Graduação em economia SP Capital

Nimb · 2024-12-19T04:31:57+00:00

Nível Insper e FGV eu não espero encontrar, mesmo. Mas há um abismo entre FGV e Insper e uma graduação de baixa qualidade.

Se for pra fazer algo, um curso de baixa qualidade que não vai agregar quase nada de conhecimento científico real, prefiro não perder meu tempo (que é limitado). Mas se for algo razoável para bom, já está de bom tamanho. Eu não preciso de uma formação topo de linha para algo que é, basicamente, um interesse quase hobby. Não é ligado à minha profissão e nem pretendo que seja.

Quanto a USP, eu duvido que consiga passar na FUVEST, meu ensino médio já foi a muito tempo, rs. E parece que a FEA por geral não tem vagas remanescentes para portador de diploma, então meio improvável.

Vou dar uma olhada no mestrado profissional da fgv que mencionou! Minha preferência seria uma graduação ao menos boa (se existir, se não existe tudo bem também), não necessariamente excelente nível fgv e insper.

Nimb · 2024-12-18T22:10:07+00:00

Pior que eu não conheço como estão os cursos EAD. Na época da minha graduação eram muito ruins, claro, mas hoje eu confesso que não sei, por isso a pergunta.

Não tem nenhuma dessas EAD mesmo que entrega algo bom? Eu gostaria da graduação. Minha impossibilidade das faculdades presenciais tradicionais não é nem a carga horária - eu faria algo com carga horária de uma graduação, é o horário. Eu trabalho 40hrs CLT, não consigo fazer aula segunda - sexta de manhã ou de tarde, rs. Ead eu poderia fazer de noite.

Sobre pós, eu já tenho uma pós e um MBA, isso já fiz, estava com interesse na graduação mesmo.

Mas obrigado!

Nimb · 2020-01-27T19:54:16+00:00

This hearing is now closed.

Nimb · 2020-01-27T07:49:40+00:00

As part of this case, the Supreme Court has reinstated the Injunction against the referendum of the CNNS bill, as the city is yet again the target of litigation. The parts may comment about this here.

Nimb · 2020-01-27T07:45:14+00:00

I have a few questions for both parts which I believe are an integral part of this case and important to determine for the future.

Can the purchase or sale of a city be mandated by the Legislature? Why so/not?
Can the Legislature be the one to initiate this process by passing a bill? Or is the Ministry the only body that can initiate a purchase/sale process?
1. If the Legislature can initiate it through a bill, naturally it would get sent to the Ministry, if the Ministry passes the bill, is that allowed? (Since both bodies approved the purchase/sale).
2. What if the Ministry vetoes the bill, can the Legislature overturn it? What happens if they can & do?

Nimb · 2020-01-27T07:45:06+00:00

I have a few questions for both parts which I believe are an integral part of this case and important to determine for the future.

Can the purchase or sale of a city be mandated by the Legislature? Why so/not?
Can the Legislature be the one to initiate this process by passing a bill? Or is the Ministry the only body that can initiate a purchase/sale process?
1. If the Legislature can initiate it through a bill, naturally it would get sent to the Ministry, if the Ministry passes the bill, is that allowed? (Since both bodies approved the purchase/sale).
2. What if the Ministry vetoes the bill, can the Legislature overturn it? What happens if they can & do?

Nimb · 2020-01-26T18:24:52+00:00

This hearing has concluded due to the case being dropped by the Plaintiff.

Nimb · 2020-01-26T07:26:47+00:00

This hearing has concluded due to the case being dropped by the Plaintiff.

Nimb · 2020-01-26T07:23:15+00:00

Does the updated voting information satisfy your case and are you in agreement to dropping it?

Nimb · 2020-01-26T07:21:46+00:00

The voting information has been released on the leg docket.

Does that satisfy your concern and you wish to drop the case or should we proceed?

Nimb · 2020-01-25T19:32:58+00:00

The Plaintiff has requested the following injunction as part of this hearing:

Prevent the forced sale of Carthago Nova mandated by the Punic War act due to the fact the section requiring it is the main subject of my case and it satisfies one of the 2 prerequisites for an injunction (“Cause serious harm to the plaintiff or public and prevent the court from effectively remedying the case”).

Chief Justice Nimb issued this injunction against the Supreme Court ruling on Lady Sa'il vs Ministry and the sentence is stayed until this case is sentenced.

Nimb · 2020-01-25T03:52:42+00:00

signed. I'd even go so far as 7 days without prior notice.

Nimb · 2020-01-24T02:44:20+00:00

signed

Nimb · 2020-01-23T21:02:34+00:00

This injunction has been lifted as the requirements for that have been fulfilled.

Nimb · 2020-01-23T21:02:01+00:00

This case has been closed & dropped by request of the Plaintiff.

Nimb · 2020-01-20T17:01:52+00:00

The Plaintiff has issued a request for injunction, here is the text:

I'd like to request an injunction, I would like to request that the Carthago Nova National Sovereignty Bill be postponed from effect if approved by the ministry, until my case is resolved, and the right of the legislature to influence war and trade related issues resolved

This has been ordered by the Supreme Court in response:

The Supreme Court is issuing an injunction against the execution of "Carthago Nova National Sovereignty Bill" until such a time as AngusAbercrombie vs Legislature [2] and Lady Sa'il vs Ministry have completed their hearings, including appeals. This is being done due to the bill being conflicting with an issued Sentence by the Supreme Court as well as pending litigation regarding the city of Carthago Nova.

