I’ve been given some books on writing through the years, but never thought much of them. I didn’t read these full articles, but what I saw looked good: Article 1, Article 2 (mostly contains links to other articles on the topic).

There’s a lot to consume there in terms of writing theory, but one of my favorite exercises is taking a certain writer’s style, identifying some of what is interesting about their style, and applying it to your own writing. The writing needs to be something connected to you and it helps if you can pick a topic that evokes emotion in you, even if it’s otherwise not something you consider to be a notable story. The important part is being able to tap into your own vulnerability because it can help what you put on paper to be genuine. This doesn’t mean everything you ever write needs to be this way, it’s just helpful and a good place to start and learn. It’s the whole idea of “putting your heart and soul or a part of yourself in your writing” but that people sometimes talk about. Once you learn to tap into that and break down the barriers, you can channel yourself into other writing much easier. Writing like you naturally talk can help, but it’s probably bad grammar for writing (except when writing conversations).

Again, it’s not always easy and I have no clue how much harder this is if you live somewhere without native speakers in the language you are writing, but you need others to read your work. That’s what most writing is for!

If you end up doing technical writing for science or similar, my best advice is keep the layman in mind. Most science writing is overly clunky and full of jargon and buzzwords that not only drive off the layman, but drive off scientists not in that particular field. It’s stupid and bad writing all to stroke the ego of the writer to get a false sense that they sound smarter. To many, it just makes the writing hard to consume. Technical writing should go into sufficient technical detail while aiming to be as easy to consume as possible, even if you make assumptions that the audience understands a topic. Here is an example of good technical writing.

While everything above and reading in particular is good advice, being a good reader doesn’t make you a good writer.

You must read to learn and then apply those concepts in your own writing. Better yet, have your writing critiqued by a varied audience that includes at least one person with some training in English writing. Universities and libraries often have editors to help with writing or hold writer’s workshops where you can find these people and get help for free.

To get good at writing, you must write consistently with pointed effort at improvement. This doesn’t start at writing many pieces, but at repeatedly revising a single piece. Even the writing of the most experienced author begins to shine only after polishing. The revision steps are some of the best opportunities to learn and to reach out for advice on how to improve a piece of writing.

All neutrality is false.

This is media literacy 101. Once you can get past this, you find that outlets that wear their bias on their sleeves are refreshing over those who feign neutrality. They begin to come.of as aloof and condescending, because that’s exactly what they are. It’s not journalism, it’s theatre. Same thing goes with regurgitating exactly what government spokespersons say: that’s not journalism. Journalism includes investigation and critique. It’s not possible to give an unbiased critique.

Looking at you NYT, you fucking dumpster fire. I only keep you around because a dumpster fire can provide warmth.

I read from multiple sources to cross-reference what narratives are being pushed, and I find news outlets who are often labelled “biased” are the ones most likely to just lay everything on the table. They aren’t deliberately trying to direct you into how to think because they assume you agree with them. “This happened and we think it’s bullshit!”

You’re also more likely to hear about stories that are left out or considered unimportant or are intentionally censored by the mainstream outlets. It’s more often the case that they will censor themselves than the government will directly get involved and this is far less from smaller news groups who don’t worry about being labelled as biased.

Only a basic exam, no special screening.

Umm…

But the reality I see is that they are very easily manipulated by unregulated media like TikTok and would vote for the same extreme right wing party as old people. Surveys here in Germany are a bit disturbing…

The same argument can be made for people of any age.

Can’t we instead take away voting rights from old people? Also kinda wrong.

The same can also be applied to younger people.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of including them. It’s unjust that we can take advantage of them in so many ways as a teen but they can’t participate in the political system that decides how they can be taken advantage of (work, school, taxes, military, etc.) I know I hated it at that age and as a general rule, I’ve tried not to repeat the same things the adults in my life did that pissed me off when I was a kid. It’s not a perfect approach, but it’s been the correct approach to avoid the problems it caused when I was growing up from being repeated more often than not.

The only way to do right by them is to give them the right. If you are worried about them being manipulated too easily, education is a good fix.

And as a conflicting anecdote, my 16 year old is very interested in politics and very much wants to have a say in their own life, just like I did at that age. Are they the most informed individual? Hell no. Are they more informed than some adults? Hell yes.

Younger people may be susceptible to their lack of experience, but they are also more likely to bring new ideas to the table because they are less invested in the status quo. If they have the capacity to make informed decisions, they should have the right to self determination and participation in our political systems.

What you say about your kid doesn’t sound like an inability to process these concepts, just a lack of interest. Do you talk to your kid about politics and if so, how? I’ve found I’ve made a lot of progress by talking to teens about current events and asking them what they think. They won’t care about every topic, but I guarantee there is something that will peak their interest and typically topics related to adults imposing their beliefs on kids will get teens to talk, even if it’s just related to school. It’s important that you get them talking about their beliefs, not just telling them yours, because they won’t want to talk to you unless they feel like you will treat them as a peer.

