shikitohno

Part of this seems like it's attributable to changes in lifestyle and material conditions of younger people, relative to their parents. Different aesthetics might mean their parents' stuff looks incredibly gaudy to them, and doesn't go with anything else in their apartment. My parents' home is larger than any place I can reasonably expect to be able to afford, so I also don't want their big dining room table that I'd have to pay for storage on for years before I can afford a space that it will immediately fill all of. Even if it's a nice piece of furniture, that's just a pain in the neck to go through, all for something I might never get to use.

On the topic of collections, boomers just fundamentally ignore key parts of collectibility. First, old collectables only became so valuable precisely because people weren't obsessively hording and caring for everything with the intent of selling it down the line. Old Superman comics are rare and valuable due to people who bought them at the time they first came out largely treating them as disposable. They didn't assume they were anything special that merited being held on to and cared for, so they didn't. When everyone and their dog buys up commemorative plate sets, or Beanie Babies, or whatever other collectable grift boomers fell for, and they take great care of them, they don't generally see their value do anything but decrease. The supply doesn't get significantly reduced, and everyone else can see that they didn't pan out as the collectable investments they were billed as, so who would want them?

That said, even for collections of items of genuine worth, you mostly need to hope that whoever you're looking to give it to is as into whatever hobby as you are. If I were planning on having kids, I think it would be pretty unreasonable to expect them to know what to do with my fountain pen collection, unless they were into them as well. Otherwise, it's just a ton of fussy pens that seem to have a fair number of duplicates that are really only distinguished by knowledge I couldn't expect them to take the time to go gathering. Then, it's still a big pain to actually identify things, make sales listings and sell them off. Hell, I have the knowledge, and even I find it annoying to do so.

Maybe we could address this, in part, by normalizing expanding options a bit for inheritance. If my hypothetical kids aren't going to know how to make heads or tails of my pen collection, but I've got a younger friend who is just as into the hobby as I am, it would be nice if I could just leave them that specific collection, without having to worry it'll kick off some acrimonious squabbling. Failing that, have parents indicate who they trust to sell an item for a fair price if nobody wants it. You can take it and think about it, but if it's just not for you, you've got a trusted source to sell it off for you, so you (hopefully) don't have to go through an ordeal trying to find someone to sell it for you that will give you a fair shake.

Parks and libraries, sure, but the rest pretty much all cost money around me. Art spaces are largely monetized, outside of maybe a free night a week, for a limited amount of time before closing that doesn't include access to all exhibits. Community/rec centers host events and charge money for most of them now, since I guess younger generations aren't becoming members in large enough numbers to make things self-sustaining otherwise. Churches have the disadvantage of being churches. Sure, you can technically hang out in them for free, so long as you don't mind constant religious services, which kind of comes with the territory on that one.

I can't remember another recent candidate in the US that not only wasn't super pro-Taiwan, but said the US should just hang them out to dry if the PRC were to invade the island. They probably like that side of him.

Plus, an incredibly vain, greedy and self-confident idiot is not the hardest of targets to get to do what you want.

Americans have to learn to live with each other, one way or another.

Honestly, I often think Americans need to learn to live apart from each other these days. I'm very skeptical of the notion that the US can ever function as a coherent political unit again, and it might be better for all to just cut bait and move to an EU-esque free movement regime. Let New England, the South, the Midwest, the West Coast and whatever Alaska and Hawaii want to be each be their own independent countries, but any citizen of one has the right to move to any if the others and work immediately. If Republicans want to enact their own little Handmaid's Tales in the deep South, they can go for it, but no moaning when women and POC decide to move elsewhere. The non-GOP hellscape regions can implement social safety net programs to allow anyone who wants to leave the conservative regions to do so, regardless of financial means, knowing they will have housing, food and healthcare when they get to a civilized country.

It really feels like some backwards regions are holding the whole country hostage at this point.

Beating your wife? I could not see as a cultural thing.

That's kind of exactly my point, though. I see claiming being loud and inconsiderate to others as people practicing their culture to be just as disingenuous an argument as saying wife-beating is a part of Irish culture that just has to be accepted. It's just brought out to defend bad behavior, often with the implication that if you continue to criticize said behavior, you're automatically in the wrong, having revealed yourself as bigoted against whatever group you're criticizing.

its people practicing their culture.

Personally, I hate this line, because I only ever hear it trotted out to excuse bad behavior that people know they shouldn't. Saying that being a loud nuisance in public is people practicing their culture is just as absurd as saying Irish men getting drunk and beating their wives is practicing Irish culture. It might be a negative cultural stereotype some of them actually live up to, be it doesn't mean it should be tolerated.

Even if you want to accept that it's a valid argument, one's right to practice their culture ends where it limits the rights of others to do the same. People don't get carte blanche to make everyone else change their lives to accommodate a culture with no sense of appropriate volume or consideration for others.

A lot of the things they name aren't inherently city noises, either, though. I don't live near any concert venues or airports, so I don't hear noise from either of those sources. You could live in the middle of nowhere, but if you live above the local bar, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it's loud on Friday and Saturday nights. Dogs and birds aren't exactly uniquely urban phenomena, and the sound of peoples' shoes on the sidewalk being a major source of noise just strikes me as absurd.

