hsolerkalinovski

https://mastodon.social/@hsolerkalinovski

* Brazilian

* Business Management student at the University of São Paulo

* Vegan

Public Key

npub1wnvnwm6x76w3z3zmwz7yt2u9tzmsa8a73rpp628xcmpaw3ljlz0stkw8ul

NIP-05 Address

hsolerkalinovski_at_mastodon.social@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs8fkfhdar0d8g3g3dhp0z94wz43dcwn7lg3ssa9rnvds7hgle038cprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntv8glqx

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

Author Public Key

npub1wnvnwm6x76w3z3zmwz7yt2u9tzmsa8a73rpp628xcmpaw3ljlz0stkw8ul

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-03-04 16:50:00 UTC

- reply

yes, but there's no need to dismantle the alliance, just make a parallel one which works regardless of NATO, and remain in NATO in case there is an opportunity for raprochment

2025-03-04 16:19:16 UTC

- reply

why leave NATO though? Say a new US government is elected which is willing to protect its allies. Creating a new NATO or admitting the US into a theoretical european NATO would be more burdensome than just reawakening the alliance.

2025-03-04 13:58:31 UTC

- reply

countries don't need a bloc to do that, and the BRICS effectively isn't used for that, instead have a look at the New Development Bank, the actual initiative from inside BRICS for proposing an alternative to the IMF, and also check how much has been committed in investments through the bank so far, to have a grasp on its economical impact

2025-03-04 12:54:03 UTC

- reply

I guess both of you don't know much about what is BRICS and what it does, just dive into its institutional website and read a few documents, in particular there has never been any real effort comitted to replacing the dollar with whatever else currency one may think of, and the Global South is not a group, it is just the designation given to a set of countries which share common geographical and economical characteristics, for ease of analysis

2025-03-04 02:20:33 UTC

- reply

you mean BRICS? No, it really is just propaganda for electoral purposes

2025-03-04 02:08:12 UTC

- reply

don't worry about BRICS, it has been leaders hand shaking and nothing else since its inception, plus if you want autocracies not to flourish in Brazil, you should be cheering against US intervention anyway, and finally our democracy is more resilient than it looks from outside: we are scared of wars, we always cheer for the poor, we have the greatest gay parade in the world and our social indicators have been going up since the early 2000s

2025-03-04 01:44:05 UTC

- reply

I disagree on those beliefs, but brazilian politics is crazy enough that I respect your opinion and might one day even believe in it myself

2025-03-04 01:42:38 UTC

- reply

It looks like one is using two weights and two measurements: because there are broader political intentions which extend beyond the crime perpetrated by the president, it is a coup; but it matters nothing if the government was involved in corruption scandals, going through its third mandate, printing symbols of the ruling party on top of government shirts and shaking hands with dictators of Cuba, Venezuela and Russia.

2025-03-04 01:38:13 UTC

- reply

my personal belief has always been that the law most be followed thoroughly, so if a politician disrespects it, he deserves to be pushed away from his role (as long as all is constitutional etc). If Lula, Temer and Bolsonaro (and Lula again) committed crimes and were not impeached, that's the real problem. If, however, we really insist on interpreting the law under a broader context, why disregard all the corruption and grip on power that PT held also?

2025-03-04 01:35:33 UTC

- reply

to the best of my knowledge, Moro had nothing to do with the impeachment, but rather with the condemnation of Lula. I know many people (including scholars) defend that 2016 was a coup (never heard any serious person argue the same about 2018 though), but there are equally great people (scholars too) defending it was not, because it was all done using democratic protocols and while respecting the Magna Carta.

2025-03-04 01:31:29 UTC

- reply

wrt 1964, they kind of put a warship at the shores of Rio with 110 tons of guns and explosives, ready to aid the military in overtaking the power "if necessary", besides having secret meetings with military personnel and openly financing anti-government local media. It's not supporting a coup as in "USA invaded Brazil" or "sent troops there", but it is still a slap on the sovereignty of another nation. That said, I blame Kennedy et al, not americans.

2025-03-04 01:03:15 UTC

- reply

is there going to be a continuation?

2025-03-03 23:54:39 UTC

- reply

wth, in 2016 the president was impeached and her vice assumed the government and in 2018 another president was democratically elected, the only coup that the USA ever supported in Brazil was the one in 1964

2025-02-25 18:28:34 UTC

- reply

which management movement? In university, we just skipped from Frederick Taylor straight to Toyota and Michael Porter.

2025-02-14 05:14:44 UTC

- reply

"Chairman Cruz has requested significant scrutiny of awards listed in the database"
Is that so? Or has the american government already started to take actions based on this intelligence before any scrutiny?
Also, is the case of Emily a recurring pattern in the database, or is it just an anomaly cherrypicked for making a point?
Finally, does USA have so much money available to spend on science that it can bare to fund 400 thousand dollars on category theory? I'm jealous.

2025-02-08 04:05:52 UTC

- reply

that's surprising to me, as a few years ago I've stumbled across a research (quite dated already) which revealed a great majority of open source software contributors were man (somewhere around 98-99%). Hopefully, these are changing times.

2024-12-09 15:17:28 UTC

- reply

for an initial resource (in management science) I recommend just annotating whatever keyword candidates you can think of about the subject you're interested in, and perform a google scholar search, combining them variedly. When you feel a retrieved source is in the right direction, snowball it (meaning, click to see all sources who cited it) and repeat. At least, that's how I've been doing it.

2024-12-09 15:05:30 UTC

- reply

I can say (only) for management science, that wikipedia sucks as a source, and hard. Can't say about history, though.

2024-12-05 22:06:18 UTC

- reply

not to fix my whole life, but definitely I plan to do way more than I actually can when I have free time. Although, I don't think this is a neurodivergent thing.

2024-12-01 12:23:55 UTC

- reply

after reading the article, I wanted to check the study myself, but the article doesn't provide a link to it nor does it cite its researchers. That's a bad practice when reporting on scientific results. I am trying to contact the editors, asking for the proper input of a reference in the article. If anyone wants to join me, I emailed
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/nov/30/instagram-actively-helping-to-spread-of-self-harm-among-teenagers-study-suggests
and explained the situation above. Let's hope it works.

2024-11-30 10:48:05 UTC

- reply

easy solution: stop consuming animal-based stuff

2024-09-05 15:43:37 UTC

- reply

I beg your pardon, but please stop using "modern management theory" as if it were a synonym of "pop management discourse and practice".
There is a lot of actual science being done in the former, and plenty of charlatanism taking place in the later.
If we don't use the proper terms, people may remain or become confused, more than we already are.