It's not. The conditions that make up the responsibility is what determines whether it should be upheld or not.
Men need to know when to take responsibility.
They also need to know when to refuse it.
Thread.
It's not. The conditions that make up the responsibility is what determines whether it should be upheld or not.
If its family, unless they reached a level of disownment, responsibility meets no conditions.
It's a mans duty to carry as much as responsibility to alleviate his family's burden.
1. An incentive
2. Authority
3. Leverage
Ideally you want responsibility to beget all three. Most of the time, you start off with only one.
You might learn a thing or two, which can be valuable, but overall, it is value exchanged for nothing.
If it doesn't, then you're not disagreeable enough to negotiate conditions that fairly exchanges value.
Authority is valuable. It turns you into a leader.
And you should reject it. Being exploited in this way is a good indicator that you're too agreeable,
and people end up easily extracting value out of you.
If the responsibility given, is very valuable in of itself, & can be leveraged against the person giving it.
This is the cunning method that forces a return in value.
See thread ⬇️
Any responsibility delegated to you by your boss without a pay rise,
— \u1d1c\u0274\u1d0d\u1d0f\u1d05\u1d07\u0280\u0274 (@UnmodernM) October 20, 2020
takes you one step closer in becoming an inseparable part of his business,
to which you can infinitely leverage against him later & get what you want.
Be patient. Then leverage to a chokehold.
Thread.
More from ᴜɴᴍᴏᴅᴇʀɴ
More from Life
Okay hope everyone having a lovely weekend. Lots of love today. Feeling very blessed 🥰 Going through NNOX tweets from last week. Time to compile threads and bring you highlights. No need to go digging old tweets if I do for you 🤗 FDA, Secondary, and 3P510k. Let’s review..
The NNOX news flow been exceptionally good. I tweet about Fear Uncertainty Doubt and how short sellers leverage friction in news flow to mine some of your gains. NNOX published Form F-1/A to remove friction. Investors have answers.
Form F-1/A Link:
Form F-1 is over 200 detailed pages. Very concentrated. Everything you need for rest of this month in the document. A few notes for you. NNOX FDA approval uses a third party review organization in 510k process. This is abbreviated to 3P510k.
I covered the 3P510K in thread here: https://t.co/w7zE882CVk
Reference to Eagle eyes: https://t.co/gT779MFX82
We discover in F-1 that 3P510K recommended clearance of Nanox Source. This triggers a 30 day timeline to approval by FDA. However ...
Look at you favorite broker news for NNOX. I look at 3 different broker none of them comment NNOX from 60 to 80 on news that 3P510k recommended FDA approve NNOX device. NNOX get a letter and slide 10% we get headline. But no headline for big pop 🤷♂️ that’s the friction.
The NNOX news flow been exceptionally good. I tweet about Fear Uncertainty Doubt and how short sellers leverage friction in news flow to mine some of your gains. NNOX published Form F-1/A to remove friction. Investors have answers.
Form F-1/A Link:
Form F-1 is over 200 detailed pages. Very concentrated. Everything you need for rest of this month in the document. A few notes for you. NNOX FDA approval uses a third party review organization in 510k process. This is abbreviated to 3P510k.
I covered the 3P510K in thread here: https://t.co/w7zE882CVk
Reference to Eagle eyes: https://t.co/gT779MFX82
We discover in F-1 that 3P510K recommended clearance of Nanox Source. This triggers a 30 day timeline to approval by FDA. However ...
Eagle-eyes \U0001f985 https://t.co/w1wF3Ysmt1
— Harvey \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@realharveymark) February 12, 2021
Look at you favorite broker news for NNOX. I look at 3 different broker none of them comment NNOX from 60 to 80 on news that 3P510k recommended FDA approve NNOX device. NNOX get a letter and slide 10% we get headline. But no headline for big pop 🤷♂️ that’s the friction.
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?