I don't mind interacting with others in public, but I very much dislike inconsiderate people who decide to monopolize public spaces at the expense of others being able to enjoy them in their own way. I don't care about someone listening to the radio with their friends at a reasonable volume while they chill and talk. The reality is more often rival clusters of people with massive speakers, each turning their stuff higher because they can't hear their crappy music over the other people doing the same thing up and down the block. Me being unable to sleep at 4AM on a Wednesday because I can hear your terrible choice in Dembow and Rap that you choose to accompany your domino games and hookah sessions from my apartment on the seventh floor isn't us having an interaction, it's you being a nuisance.

They may be idealists that don't reflect a use case I think is reasonable to expect of the average user, but I would also say that it's very important to have them there, constantly agitating for more and better. They certainly don't manage to land on achieving all their goals, but they also prevent a more compromising, "I just need to use my stuff now, not in 10 years when you figure out a FOSS implementation" stance from being used to slowly bring even more things further away from FOSS principles in the name of pragmatism.

Yes, you used to be able to walk into a role that took anyone who could turn up and learn, but technological and economic demands mean that its no longer viable.

Economic demands, sure, but I would argue that is more a result of policy than anything insurmountable. Technologically, not at all. I'm guessing you're in NZ, based on your username, and I won't pretend to be able to speak for conditions there, but I would say a great many of the jobs in the US demanding a degree do not actually require them. I'm not saying that we should completely eliminate degree requirements, but companies should be expected to pay the costs of training. There are so many jobs out there that require little more than basic computer skills, learning to use whatever specialty software they make use of, and the workflows of the particular job site. A university education is overkill to teach basic computer literacy, and the other two often wind up things that you will only learn upon beginning the job. For many others, an associate's or some form of professional certification is probably enough to really get you up to speed on the essential knowledge to work in many industries.

Proper apprenticeships are not terribly common here, and along with trades as career paths, have suffered from decades of anti-union agitation. Outside of areas with strong unions, trades can be shockingly poorly paid. I see more people just not going to university because they don't see much point to it, as degree inflation essentially means they need to get a Masters or PhD to even stand out now, and they don't see themselves doing that. If I wind up working with the same people who got degrees in the fields I have any interest or proficiency in, what's the point of taking on that debt and doing all that work, only to find myself in the same situation I'm in without a degree?

Meanwhile, universities here will implement austerity measures that result in even more tenuous employment and abysmal pay for professors, yet they seem to have no end of money for ballooning administrative costs, sports teams/facilities and insanely overpaid executives. They always have money for everything except education and research, and reveal their priorities in how they spend their money and where they cut back. Making job training and profit the focus of higher education has simply undermined the institution as a whole, here.

This strikes me more as a result of the push for everyone to attend university, and the perversion of higher education's function to be almost purely vocational at the undergrad level. Now, companies no longer seem to offer any proper internal training for the majority of roles, preferring to just require a college degree, any degree, and say, "Eh, this person got a BA in Medieval Tibetan science fiction, they should be able to figure it out." Positions that my father was hired for in the 80s and 90s that he excelled in offered 3-6 month training periods, and were accepting pretty much any candidate who showed an interest in learning and could pass an interview. These same positions now want a BA, internships and multiple references to be considered, and have eliminated the training programs offered, assuming new hires will either know how to do the role already, or figure it out as they go.

While I think that anyone who in interested in doing so should have the right to pursue higher education, I think the push for everyone to do so is probably misguided, ultimately doing a disservice to most students, and to the idea of tertiary education as a whole. There are many people who don't have any particular interest in pursuing further studies beyond, "I would like to get a job and not die starving in a gutter, please." They aren't really going to benefit from a university education aimed at pursuing knowledge for its own sake, and this sort of curriculum also doesn't necessarily serve the increasing demand of universities to be fancy vocational institutes, so the course work gets dumbed down and everyone gets a subpar experience. Of course, students are going to be disengaged if they didn't really have any interest in rigorous study of a field to begin with, but have arrived at their chosen major by function of either how easy it is to get a degree (and thus, tick another box in HR software), or what the expected return on their investment in tuition will be.

In my opinion, rather than pushing for everyone to attend university, we ought to demand more of our primary and secondary educational institutes (though, in the US, we should probably have them properly functioning at their currently inadequate level first, I suppose), and stop letting companies off load the costs of job training upon applicants. Bring back more paid apprenticeships, in-house training, and stop stigmatizing anything but white-collar employment in an office or high-prestige fields, such as medicine and law. I'd also like to see companies required to list specific degree requirements, rather than simply having an exclusionary requirement for a degree, any degree, in their job postings. If a job requires advanced mathematics, sure, require a BS in Maths, or science fields that have a heavy emphasis on the same. If the degree requirement can be met with a BS in Zoology, a BA in Criminal Justice, or an "Oh, shit, this guy knows this ancient software our business relies on!" without any degree, I think it should be eliminated as a requirement. And that's not a hypothetical situation, but reflects my coworker, my boss and myself respectively, in my previous job at a pharmaceutical plant.

Pipe dreams, I know, but we should hardly be surprised that students are not as engaged when society has fundamentally altered the meaning of obtaining a degree at the university level, obliging many who otherwise had little interest, if any, to sign up for tertiary education as a bare minimum to possibly live somewhat comfortable lives.

One thing worth taking into account is that the Diplomat will be a much heavier pen than the Sailor. Whether that's a good or a bad thing will come down to your preferences, but searching around reveals the body of the Diplomat weighs 21g alone, versus 10g for the Sailor.