You don’t need to agree with their beliefs, just listen and not talk down to them. Ask follow-up questions that can turn into wider conversations. Help try to explain what is going on and the context surrounding it if needed. You can absolutely share your views, but it’s usually best to talk about what’s going on/being discussed, asking their thoughts, and then following with yours. If you talk down to a kid, they will shut down or fight back (and also shut down). They need the same respect adults crave. They’ll also eventually disagree with you just like adults.

It varies by person, but I’ve found kids tend to start getting interested around 13-14 if you take this approach and then will really come into their own in terms of beliefs by 16. Kids have a LOT they are concerned about in the world today even without this. It causes many of them significant anxiety because they feel powerless. If you have success getting them interested, 16 (or after a few years of observing and talking about current events, history, and politics) is a good age to talk about analyzing the events.

If you’re into Marxism, it’s a great time to start teaching and practicing dialectical materialism so they can figure out for themselves why the world is the way it is on their own.

I know there can be differences with ASD, but I have a few cousins who are 15-20 years younger than me with ASD and have found the same applied for them. Details of the conversation, finding something that gets them invested in the topics, and explanations you give them may vary, but the basic approach doesn’t change and this varies by person regardless of any condition.

This is just a random reply, but if it’s something you want to be able to talk to her about, I hope this helps you be able to do that in a way that expands your relationship as they grow older. I know I wish I could have talked to my parents about politics and the world the same way I do with my kids when I was a kid.

And the skewed power dynamic.

I’ll trade you the communal toothbrush for this joke.

You can always buy a rice cooker but I think it’s good to learn how to cook without specific instruments, it also cuts down clutter in the kitchen.

I take a similar approach, but wanted something better for rice, so I bought an aluminum pot with a ceramic coating on the inside as an alternative to a rice cooker. Does a great job with rice and can be used for many other things as it is a normal pot/dutch oven.

Receives email invite to cyber security training

Email: “RSVP for Meeting”

Looks around suspiciously, then selects NO

For real though, I don’t do this…often. I’d laugh if I ended up getting signed up for one of these though. My institution isn’t that advanced on their IT front yet.

I like to click on phishing links and send them messages in the password section. Hopfully they find it entertaining.

outdated hardware

I think they prefer the term “time-tested.”

As a human being intrinsically tied to the fate of the Earth, you are legally required to mercilessly harass these friends for buying a new phone each year.

How the fuck can anyone justify this behavior?

They frequently didn’t allow me to use copy/paste around 10-15 years ago and I never forgave them for robbing me of such a basic feature. I switched to Android as soon as my iPhone died.

Why not take it a step further and be fully serious?

I would like to see a new set of laws where if there are any employees at an organization who aren’t earning a living wage with full benefits (not PTO or that 1 week vacation bullshit, paid sick leave and 5+ weeks of paid vacation per year, minimum), and if employees are regularly (more than 1 week out of a year) required to work more than 40 hours in a week, a timer starts.

They have 1 week to rectify the situation or the owners and entire executive team are given a prison sentence for 30 years and all of their assets are seized. No outside amenities or special privileges allowed in prison. Mandatory reeducation classes with public written and oral presentation assignments where the person must describe what they did that was wrong, why it was wrong, how their actions negatively affected others, and what actions they’ve taken to right their wrongs and learn to be better since their violation. When released, they are permanently barred from owning any portion of a private company or acting in a paid supervisory role for 20 years unless granted this right by unanimous vote by all of those they will supervise, subject to a new vote at the workers’ discretion.

Supervisor pay is tacked to no more than 1.5x that of their lowest paid worker. Executives cannot receive stock options as any form of compensation. If a private company is found in violation, it and all of its assets are equally distributed, becoming the collective property of the employees unless they wave this right, in which case it becomes property of the state and can never be sold to a private party again. The law applies to all organizations where any participant is paid. In the case of the state, the rules for the executive team apply to the head of state and their cabinet.

Have fun fucking around with those laws, but I’m sure I could come up with more as they search for loopholes. For instance, those found to be subverting the system are subject to a 50 year sentence instead of 30.

I’d accept a socialist society as an alternative. I’m sure the workers could come up with laws they find appropriate in that case. My hope would be that mine would be oppressive enough toward the ruling class to make them desire the reprieve of socialism, the sadistic, parasitic fucks. This is more than they deserve.

“A different damned drink.”

I agree with the term enshitification for this thing normally, but this is just a “bait and switch” at this point.

This argument is hilarious with the intended implication that Republicans would somehow be different

Irrelevant hypothetical. The Democrats are complicit in an ongoing genocide.

