If you have a garage, at home. You might want you drop more details to get better answers. E.g. location.

I'm criticizing the use of the phrase "new global language." And I've laid out my reasons why I think that's wrong. I didn't think I was grilling OP, just the perception of Mandarin being the new global language. So I'm a little taken aback that you read it that way; that wasn't my intention.

I think the stereotype is douchebag because people don't think about all the possible legit reasons. I wear them when I have a migraine, often even at home. You could also wear them because they're prescription and you forgot the other pair at home. Or you simply forgot you have them on in the first place. We shouldn't judge but people like to judge. And they mostly judge douchebag because maybe more people wear shades indoors as an effort to build a personality around their empty shell of a self.

... how pervasive the new Global Language already is ...

I'm going to challenge you on this point. First of all, what's Chinese? I'm guessing you refer to Putonghua aka Mandarin, the erstwhile variant of Beijingnese prescribed for official use within the PRC by their political leadership.

And second, how "global" is it? It's useful primarily in one contiguous area of the world. Even there a large chunk of people kind of learn it as a first semi-foreign language because they speak something different at home. Cantonese, Shanghainese, or a language that cannot be written in Chinese characters.

Which brings me to my third point: a language that requires study of a script this idiosyncratic will not rise to a global language. Vietnam has gotten rid of hanzi, Korean pretty much as well. Ironically, the north has already completely abandoned it. By comparison, the Latin alphabet was spread by cavalry and cannon boat into all parts of the world for centuries. It spread so far that it is now used to teach pinyin to PRC schoolchildren. And while it is not without its own problems, the simplicity and adaptability of this phonetic alphabet to any language makes it far more useful than Chinese characters. And I'm not shitting on the cultural value of them: that's unimpeachable. It's just too complicated.

The alphabet spread with English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese all over the world. I'm not saying that's a good thing but it's already happened. Mandarin cannot have a similar success today unless the PRC starts colonizing at gunpoint fast.

Most Chinese as a foreign language speakers outside the PRC learned it for economic reasons. Economic ties have become somewhat dicey. If anything I suspect interest in learning Mandarin to wane.

There is also the tonal aspect. Any atonal-native language learner is going to have a much harder time than trying to remember the non-sensical English orthography.

More people on this planet learn English as their first and possibly only foreign language - if they learn one at all. The forum you asked this question on is in English. The internet cements the use of the alphabet.

I'm in Japan where foreign language education is notoriously sub-par overall. English is the first foreign language. Some private high schools offer Mandarin as an optional, I haven't seen anything substantial in state-run schools. At college level, most people chose between French and German as a second foreign language. Like we're still in the Meiji Era. I'm a big proponent that they abandon this tradition in favor of Russian, Korean, and Mandarin. It always helps to learn the language of your neighbors. Language schools advertize k-pop-trendy Korean more.

You ask a lot of legitimate questions there, causes that you and I could come to an agreement over. I would erase the starting point though. Pride movements and workers movements might both look like similar demonstrations. They are borne out of very different motivations. People might look down on manual laborers but you wouldn't have to fear for your safety in certain parts of your city for being one. LGBTQ+ folks can't say the same. Pride movements bring awareness that we have discriminated or are still discriminating against whole swaths of the population - mostly for silly reasons. That's different from a disagreement about how exploitative capitalism should be permitted to be.

Another negative connotation is that this "why are there LGBTQ+ pride parades but not ...?" is the leading question of people who think straight people need to have a pride parade as well. Like you couldn't live a heteronormative life every day without fear of retribution. And I'm hoping that you don't think along those lines and therefore would not want to be this close to that argumentative train of thought.

I'm not sure I agree with narcissism being on par with flanderization. One is a personality trait, if not a defect, and the other is lazy script writing. I sort of see where you are going with this but I'm not really onboard. Not all parents are narcissists, either.

The other thing is time. We all get set in our ways as we hurl around the sun time and time again. Everybody thinks they are enlightened enough to not become the stubborn weirdo, like mom or dad or the drunk uncle from Thanksgiving dinner. And everybody is wrong. You will too become a predictably dogmatic or a quirky person in one way or another. People will adapt around you. That's neither narcism nor flanderization. That's just life.

