I'm not sure I'd put it down entirely to Osaka versus Kyoto. My impression is that these things often have at least as much to do with upbringing, formality, and social background as with region.
I don't know where you're from, so apologies if this is an unfair assumption, but in countries like the US or Australia people often seem less attuned to social class, whereas in places like the UK, France, and indeed Japan, those distinctions can carry more weight, even if they almost always go unspoken.
Some of them of course are invented whole cloth. British Received Pronunciation was invented and needs to be learned and is the standard of the upper class. It's neither right nor wrong but it's there to differentiate.
RP isn't really a thing any more, except among some of the older aristocracy and Tories and a few legacy BBC Radio shows.
Most people have settled into Estuary, which has split into a high/corporate/media Estuary-tinged dialect, and low street Estuary. The BBC has its own special neutral version.
Fifty years ago the difference between upper class/BBC/RP and street English was almost hilariously obvious. Watch a BBC show from the 50s and 60s - even something like Dr Who - and everyone is speaking a unique RP dialect that doesn't exist any more.
Idk. I’m in my early 40s, not a Tory, not aristocracy, and I speak with RP, as do many others I know. Maybe a product of schooling, but I wouldn’t say it’s dead.
In media, you’re quite correct - it has become rare bar presenters who are now in their 80s or older.
You say “needs to be learned” but that’s no more so than any other accent.
We just grow up with it because it’s how our parents and the parents of our friends speak.
If you want to change your accent you can, of course, get elocution lessons but most Brits do not. We just have a large variety of accents of which RP is one.
It's not the natural evolution of a regional dialect coming to prominence but rather the conscious consensus of a geographically distributed social stratum.
Interestingly, the sociolinguistic literature shows that such a consensus is strongest among an aspirationally upward-mobile social group rather than the already social elite. In other words: The aspirational middle class make a big effort to speak how they think the upper class speak in hopes of joining them one day.
Maybe some of them may have had a purpose. With this one, if you were used to putting your elbows on the table and there were more people around, you just took up too much space and made it unpleasant for others around you.
Mind you, I'm not saying that standards must be followed. I am just saying the same thing I tell my kids:
- the standards are there, wishing they didn't exist doesn't invalidate them
- the reason rules and standards came to existence might or might not be applicable to our current context, but some people will expect you to follow them regardless.
- If a rule or standard seems silly to you, make your best attempt at understanding why people would still follow it. (Chesterton's fence)
- You are free to not comply to some rules, but always be ready to accept the consequences of your decisions.
- What your friends are doing or not doing is not reason enough for you to change your behavior or choices.
> the standards are there, wishing they didn't exist doesn't invalidate them
But not observing them does. There are standards no one in the world follows anymore. They may still “be there”, but are only used for mocking purposes.
> If a rule or standard seems silly to you, make your best attempt at understanding why people would still follow it. (Chesterton's fence)
The corollary to that is that anyone who rebukes anyone else for not following a standard must be able to explain why it exists. “Because it’s rude” it’s not good enough, explain why it’s considered rude.
It seems like you are making a different point than the other posters. If the majority of a group does not follow an etiquette standard, it is reasonable to say that the group does not hold that standard. Your point that if any group holds an etiquette standard, then that standard exists is true, but is more tangential to the other point that a rebuttal of it.
That might be true for things like laws, but manners and customs are not strictly enforced by any central authority, at least these days, but rather by how culture/generation changes. It is possible that if nobody follows the same etiquette anymore, it means it is outdated and no longer exists. That is the entire point of progress.
At one point in time, it was considered bad etiquette to interact with people of color, but over time, society changed for the better. That etiquette literally doesn't exist anymore. That doesn't mean people are "getting away with" not following a "rule" these days. But rather customs/morals/etiquette are transitory and prone to changes, and one must understand what is and what isn't actual etiquette instead of just following all outdated "rules".
That's also fundamentally different from something like a law, where the ethical thing to do is that you should still follow it even if others are "getting away" with it.
"Appeals to public opinion are valid in situations where consensus is the determining factor for the validity of a statement, such as linguistic usage and definitions of words."
And the point of etiquette is to signal conformity and social status.
I had a friend who came from a working class culture where social aspiration was measured by tiny nuances, like whether someone put milk in their tea before or after pouring it.
Outside of that culture these nuances were irrelevant. Middle and upper class people had a completely different set of etiquette markers - as well as more or less obvious displays of wealth - which the working class aspirers were oblivious to.
In general, upper-classish dining probably used to be more formal in the US in terms of cutlery type and placement and other things. May still be in some circles but no one I know worries about such things and even very decent restaurants don’t. And when was the last time you saw a fish fork?
My mother-in-law always used to get annoyed at me for using my knife and fork in the European manor instead of the American way. She said it was boorish. I don't know anybody else here in the US who cares in the least which way you use your knife and fork, so I always interpreted it left over behavior from her upper class DC upbringing in the 1930-40's.
(I did try to explain to her that it was more related to my being left handed than my attempting to emulate European behavior. It didn't seem to make much difference to her.)
