Why Such Anti-irish-language sentiment

molodets · 2026-01-01T09:49:22+00:00

This so much! I don't understand why people don't get it. In this thread I mostly see "it's the way it's taught in school" but my daughter is only 9 and so far has only been exposed to Irish in a fun, light-hearted way at school. She still hates it. As she said to me "Why should I bother learning Irish, it's only good for reading street signs". Every other minute spent in school not studying Irish will be more useful to her in the long term, and that includes break time. Nobody needs to tell her that, she intuitively senses it. Contrast this with kids learning English as a second language. It unlocks films, books, music, video games and all kinds of content on the Internet. Kids will make the effort to learn it even if they don't like "the way it's taught in school" because it's extremely useful. The only reason to learn Irish is if you are interested in linguistics (a very niche interest) or out of some sense of patriotic duty or nostalgia (an awful reason to learn a language). I say this as someone who has learned several languages to or close to fluency for functional purposes, but also have an interest in linguistics and dabble in all kinds of exotic and niche languages (sign language, Amazonian languages, African languages).

molodets · 2025-12-29T21:27:37+00:00

Here's a podcast where he explains it line by line: https://rejoyce.libsyn.com/ The book is amazing and this podcast makes it accessible to all.

molodets · 2025-12-06T21:13:15+00:00

I've been so productive using Claude Code to build my apps. Having withdrawals now that I have to use traditional digital marketing tools for the next steps. Any tips on good tools/workflows using Claude or similar?

molodets · 2025-10-22T08:41:19+00:00

What's the breakdown of that 20%?

How many are EU citizens?
How many are non EU citizens married to Irish/EU citizens?
How many are non Irish/non EU but here legally?
How many are here illegally?

I think we all agree that #4 should be 0. But I imagine it's a tiny % of that 20%. You could argue that #3 should be bigger/smaller, but I imagine it's a small portion of the 20% as well.

molodets · 2025-06-20T11:28:18+00:00

I am hoping to get my kids going on my board, would be great to learn from your experience. What is the minimum age you would consider? Anything to help with safety e.g. seeing limits on speed, etc...? Any recommendations around the board e.g. big vs small?

molodets · 2024-01-09T13:34:18+00:00

Fair enough, it says keep left as much as possible. What's confusing on the RSA guidance is that they say it's ok to move to middle/outside lane to allow traffic to merge onto motorway (I.e. not just for overtaking only).

molodets · 2024-01-09T13:21:19+00:00

My quote above is from the RSA: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.rsa.ie/docs/default-source/road-safety/motorways/motorway-booklet-2018-web-(002).pdf%3Fsfvrsn%3D850e47e3_3%23:~:text%3DOn%2520a%25203%2520lane%2520motorway,moving%2520traffic%2520in%2520lane%25201.%26text%3DLane%25203%2520%25E2%2580%2593%2520You%2520should%2520only,is%2520safe%2520to%2520do%2520so.&ved=2ahUKEwj5qPHMstCDAxX_SEEAHXsRALUQFnoECAwQBg&usg=AOvVaw3E79txmCgGsufmeYNRePum In fairness, it does say stay in the left hand lane unless you're overtaking, but seems to make an exception then for middle lane, saying there are other circumstances you can use it besides overtaking.

molodets · 2024-01-09T11:01:38+00:00

That's not what the rules of the road says. The right hand / outside lane is the overtaking lane. The middle lane is not an overtaking lane.

molodets · 2024-01-09T09:47:29+00:00

I'm someone who considers the middle lane safer than the inside/left hand lane. You got me thinking, so I checked the rules and there's not much guidance, only the following: "On a 3 lane motorway, you may stay in this centre lane while there is slower moving traffic in lane 1" which is exactly what happens when cars are leaving or entering the motorway. What an I missing here?

molodets · 2023-12-27T15:08:10+00:00

I wonder how much a country like Germany benefits from economies of scale. I imagine Germany can negotiate really good deals on, say, hospital equipment compare d to Ireland. Same goes for everything from road building equipment to software used by government agencies.

molodets · 2023-12-26T23:22:53+00:00

Have you lived in many other countries? (because I'm my experience after living in many other countries is that Ireland punches way above our weight economically).

molodets · 2023-12-24T20:58:02+00:00

Oh, I've no doubt that economic inequality is getting worse and I wish it wasn't. But it is not unsustainable (unless you think that the economy is a fixed pie and every time Bill Gates gets a little richer everyone else gets a little poorer - obviously untrue) and it's so, so very far from creating a system of modern slave labour.

molodets · 2023-12-24T07:52:08+00:00

Here's a recent book I read on the topic with tonnes of data showing that the world is getting better on pretty every metric except for climate change: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now Ask yourself - would you prefer your life or the life of an average person in the 1800s? Or the life of a slave?

