Backroads

I'm a big fan of PTO.
Of course, it's questionable on how much Time off I actually get or not.  In just a few days I am going to take my summer research trip.  In theory I suppose I could continue to research at the university, teach summer classes or even take the summer off!  Instead I generally do research abroad if I can do it and then prepare for research at home and other projects.  I'm on Salary so there's that item.  I generally get to decide my own schedule in working and what is considered time off or not (with University approval...of course).  I'm lucky as many who started later on the Professor track do not have these privileges.
I've noticed the U.S. is particularly hostile (or more hostile) to the idea of worker's rights and in that line, time off for the workers.  It seems detrimental to mental health in many ways.  Guaranteeing woman can have children and have time off to bear and bond with a child seems to be more beneficial to society than giving her a maximum of two weeks off to have the baby and recover...or at times...no time off.  It seems more beneficial to give your workers time off to go to the doctors and maintain their health rather than requiring them to schedule time off to do such things.  By letting them see medical personal to keep up their health it probably helps avoiding health problems in the future.  It seems more beneficial to have workers have more time off or mandated time off where they can do what they desire and recover mentally than making them have fewer PTO or sick days as the US does.
NOW...if you DO what you love (for example, you love history and somehow manage to get paid to research and teach it...)...then PTO may not be as big of a factor.  In fact, you may end up doing the same thing you do at work on your own if you were doing something in that manner. 
I think the young people today work harder than many give them credit.  People tend to think they worked harder than they actually did when they were young.  I see young people doing much more work for far less money than what I've seen over the past few decades.  To me, this upcoming generation is more cognizant of the world around them and what probably is more fair (what they see other countries doing outside of the US) in regards to work-life balance than what prior generations did. 
In addition, there is NO employer loyalty anymore.  Employer's don't seem as loyal to their workforces as they used to be.  Only a few institutions still have employer loyalty (for example, some universities still do...but even then...tenure is a slowly fading idea at some of them, and gaining tenure is harder today then it has ever been in the past).  This young generation sees this.  If an employer is NOT loyal to their employees, firing at a drop of a pin, laying off at the slightest sign of wage increase, etc...then why should an employee have any loyalty to their employer.  This idea is what the younger generation is coming up with. 
There are no pensions, no upward mobility (it is seen sometimes that changing to a different company will net you a better increase in salary and position than sticking with a company...because the company doesn't promote from within), no desire from many US employers today to help out their workers and thus help themselves. 
I don't see it as the new generation being less hardworking, but more being connected with what the world is doing today and more educated on what rights should inherently be granted to them and their relationship with those who wish to employ them.

To me Carl seemed to be a genuinely nicer guy (at least on the outside). Niel is full of subtle and passive/aggressive ways to insult those he views as less intelligent than himself.
On a side note, it's interesting how mankind equates certain career fields with a higher degree of overall intelligence. Yes, Niel is smart, but he also has a luxury of reviewing material shortly before going on TV to also make himself appear smarter. The most intelligent person I know is an Electrician by trade. I have a Master's degree and this guy only has a certificate from 2 years of post-secondary education...and yet his overall intellect blows mine out of the water.

Boomers 43-65, workaholics, insulted by supervision, loyal to the company
Gen Xers 65-78 Work as hard as needed, OK with some supervision & loyal to people
Millennials high value on work / life balance, expect continuous supervision, loyal to ideas. 
 
From
https://journals.lww.com/jbjsjournal/Abstract/2017/06210/Leadership,_Communication,_and_Negotiation_Across.12.aspx
In my residency, not a single sick day was ever taken for 20 years.  You were expected to show up.  If you had to puke or had the runs, you scrub out take care of business and then scrub back in.
I didnt know what PTO was till a few years ago.
 
During residency we worked 120 hr work weeks (its possible).  A few times I logged over 130 hrs.  Current residents are prohibited from working more than 80 hours a week.  They have better lifestyle.  But they are significantly less prepared.  When a current successful surgeon retires, It takes 2 surgeons to replace him.

One of my greatest fears is having an old broken body, no longer being able to work, and being broke.  I read a survey they did of Generation X (my generation) had about 18% of people have nothing saved for retirement and about 35% had less than $10,000 saved for retirement purposes.  These people who save nothing will be old and broke sadly.  Delay too long and it will be too late and you will end up working with whatever work you can find which likely will not be much opportunity as many employers do not want to hire old people.