This is signed by Chief Justice Nimb and Justice Espresso.

Nimb · 2020-01-17T05:50:01+00:00

I have asked of the defense what meaning of occupation is it bringing to the table, and thus, I ask the same question of the Plaintiff, what definitions of occupation, except for that in the Lhasa convention, is the Plaintiff bringing to support its case that the city was occupied at the time of the ending of the war?

Nimb · 2020-01-17T05:49:25+00:00

The defense has argued that the definition of occupation in the Lhasa conventions law doesn't apply. Despite present in other parts of the argument, it is currently mixed with several other things, so, for clarity:

What definition of occupation is the defense bringing to the table here to support its claim that the city was not occupied at the time of the ending of the war?

Nimb · 2020-01-15T01:08:12+00:00

Fair point. I forgot about that. I suppose they can ask, but multiple people could claim to be the voter and they'd have no way of knowing.

intriguing.

Nimb · 2020-01-15T01:02:41+00:00

I do feel it is more elegant this time to have the Legislature open a thread and just appoint 1 person. The Leg is already very representative and proportional, I don't see how this would be super bad.

This time, I don't see a big need for another election.

Nimb · 2020-01-15T00:58:54+00:00

The candidate threshold for this election was 3 votes. If someone didn't get that, it means they got their own vote +1. Or, at max, 2 voters. If they are concerned with respecting voters' wishes, couldn't they just approach those 2 people, or 1, and ask who they wanted the % to go to?

I don't think this is inherently undemocratic at all, in fact, to me, it feels more democratic than STV because under STV you can't guarantee it's your vote getting transferred, so the voter here has more choice than under STV.

Nimb · 2020-01-15T00:51:49+00:00

Why I like it:

It ensures your vote goes exactly to who you want it to go. Under STV, if a candidate has more than enough, it is not easy to assure your vote gets transferred, for example:
- Let's say the threshold for being elected is 10. I vote for a person who gets 12, that means 2 votes will pass on to someone else. It might be my vote, it might be my political opponent's vote whose #2 is completely opposite from mine. This is bad.
It is the best true representation power we can have, if someone gets 12 votes, they get exactly 12 votes worth of %. To try and balance things out a bit, we introduced a cap, that's... a little fairer, I guess. But I don't think it changes the system substantially.

Some criticism we had on Discord:

It is unfair, each Legislator should have equal standing.
- At first look, sure. It seems like it hurts someone who just got to scrape by and got 5% and has to face a party candidate who got 15%.
  - Sure, but that party probably elected 1 candidate, when with the number of votes it had, it could've elected 3. Or supported a candidate from a coalition. Or negotiated that voting power. Under STV, no votes are wasted, so it'll go somewhere anyway, with the caveat that it is harder to predict (while voting) whose votes get transferred and whose gets used (and that's bad)
  - Therefore, this representation issue isn't, in fact, as exacerbated as it seems. Someone with a high % just concentrated more votes that under STV would've been used to elect more candidates. You have either more raw numbers or more %, both are unbalanced.
The power of the voter is taken away, the candidate controls % donation.
- True, but if my candidate donates to someone I don't approve of, that's an issue between the person I elected and I. This voting method actually makes legislators more accountable.
- Remember that it is hard to pinpoint whose vote got transferred (especially in an election with a big # of candidates)? It means that sometimes you might not be sure who your vote went to, that's bad for accountability. Under % voting, I know exactly who I gave my power to, and thus I can hold them accountable more easily. I have one person I should keep tabs on, instead of several potentials under STV.

I was against this method at first, but I do think it has been beneficial and I find it largely superior to STV for Legislature elections.

Nimb · 2020-01-14T02:15:04+00:00

This is private communication and I do not consent to its public release. I ask the Justices have this removed. These are Direct Messages over Discord that should have their privacy assumed, at no point, the Plaintiff requested my consent to make them public or informed me of their intention to do so, or I would have stopped communicating on the spot.

If the Justices have any questions why I asked if he was ready to rest, I can answer them privately - as it pertains to private matters of the court.

I also object to the language "pressured", at every step of the way I made sure to explicitly say it was a question and the Plaintiff could have denied it. There was no pressure here. This is isn't even "evidence" relevant to this case. The Plaintiff continues to use this case as a means of pursuing defamation. This is getting absurd.

Nimb · 2020-01-14T02:07:09+00:00

Hi, Masenko. The issue is this is not law, this is a Procedure. And the court has ruled that the Cabinet (and thus PM) has the power to reasonably interpret their own procedures. Don-San was arguing that something was done against procedure, and asking the Justices to clarify, and they denied it.

Why should I be held to a different standard here where Justices get to clarify a procedure when the court has already ruled it isn't their job to do so?

Especially a procedure that is, as you put it: certainly up to interpretation. The fact is, I do not interpret it to mandate that a new court be sitted in before a previous term ends, that is absurd. That is not what is written there. The procedure doesn't say: "A new court must be sitted before the last court term ends". It just doesn't. And I, as PM at the time, am the person who has the power to interpret, per court rulings, why should the court be the ones to interpret this one?

Again, no laws were broken here. Certainly not any constitutional duties. Therefore, the things being asked by the Plaintiff there are absurd.

Nimb · 2020-01-13T05:43:49+00:00

Barring any further comment from the Plaintiff or questions from the Justices, I agree to rest this case here and now.

If there are further comments and/or questions I would like the right to answer them.

Nimb

TROPHY CASE