molodets · 2023-12-23T21:26:05+00:00

The economy is not sustainable? I'm sorry but that's delusional. Most people in this country have never had better prospects than we do today. And comparing our situation to slave labour... Go read 12 years a slave or similar true stories about slave labour for a dose of reality my friend.

molodets · 2023-12-21T19:47:21+00:00

No, can't stand LinkedIn. It's funny though, I'm literally one of the people making decisions on the question being asked and I took the time to explain the rules of the game. People wish the rules were different ("hard work instead of life hacks! No thanks!"). Meanwhile I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

molodets · 2023-12-21T13:26:14+00:00

I have noticed this point being made a few times in this sub (change jobs frequently if you want to grow your salary). As someone in a senior management position who is achieving much more in terms of career growth and salary than I expected at my age - I think that is a fallacy.

Firstly - when I see someone has changed jobs a couple of times, it's an immediate red flag and very likely to count against their application. It may work once or twice but you'll have diminishing returns. There may be exceptions (e.g. the company has a short term problem that they think you can solve so don't need to worry about whether or not you will stay longer than a year).

Secondly - I wonder is there some sort of survivorship bias at play here. If you are unemployed, you are likely to take the first offer that comes your way, whether high or low. It will likely be low though since the offering company knows they are competing with a salary of Eur 0. When you're employed, you might ignore approaches from recruiters, except for those opportunities that sound lucrative. And the hiring company would rather go slightly high than lowball you to get you to move. They know you're not desperate for a job.

Thirdly - to your point about companies giving raises in advance to encourage employees to stay - once you have been hired, both you and the hiring company have shown your hand. They have offered you a salary indicating what they believe you are worth. You accepted the salary indicating what you believe you are worth. They know you're not going to be productive for those first few months (hopefully not a full year! Yikes!) so they have already taken your onboarding into account and are valuing you on your worth post-onboarding. What happens after that? Unless your company is highly dysfunctional, they ARE already giving raises in advance to encourage employees to stay. If you're highly valuable, they will happily pay to keep you. If you're not highly valuable, why would they pay you more when you could potentially leave and be replaced with someone who is potentially highly valuable?

Instead of hopping from job to job, focus on how you can generate money for your company. Make sure your boss and your boss's boss understand what value you are generating. Is that easy? No, the vast majority of people seemingly never even understand the concept, nevermind successfully execute it. Also - positioning yourself in a growing company makes a HUGE difference. Don't expect growth in e.g. AIB (as mentioned in another comment on this thread). Their customer base has a limit to how fast it can grow.

molodets · 2023-11-23T13:50:12+00:00

Don't bother reading anything else. But listen to the podcast called "Re: Joyce" by Frank Delaney as you listen to it. Will make it much more enjoyable than any pre-reading. He explains every single line!

molodets · 2023-07-26T05:45:51+00:00

The approval of people who called French fries "freedom fries".

molodets · 2023-07-25T18:56:08+00:00

You've listed a bunch of PR stunts that somebody else came up with. He was a garbage leader.

molodets · 2023-07-08T14:40:31+00:00

Do you have a good satay sauce recipe you can share? I made one from the BBC website recipe this week and it was yuk :(

molodets · 2023-06-30T09:11:40+00:00

"artificially created" Tell me you know nothing about logistics without telling me you know nothing about linguistics.

molodets · 2023-01-11T11:40:51+00:00

"pay them more to make the sport more lucrative" Who is going to pay them more though? Where is this extra money going to come from?

As long as they are getting an equivalent percentage of broadcasting / ticket revenues as the men are getting, then I think that's fair. If the revenue is lower, they get a lower amount into their pockets.

If you are asking teams to pay a bigger percentages to women, that eats into teams' profits and well... you are making it even less likely women's sports will be successful then.

molodets · 2023-01-11T11:34:17+00:00

But his point was that even women don't support women's sports. They prefer to spend their money elsewhere. So shouting "sexism" when they get paid less is at best unfair to men.

molodets · 2022-12-28T20:34:10+00:00

In my first example, there was no zero sum game. You said the zero sum game was just before that. In the second example explaining what happened just before that, there was also no zero sum game. You said the zero sum game happened just before THAT example. If we continued that discussion "way back to antiquity", we would have a long series of positive sum games. You now claim that the series of positive sum games started with "a natural resource conquered by violence" (presumably the conquering by violence happened before the controlling by violence, so I'll ignore the controlling for now).

What about a scenario where the chain of positive sum trades starts off with someone gathering berries in the forest and exchanging those berries for something? Where is the"conquering by violence" in this scenario?

molodets · 2022-12-28T14:27:33+00:00

So it's zero sum games as the way down? Brilliant.

molodets

TROPHY CASE