This is certainly important for an employer to keep in mind; although as a basis of policy one should probably also bear in mind that employers aren’t necessarily required to show a heck of a lot of altruism or loyalty to their bosses, either.
American politicians’ plan for a better life for the citizenry:
1.  Require employers to pay people *not* to work.
2.  Wonder why goods and services are suddenly getting so expensive.  

I used to work in a children's hospital, and can't begin to tell you how many times the admin tried to use pizza to make their disgruntled employees happier. Fully catered lunches almost every day during peak covid craziness.
It was ironic that the nurses (who the food was for) never got to eat much of it due to being so stinking busy all day. The hospital probably spent more money on food than it would cost to hire a few more nurses.

I agree with the general idea here.  But I wanted to weigh in on the use of the phrase "work-life" balance that has changed emphasis over the years. 
Yes, I understand the cultural meaning that the phrase originally meant to convey.  But it has now become a phrase to mean that work and life are two different things. 
No, life is all you have.  And work is a part of life.  This is something many people don't get.  I would say this is an epidemic in the rising generation.  But I realize that many in my generation also suffer from it.
People only see work as a means of making money for our survival.  While that is one very important aspect of work, there are other very important aspects of work.  And we need work to have a happy healthy life.  People don't know this anymore.  I don't know when it happened. And I don't know why it happened.  But I recognize that it did happen. 
If we also realize that work is part of what we do to make life fulfilling, then we'd welcome work. For so many people, we are defined by our professions.  As we get to know each other, one of the first things we ask is "What do you do for a living?"  This is not only a good conversation starter because it can be a wealth of further conversation, but it also gives us some idea (whether accurate or not) of the nature of the person we're dealing with.  
We also realize that work can be the most common and practical way of serving our fellow men.  People need houses to live in.  So, if I'm a construction worker, I can look at my job as helping people have a place to call home.  Or I can look at it as making $40/hr to hammer nails into wood.
The same activity, different outcomes in the worker and the product.
My son is saving up for his mission by working at Jimmy John's making sandwiches.  He has it in his mind that every sandwich he makes will be a burst of flavor and nourishment for the customer.  He has been given several raises ahead of schedule because he does his job so well and also uplifts the people around him.  This wouldn't have happened if he did it just for a paycheck.
Work is not just a necessary evil.  It is a part of our lives that we need to value.

This is a recipe for bankruptcy.

I would think that if we had no religion, we would become like animals.  This is not necessarily as bad as most people think.  We've studied animals at various levels of evolution and have determined that there are many with societies and communities.  And for mammals, there are apparently some rules of behavior.
There are certain rules of behavior for animals.  Even rats have a code of ethics.  Many of those codes are also present in most primate species.  They tend to rise out of psychology.  And it is surprising just how much of that is reflected in Human societies.  But these rules of behavior tend to lend themselves to a monarchy type government.
The Code of Hammurabi was a means of codifying these things that we naturally tended to know.  But there had arisen some religious influences to temper some "natural laws". 
The Law of Moses did much of the same thing.  During the time of Abraham, there were general rules of behavior that had arisen in the Middle East.  God also informed them about more important things.  All of it eventually became the template for the Law of Moses' secular rules.  But God declared that more laws be added that were not necessarily just "common sense" at the time.
What was revolutionary was when Christ came to teach them the new laws.  "Love your enemies."  Where did that come from?  This was not just a codification of common sense and the values that most people had.  It was completely counterintuitive.  "Love" and "Enemy" are mutually exclusive.  But, no.  He said to do exactly that.
This is the first clue that morality is not just "common sense" that will help societies to become more powerful and peaceful.  It is about reaching for something more than just making a living or waiting for death.
Morality is about meaning and purpose.  Animals don't have these things.  All of it is instinct for them.  And if that is all humans ever do, then the society is doomed to remain in a despotic state.  That's all animals have.
So, when you consider that democracy is a value, we must have some form of religion.  Religion is that force that tells us that there is meaning and purpose.  Successful religions will explain that meaning and purpose to their followers in a manner that they can achieve it.  Without that, religion is meaningless.
It is unfortunate to hear that some religions that have so many who find meaning and purpose also has many who just never get it.  And they reject either that religion or any religion at all.
In that sense, atheism can be considered a religion.  Yes, that's a bit like saying "bald" is a hair color, but hear me out.  If you truly absolutely believe that there is no god, nothing more than what we can see & touch, then there is no purpose, no meaning, no good, no bad.
But there are some self-declared atheists who say that they still have some sense of purpose.  They do find meaning in doing "something".  And they feel fulfilled.  Isn't that "something" really their religion?
When Jehovah said "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" that means that nothing should have more meaning or give you a more important purpose than the meaning and purpose that He can give us.
He offers us more.  And if we get more meaning out of other things, then it is not because His offering is less worthy.  It is because we have chosen the mess of pottage as more meaningful than our birthright.

