or to prevent one) without a real profit motive. These are about things like requiring people to wear life jackets in dinghies or being allowed to anchor in certain regions.
I have no clue how popular it was. I do know that my friends and I used it around once or twice a week during the school year, more during the summer. This was also during the time where Netflix online selection really wasn't great so whatever bad movie/show you watched (and I don't mean "so bad its good"), it probably wasn't worth watching with friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy0aCDmgnxg