Only because the plan was opposed on equally political grounds. The idea was a welcomed one by the people who voted for the politicians in favor of it, and not welcomed by the ones they didn't vote for, so the points went where they belonged.
If it was so certain that they had no intention of going through with it, why not call their bluff and turn the responsibility for killing it back on them?
> If it was so certain that they had no intention of going through with it, why not call their bluff and turn the responsibility for killing it back on them?
That's the wrong question. It was never if they had "intention of going through with it," it was about if they would be able to actually pull it off. The GGP stated "This was doomed to fail from the beginning and I bet they knew it," and I have to agree. Their plan to push this through purely via executive action was very likely to fail (and did), and the lawyers and politicians who formulated almost certainly knew the odds.
Do you REALLY think an executive order had any chance of succeeding? Think about it for a minute. You think the SC would be ok with the president having the ability to forgive loans on a whim?
> The fact one of the pictures is the house on literal fire, coupled with this context, goes to show that some people really don't belong anywhere in marketing or sales.
Namely, honest people who aren't total shitbags always trying to put one over on their fellow human beings for profit.
Right, which means perfectly preventable problems just plague you until they become catastrophic enough that they require life-saving care. The bare minimum of course.
Telemarketing is just a subset of the greater evil of marketing in general. It is an industry of invading your attention in an effort to manipulate you into doing something you otherwise wouldn't.
We should take every opportunity to worsen their lives as they have employed themselves to worsen ours.
> It is an industry of invading your attention in an effort to manipulate you into doing something you otherwise wouldn't.
Just to play devil's advocate for a second. Some times you don't do things that would benefit you. In these cases getting your to do something that you wouldn't otherwise do is beneficial.
Telemarketing is invasive and scammy but the idea all marketing is evil reads like something written by a moody teenager.
Marketing does more than just create ads: they research what their customers want, what they say they want vs. what they actually buy, and it doesn't matter how good your product is if no one knows about it.
The problem is that there are almost always other companies making the same/similar products, so you create a race-to-the-bottom effect where you have to eventually get more and more crazy in your methods of reaching a target audience. Don't blame marketing, blame capitalism.
I can blame both, as well as the underlying sociopathic mechanisms that the modern understanding of the terms necessitate.
If I am not mistaken what you are describing is market research, not marketing. Marketing is, in practice if not theory, about invasion of attention and manipulation. If marketing were not these things then companies would be content to have their products discovered in catalogs and store shelves where interested parties willing to devote attention to such things would readily find them.
Does webui not require testing on each platform+browser combo? Or are we just accepting that sometimes it is going to break and not allowing the same consideration for native GUI frameworks?
Let me ask you something: would you value a set of ~5 games that are an imagining of VCS-era console games as envisioned to exist in an alternate timeline where the Soviet Union was the predominant exporter of culture rather than the US?
Because that's the kind of thing I come up with and would be making if I had a life situation where I didn't have to sell entirely too much of my time for food, shelter, and health care.
So I guess what I'm asking (genuinely) is, is that the kind of art you really want to see a lot more of[0], and filter through, and one way or another pay for? Or is it perhaps better the production of such things is the domain of people who do not require such support?
[0] I do, but I'm clearly biased. Count me among the people who want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who are paid more to work less.
If it was so certain that they had no intention of going through with it, why not call their bluff and turn the responsibility for killing it back on them?