Or,

I'm assuming this is "my tribe is having an important ceremony and I need to be there".
I'm assuming this is NOT "Sorry, can't work today, I'm an Indian."

I work in an area that is significantly affected by workplace shortages. My place of employment signed a new Enterprise Agreement with its staff a few months back. About 62% of staff voted in favour of the new agreement. One of its main features is the expansion of reasons for which paid leave could be granted. Amongst other things the list now includes Menstruation and Menopausal Leave, Gender Affirmation Leave, and First Nations People Leave.

 
 
 

My work gives "Flexible time off", which I think is the same thing as "paid time off".  The longer you stay with the company, the more you get.  Use it for whatever you want, sick, fun, lazy, it doesn't matter.  Just work with your manager to handle your workload, so you're not making life hard for others.  If you're truly sick then we'll do our best.  We've got a lot of ability to do things remotely, so 'working while sick' is a thing, and people bank their time off.  Been here 15 years, and I've started getting the emails stating "you're at your pto cap, better use some if you want to keep earning more".
I don't understand unlimited PTO, but I guess I could see it working in practice as long as "you're fired for not getting your work done" is a thing.
 
 

Having some PTO is of course necessary for those unexpected life events, but for the most part I would just prefer it if I was paid a bit more. I have my PTO and sick time hours maxed out, and now have to take a day off every pay period or else I just lose out on those free hours.
On the flip side, I also work with a lady who never has PTO hours stored in her "bank"...as she uses them all up every week for some kind of "fun activity", and always complains that we aren't given more time off from work...yet she hasn't worked a full 80 hours in a pay period since she joined the company. That behavior will hurt her if she ever really needs to take an extended leave of absence from work, and doesn't have the hours to do so. (she also doesn't contribute anything to retirement as she is one of those people with a "have fun now" and/or FOMO mentality)

My recommendation is that you track down the actual Ian Fleming works. 
Fleming was with the Office of Naval Intelligence during WWII, and this brought him into constant contact with folks from the Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. He used this to inform his writing, such that the MI division Bond works for is a blend of these two organizations. For example, the original "Moonraker" novel involves Bond reading through a series of mind-numbing reports when M summons him. 
Yes, I say "original novel" as the Fleming - era movies, "Doctor No" through "License to Kill" as well as both versions of "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace", take considerable liberties with the source material. How considerable? Many of the films are literally just the original work in name only.
Fleming himself regarded "The Spy Who Loved Me" as a failed experiment (sexually explicit content, told from the perspective of the Bond girl, inexcusably verbose even for a Bond novel, et cetra) and put it in the legal paperwork that the book couldn't be adapted in a direct fashion. But "Moonraker", "Diamonds Are Forever", and about a dozen others have no such excuse. 
Going back to "Moonraker", Bond is initially asked to accompany M to Blades, a popular high-class gambling house where M sits on the board of directors. There is suspicion that Sir Hugo Drax, a prominent businessman who is essentially financing the nation's space program out of his own pocket, might be cheating at cards, a mortal sin for one's standing in British high society. M wants Bond to suss out of this is indeed happening, and when Bond confirms that Drax and his partner are cheating at bridge it's the first clue that Drax literally isn't who he claims to be... so when the British official in charge of on-site security for the Moonraker project is killed, M has Bond himself take over the position so he can investigate what's really going on. 
"Diamonds Are Forever"? An American organized crime syndicate known as the Spangled Mob has created a pipeline that allows them to steal diamonds from mines in British colonies, wash them in Western Europe, and then smuggle them to the United States. Bond is to take the place of a captured courier in order to figure out where the pipeline ends so that Interpol can coordinate with the appropriate authorities. But when the Pinkertons get involved, Bond is egged on further than what his orders specified, and that means trouble. 
"From A View To A Kill"? Bond has to figure out who killed a NATO motorcycle courier and how they even knew to intercept the man. 
"Quantum of Solace"? As punishment for boorish behavior during an official government dinner, Bond is forced to sit through a long-winded morality tale as told by a government official. 
And so forth. 
Bond isn't always fighting against SPECTRE or other global-level threats. Sometimes he's being sent to take out organized crime syndicates. Sometimes he's sent to unmask a foreign spy. Sometimes he's not even the main character in his own stories. But that just made him feel *real*, like someone who existed in real life. 