Dems are still far better for the US though

Keep dreaming. They’ve been telling you this for decades, but there’s functionally no difference at home (besides the crackdown on protests against the genocide, fascism much?). Roe v Wade was overturned under Democrats despite them using the abuser logic, “if you don’t vote for us, our opponents will take away this right.” Speaking of, the Democrats have had multiple opportunities to codify RvW over the last 50 years, times when they had super majorities, but they didn’t. The Democrats decided to hold it over our heads as a threat instead. The Democrats decided to allow the Republicans to bully them into filling SCOTUS with right-wingers who would support their agenda. The Democrats have fulfilled none of their domestic policy promises to the people (only wealthy “investors,” let’s be honest, they aren’t contributing to campaigns, they are investing in the ability to shape policy), they have taken no actions to address the frequent abuses of the filibuster made by Republicans, and they’ve by far been the more deadly of these two parties when it comes to foreign policy (sanctions) and military operations.

How much longer are you going to continue eating their shit and pretending it’s chocolate? Do you really think you are so helpless as to have no option but to vote for one of these two parties? Do you think the only political action you can take is donating, campaigning for one of two shitty parties, and voting? Oops, my favored political party is doing shit I don’t want (contributing to a genocide), but I’m not going to do shit and will still vote for them despite that.

Quit your shit and just own it. I’d say it’s hilarious, but it just isn’t anymore. You want to vote for fascists, you are pressuring others to vote for fascists, and it’s either because you fucking want fascists in power or you don’t want to oppose these fascists. You are supporting a genocide and it’s sickening.

Just shut the fuck up with the fascist apologia and classic liberal moral grandstanding. No one buys the lie that the Democrats are the morally superior party anymore. The Democrats aren’t progressive and never will be. Your support of them reflects on you and your values. You aren’t progressive, you support these fucking ghouls despite claiming to have morals and values and desires that are opposite of the actions your chosen party is taking.

Get fucked.

Any chance you’d be willing to provide answers to any of my questions based on what you saw?

Good points. It’s difficult to find a clear answer to how important lend-lease was to the Soviet war effort. During the war, the USSR and US obviously had good things to say about the program, but the start of the Cold War soured this discussion, leading to the US overstating and the USSR understating the impact. Here’s an excerpt from a paper by a British scholar exploring the topic. Emphasis is the author’s:

It is neither possible nor fruitful to try and put a precise measure on the material value of allied aid to the Soviet war economy, if only because of the unavailability of many Soviet production data. Whatever the value of western aid, the Soviet war effort was measured in human life and suffering incomparable with material aid from outside. Further, the Soviet economy became much more of a war economy than other combatant nations. Nonetheless, it seems that the contribution made by deliveries from the USA and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Canada, played an important part at crucial times and in crucial areas. First, and above all, was a vital margin of food supplies, second was the provision of specialist or deficit products such as aluminium and copper, specialized tools, high quality steels. In this respect lend-lease supplies overcame bottlenecks. However, it must be stressed that the major impact came after the Soviet counterattack and the beginning of German retreat. Such aid directly and indirectly helped defeat the German forces, and was in such a way a substitute for a second front, but it did little to defend the USSR from the initial onslaught. Third, some of the raw materials and more especially machinery and transport equipment was of positive value to the Soviet economy after the war. For this, the tyre plant is the best but not the only example.

It is nonsense to repeat the figure of four per cent of Soviet wartime production and disingenuous to disparage western aid - a feature evident in Soviet literature and one criticized even by Khrushchev. It is nonetheless true (and this is a point repeated in some Soviet works) that Britain and the Empire received far more than the USSR from the United States. Lend-lease, in this respect, may be seen as a temporary substitute for foreign trade. Britain was a major trading nation, highly dependent on imports, especially for food and raw materials. The USSR, on the other hand, was an economy with little trade dependence whose foreign trade turnover had fallen steadily during the 1930s…

The part left off at the end compares repayment of aid sent to the British vs the Soviets. A fairly short read that will give some more context to the conclusions I shared above.

One of the main points the author makes is that lend-lease was used by the US as a stand-in for entering the war and opening a new front in 1942 as the allies (and Stalin in particular) were requesting. In this context, lend-lease was a replacement for reopening the Western front in 1942, an action that could have been far more impactful. The US provided material aid in lieu of entering the war, shifting the human burden of the war onto the other Allied forces and particularly the USSR from 1942 to least at 1944 (note that lend-lease aid extended wider and was provided from 1941-1945).

Overall, the impression I’ve gotten from sifting through academic writings on the subject is that while lend-lease certainly helped take some of the pressure off of the USSR (mainly in the form of producing food, trucks, and raw materials), it’s most likely that the result would have been the same. That said, wondering over historical what-ifs, while fun, should really be constrained to recreational musing and shouldn’t be taken seriously.