Instead we should elect geriatrics, who can barely speak up half the time, or look like they're about to collapse from good old American heart disease any minute.
No, not geriatrics. 40 to 60 year old men and women who have accomplished something other than lie well enough to get elected a dozen times. Each should only serve a max of 8 years before another is voted in.
Receiving spam really decreases my quality of life even at work. It also instantly puts you on my shit list and I won't do business with you even if I need the product.
I get a lot of spam from sales people at work (IT architect for a large Enterprise). A lot of them clearly never bothered to read my LinkedIn profile (offering solutions that have nothing to do with my field) but are really pushy, demanding a meeting and keep pinging me long after I've blacklisted them though their first email. Usually even including prearranged zoom meetings. I check my junk box once a month or so for legit emails and it's usually full of followups.
Of course I never respond as it will only cause them to follow up more and to demand names of more colleagues to harass.
If you really want me to be interested in what you have to offer, make sure I find it and hear great things about it when I go looking for something I need. It's a lot harder than just buying a list of emails and spamming but also a lot more ethical.
There's definitely a cadence of "followups", that tips into passive-aggressive. "Perhaps you missed my last email" or "if you're not the right person, please pass it along". The entire frame is that you owe them something or are somehow being rude by not replying, even when it's obviously automated spam. And they are positively relentless.
I find the approach especially grating and won't do business with these type, irrespective of what they're selling.
I'd for one like to thank him for reconsidering, there's never been more ways in human history to advertise your business. Don't make a day worse for 800 people for a small edge. If your project is special you will find an audience by other means.
A lot of businesses and individuals give out a contact for business inquiries if they're interested in something like that.
Terrible straw man. The OP themselves explains why spam is much more than "doing regular business:"
> I was told that cold emails are just what B2B companies do and that it is widely accepted, [...] but it just doesn't feel right to me. For me personally, I hate cold emails. I associate it with spam. Do unto others, and all that. I actually hate spam emails so much that I made a custom email service to help combat it.
A better phrasing might be “how dare you cause me to expend time, effort, and attention in order for you to try to further your goals and those of your company”.
You are not qualified nor invited to asses your ability to improve mine or my customers’ quality of life, so it is all for you.
Cold contact in business is self interested, rude, and never justified. The only reasons not to reply to every one with “fuck off” are the time/effort, and that it confirms a working email address and that someone probably at least read the subject. (I suppose it might also look rude out of context if it came up in future, but it’s honestly the deserved response.)
Instead I add companies that cold email to the “do not use/work with” shit list for when I’m thinking about partnerships and service providers. (Actually the list manages itself - I just search for emails mentioning any provider we’re considering using and exclude those that have engaged in cold selling or similar.)
Congress has plenty of time and money. They are too busy jockeying for votes to do anything. The problem with congress is that they are too focused on winning elections instead of doing the GD job. I view this as yet another reason why we need strict term limits for members of congress. There are too many leeches.
Typical staff sizes for congresscritters seem to be about 60 people. I managed to get some salary data on them, and $5M total per congresscritter seems to be reasonable [0]. So, I dunno, double that cost for ancillary expenses and the like, you get ~$10M per congresscritter. Multiply that all out and you have ~26,000 people and ~$4.4B total.
The total spending of the whole US federal government is ~$4T with ~4M people employed. So, ~1000x the budget and ~150x the staff of all of congress and their staffers.
Sure, yeah, you can double or 10x the staff of congress, even up the budgets by 100x. Maybe only 1/10th of the budget is actually needed. Maybe you can get by with giggling the staffer pay ratios. Whatever. You're still really short.
Oh, and you still have to have the staff that was doing the original jobs of the congresscritter.
Unless you completely rejigger how congress works to the tune of a ~100x increase in budget and staff[1], there's just no way congress can take over that job.
[0] There's not really a database on this that I found. I just took a random sample of 35 congresscritters and then googled for their staff sizes and salaries. It's not definitive and it varies a fair amount, but 60 seems to be a high yet good estimate.
[1] Imagine trying to grow any business or enterprise by 100x. It would take a very very long time for the dust to settle. Let alone working all the kinks out of the system that you're creating from whole cloth. And that's a new system. You'd also have the fight with the old system when trying to do this between congress and the exec. branch. The likelihood of it occurring in any kind of reasonable timeline and in any kind of reasonable effectiveness is precisely 0.
A mob of LGBT allies will make your life a living hell if you don't pledge total fealty, so yes, they are fundamentalists and zealots of their own little religion.
Sure it is, and no where did I do such a thing. I merely pointed out the mob attacks that occur when you don't put the pride flag above everything else.
I can't control who I am attracted to - that is a psycho-biological issue, not a cultural one. I may simultaneously be LGBT but hate 'LGBT culture', actively dislike pride parades, etc. You are failing to distinguish between the sexual orientations and the cultural movement, in a way that I find discriminatory. It is offensive stereotyping.