Here's what I know about it.

Nope. Ralphie had one job: make the gigantic arc reactor really small. One job.

Everyone misunderstands this verse. The horse's name was A Horse With No Name.

Back off, Obadiah. Give Ralphie a break.

Might I suggest that you gave up watching at precisely the wrong time?  The Daniel Craig films (except for the latest one) were quite a departure for James Bond.  They were a reboot of the character.  And it did change a lot of what you are complaining about.
While, yes, he has his liaisons (especially when he's not on duty) he doesn't have to jump into bed with every pretty face he sees.  And there actually seemed to be a plot-based reason (There was one notable exception in Skyfall that departs from this rule, and it was widely criticized.). why a spy would get into such a situation.  The first (with Vesper) was because he was actually in love with her.  That should say something about this reboot.
The fight scenes were well choreographed with real martial arts techniques of the systems that are more functional than others.  They also look really cool.
The gadgets aren't nearly so future-tech.  As far as I could tell, all the gadgets actually exist.
The character also goes through a lot of development throughout the films, especially since they are written as an origin story + a trilogy (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, & Spectre).  If you choose to watch them, be sure to get the 2006 version of Casino Royale.  The 1967 version was supposed to be a parody.
I have not seen No Time to Die because it seemed like it was going woke.  I don't know this because I never saw it.  But the trailers and commentaries made it seem like it.
But, whatever.  They're just movies.  If you don't go see it, I'm sure you'll be able to live a perfectly happy, healthy life.

I'm an absolute sucker for realism, but I'm very willing to suspend quite a bit of disbelief in order to enjoy a show.   To a point, any way.  Meaning, if you can create an internally consistent universe that is totally implausible, I'll go with you.  But once you start having FBI agents exercising poor trigger discipline, or character behavior that is based on nothing, I'm out.
In the zombie genre, I found the world's only zombie musical, and enjoyed the crap out of it.  The songs and dance routines did justice to the individual characters.  Then I found a British-produced zombie show where the story happened in America, and their concept of Americans with guns was just so totally Greta Thunbergish, I couldn't finish watching it.  Even though the plot and special effects were far superior.

This is somewhat uplifting.  75% of members are not comfortable with alternative pronouns.

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/08/survey-religion-race-shape-divide-pronoun-usage

Something missing is what else was going on at the time when the “Mormon” pioneers migrated to the western US.  I will make a partial list:
1. The Saints were forced to leave the USA to ensure their religious freedom.  When they left for the western regions, it was not in the USA.  It is odd that the US government help finance the move west through the “Mormon” battalion sent to fight the Spanish American war.  This put a great hard ship on the initial Saints because many of the most fit men were removed.
2. During the first migration of the Saints one in every five died at Winter Quarters.   The large majority of deaths were young mothers and their children under the age of 1.
3. The vast majority were not the initial mature convert members.  If it were not for the new converts, mostly from Europe, the move west would not likely have occurred or succeeded.  Sometimes I think we discount the importance of new converts (or the renewal of our own conversions).
4. Not one of the witnesses that officially signed as witness of the Book of Mormon came west with the Saint migration.
5. This was not a good time for anyone in Europe as well – especially for poorer classes.  Those that came were not giving up as much as one might think.
6. Most members now days think it too much of a hardship kind of sacrifice to help clean their meeting houses – but, as always, there are some.  Perhaps because they have or are obtaining extra oil for their lamps.
 
 
The Traveler

I think we're all guilty of it to some extent. I was catching up on this thread and felt prompted to reply here, so here we go:
I do try to make an honest and earnest effort to love others, and to a degree I think I'm pretty good at it and can adopt a live-and-let-live attitude. The administrator directly over me at my job was a woman I initially worried about, however. Very progressive (which while common enough many people are surprised to see at a charter school), practically pioneered the pronoun inclusion in her communication, and while not exactly outspoken doesn't hide her views.
At this point I'd take a bullet for that woman. She is amazing and truly loving and adores the LDS people (apparently an LDS family took her in during a hard time in her youth) and spoke up for our more conservative families when there was some issues with the curriculum.
Yes, we love our ideologies and I think even the best of us have trouble seeing beyond our pet biases. But I think we can all make an effort.

Usually the greatest, most moral people out there admit how they fall short-and it’s not just lip service for them.