I thought this would simply be about the knife and the fork switching hands, but holding the fork tines up or down (spearing vs scooping) is new to me.
On the other hand, I don't think Americans ever pick up food with their fork and switch the loaded fork to the other hand, especially if the food is scooped, not speared. A lot of food would be dropped in the process.
As a non-conformist, I taught myself to use my knife in the non-dominant hand so that the fork is used in the same hand regardless of knife usage.
This is bonkers. Just cut the food with your non-dominant hand. If you're so weak that you cannot cut the food with your non-dominant hand then you're either a small child, elderly, or you have a medical condition.
You obviously haven’t done it both ways and are assuming that spearing requires more dexterity than cutting. Hilarious that you could just try it for yourself and figure out that knife in the dominant hand works well but choose instead to bore everyone with your ignorance and stunning closemindedness
Do you always get fish served deboned? Cutting it with non-dominant hand sucks, especially more bony ones like trout. For me doing almost anything with my non dominant part sucks, my left hand is 20x less useful.
Just guessing here, I'm left handed also. I don't trust myself to cut a piece of steak using the knife in my right hand. So, after cutting with my left hand, I put the knife down and use my left for forking.
Or, it could be what my English son-in-law does, he uses his fork and knife, in different hands to aid in pushing food onto his fork. (He's right handed, not that it matters in this case.)
That's what at stake here, with oil exports from the Middle East dwindling... Oil price might not even go up that much, or for that long, if the economy crashes hard enough.
There's a little known alternative: Steward-ownership [1]. It's the kind of structure used by Novo Nordisk, Bosch or Patagonia.
LLM summary: "Steward-ownership is a model where a company’s control stays with long-term stewards (founders, employees, or a mission-aligned foundation) while profits are limited and the company cannot be sold for private gain. The goal is to protect the mission permanently."
The key, if I understand properly, is that these company cannot be sold (not even by the founders), so there is no "shareholder value" per se to maximize. It is also probably not a good way for founders to maximize their net worth, which is probably why it's not more popular...
The comment you replied to was just pointing out that, like how a founder-held company can get stuck pursuing the founder's obsession, a stock market held company can also single-mindedly pursue quarterly gains to the detriment of long-term health.
Plenty of countries have corporate laws that are less shareholder focussed than those of america. In the Netherlands for example boards are obligated to take into account broader sets of interest such as employee in their decisions and this is enforceable in court.
This model, unfortunately, often leads to a "well, we might as well spend the extra profits on executive benefits"-issue. Whenever you have money without oversight, you always face a moral hazard.
If the company makes a profit and there aren't shareholders there to keep the stewards in check, excesses can and do develop.
I get the first point, but having shareholders doesn't solve that in any way. Shareholders would just give themselves payouts instead of letting the execs take everything as bonuses. And unlike the execs, whose bonuses could be limited by charter and who could be chosen on the basis of trust, shareholders are "whoever has the most money to throw around", so there's no mechanism to align them with company values.
So it's not perfect, but it sure as hell beats having shareholders.
Precisely, in the form of the #1 trend of public companies, stock buybacks! I've seen aggressive buybacks take a company with a ton of money in the bank and a profitable business and drive it right to Chapter 7 bankruptcy in just a few short years.
I'll make you a deal. You agree to give me a trillion dollars, but only if I make you 8 trillion dollars.
I don't think he'll deliver and I think it's based on fantasy economics, he's been really losing it recently, but as a deal it's not entirely irrational if he could make it happen.
The thing is, the compensation is only based on it happening, not on him making it happen. “I make you 8 trillion dollars” rests on a strong assumption that it all comes from the CEO.
This particular CEO is on the more influential end of the spectrum, but I think executives generally get too much credit for outcomes. If this does happen, it won’t just be because of the CEO, but also because of ~100,000 other employees. Their contribution might be smaller, but comparing compensation, I don’t think it’s proportionally smaller.
Speaking honestly as a foot soldier employee, I look around myself and I think you could swap out most of the people around me, including me, for most other people in our industry and the company would continue just fine. In fact that happens naturally over time anyway. The work we do is essential, but as individuals we are not essential. If I quit and move on, how many investors will reconsider their position in my company? Give me a break, and they would be right to not care.
It's about leverage. It's all about where you stand and how long your lever is. Musk stands at the top and he has a very long set of levers. He's also much more closely personally involved in engineering aspects of a company that most CEOs know little to nothing about. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's bad, because his decisions have massively outsized effects because of this. Leverage.
If Musk makes good or bad decisions over the next few years, that matters much, much more than the decisions of anyone else at Tesla, especially because he hires and fires everyone else at Tesla. They're all only there, as individuals in particular, because of him anyway.
As it happens I think his decision making has deteriorated significantly recently, in some respects but not all. Also Tesla just doesn't have the magic special sauce SpaceX has had since they developed reusability. There's no special engineering insight in the Tesla architecture. Other vehicle manufacturers already caught up. That catch up is happening in space tech as well with BO's recent booster recovery, but SpaceX still has a very significant lead there, based on a truly revolutionary concept (which Musk championed personally) that they had exclusively for 10 years. Starship still doesn't work though, so we'll see.
I can't help but notice you said you could swap out most of the people around you, not all. Yeah, some random salesperson is not contributing enormously to the company's growth and could be replaced without much difficulty. But that's not true of everybody. The CEO is not uniquely special in this regard.
I agree that the CEO is typically the most important in this respect, especially this particular CEO. I just think that giving him an additional 1/8th of the company's entire market cap growth, on top of the roughly 1/8th he already has, is highly disproportionate.
Clearly the shareholders disagree, and that's entirely their right. And I'm not surprised, CEOs are greatly overvalued in general.
Steward-ownership is a philosophy more than an actual structure, my understanding is that each such company is in practice structured somewhat differently.
For Patagonia a trust owns 100% of the voting rights, while a charity collects 100% of the dividends. I don't doubt that there are ways the structure could be subverted, but it's a far cry from "money without oversight".
Do you have examples of Steward-owned companies that ended up with "well, we might as well spend the extra profits on executive benefits"-issues?
(I personally think Steam should go in that direction, otherwise I'm afraid enshittification is unavoidable once Gabe Newell is no longer at the helm)
Huh, fascinating.
The Patagonia structure is actually strikingly similar to the Bosch model - non-profit owning the shares, but no voting rights, trust having voting rights but no shares - just taking it to the logical 100% conclusion without the residual influence of the Bosch family (having retained a few percent in both).
The model has worked well for many decades for a 100 billion$ revenue company like Bosch, good to see others taking a cue from them.
(Also goes to show that even constructs like these are not safe from corporate fuckups - see the emissions scandal...)
Shareholders are not an effective check in most cases. They are with private companies where individual shareholders have a lot at stake - its their money that is being wasted.
If they can just easily sell the shares they will do that instead.
NASA once offered the UK to launch its satellites almost for free. That offer was rescinded as soon as the UK abandoned its national space program. [1]
From a European perspective, it’s impossible to look at the current situation and believe it would be the same without Ariane 6, even if Ariane 6 itself isn’t particularly competitive. Sovereign access to space is invaluable. Once you lose it, you hand an extraordinary amount of leverage to the White House. And make no mistake: that leverage will be used, whatever the color of the administration.
Yes, that’s not the point I was trying to make, though. But in a way Arianespace doesn’t really need to innovate or compete because because they’ll always have funding due to these legitimate strategic reasons
I agree with your sentiment, but let's not rewrite history too much. Snow Leopard didn't have any new feature, but under the hood it was a massive undertaking IIRC: it introduced a 64-bit kernel and 64-bit system applications like Finder, Mail, Safari, etc. It also replaced many 32-bit system frameworks. Until Snow Leopard MacOS X was still mostly 32 bits.
When Snow Leopard came out it was very buggy, and many apps simply did not run on it. I've been a Mac user since 1993, and I think it's the only version of macOS I ever downgraded from. Don't get me wrong, it eventually became rock solid, the apps I needed were eventually upgraded, and it became a great OS.
But let's not mistake MacOS 10.6.8 for MacOS 10.6.0. And maybe let's not compare macOS 26.0 to MacOS 10.6.8 either, it's not quite fair. Ever since Snow Leopard I've been waiting at least 6 months before upgrading macOS. I don't intend to change that rule anytime soon...
Sarkozy was not the only one sentenced to jail in that trial: Claude Guéant and Brice Hortefeux were also convicted, receiving sentences of six years and two years, respectively.
And then there are the many other trials involving Sarkozy and those around him...
I've been building AltStack.jp, a curated directory of Japanese digital services (cloud hosting, registrars, email providers, and more) all operated in Japan, by Japanese companies.
It’s aimed at people who want to be less dependent on foreign platforms, especially with the current shift away from globalization.
Still early days: only about 20% of the planned categories are up so far.
I've been working on AltStack.jp [1], a curated directory of Japanese digital services (think cloud hosting, registrars, email providers, etc.), all made and operated in Japan. It’s for anyone in Japan looking to reduce reliance on foreign (especially US-based) platforms, inspired by projects like European-Alternatives.eu.
The site itself is built with Astro, content is written in Markdown. It's still very much a work in progress: the design’s evolving, search isn’t done yet, and I’ve only scratched the surface with a handful of categories out of the dozens I have planned.
I think another factor is real estate: a population shrinking by more than half a million people per year eases some of the pressure on rent and land value...
When I lived in New York City (before COVID), I saw many local businesses get priced out of my neighborhood, only to be replaced by high-margin chains like Starbucks/H&M/etc. They were the only ones who could afford the rent!
I don't know where you're from, so apologies if this is an unfair assumption, but in countries like the US or Australia people often seem less attuned to social class, whereas in places like the UK, France, and indeed Japan, those distinctions can carry more weight, even if they almost always go unspoken.
reply