It is true that narcicists and abusers create an atmosphere, where their outrageous behavior gets ignored or swept under the carpet. I think it's fair to say though that that involves more manipulation and strategic thinking on behalf of the a-hole. If somebody dismisses the abusive behavior as "that's just Karen/Bob, they're like that, you know" than that may present as flanderization on the surface but it's not from a lack of script being written. The narcicist has succeeded in pulling the wool over their eyes. I guess that's why bringing these terms together like this rubs me the wrong way.

Extinction of the human race.

The absolute worst airports to navigate are all in the US. Fort Worth, Atlanta, just to shame two.

Most other airports are easy to navigate, even on your first trip. It's basically walking to a door with a number following huge signs with arrows and numbers. If you need help, you just ask staff working there. The Lufthansa people will be delighted to take a biz class passenger by the hand. Make sure your suitcase gets sent to Korea directly, pick a seat you like (aisle is better if you ask me), and don't forget your passport. You'll be fine!

I don't have much to say about the points you're making here. I have a feeling after we sit down and discuss this over coffee/a beer we will find out that we're pretty much on the same page.

The only thing I want to point out though it that the term "enshitification" was coined for online platforms. It describes a business catering full hog to the needs of the users to create a following, then sell access to that following to other businesses, until both followers and b2b customers are locked in and get milked for every cent possible. From the user POV that's when the service enshitifies ~~DVD~~ and the b2b customers are between a rock and a hard place. Your cable example follows a similar mechanic but since it is not online it is technically not enshitification as dumped into the world as a term by Corey Doctorow.

That's just minor pedantry that you're naturally free to ignore as well. As I said before, I don't see us disagreeing on the overall point you're making. Very eloquently, I might add.

Edited typo

Dictionary definition to run over:

1 : to go over, examine, repeat, or rehearse quickly 2 : to collide with, knock down, and often drive over

IIRC "attack" used to be originally a charge by the cavalry. And now terrorists and air forces also attack. Meanings shift. The victim needn't see the undercarriage in person to classify as being run over. Language is literally imprecise.

Everybody is different, I suppose. I've seen people blossoming post retirement and falling into a hole. The level of enjoyment you felt for the work you did probably is an indicator of which end of the sliding scale you end up on.

What are you, as in you personally, doing about you feel? Learning to live with it, looking for a hobby, volunteer cause, part-time job? It might be presumptuous of me but I'm reading between the lines that you maybe want to continue feeling useful.

I was listening to a podcast about a Danish murder investigation that included an interview by Danish police of a prisoner suspect in Finland in cooperation with the Finns. They went ahead with the interview without the lawyer present, which seemed normal to the Danes and wrong to their Finnish colleagues. It was one of the reasons why the content of the interview was inadmissible on court. That's the first thing I thought about regarding a lawyer opt-out.

As a fan of the Nordic Noir genre of crime shows, it's a great booster for extras. Whenever a person of interest has become an actual suspect, there will be a lawyer present in the show. In 99% of the cases it's an extra without any lines. So there appears to be a legal requirement to have a lawyer present or the interview cannot or should not proceed.

I think in general it is a hard thing to operate under a system where a lawyer must be present for any interview. There may not be enough lawyers to man every police interview with opt-out rules. They require remuneration as well. This may explain why the rules are so fishy. Case law is caught between not hanstringing police investigations with an opt-out system on the one hand and preventing overreach and abuse by the cops on the other.

Just as a thought experiment: if you required a lawyer being present for any interview at the station, apart from finding a way to pay these poor lawyers you'd also have to come up with a system where enough lawyers are readily available to sit in. Kind of like not all Parisian bakers can go on holiday at the same time. What if there aren't enough lawyers in your hamlet? Do we maybe need to create a hired function to satisfy the legal requirements? An office in the police station where a lawyer or a rotation of usual suspects of lawyers serve? Wouldn't this create a proximity where lawyers and cops become too chummy and possibly collude? The interests of the interviewee are best served by cops and lawyers hating each other's guts but working alongside they've become pals. I think there may be an unintended consequence that the course of justice gets more perverted by the opt-out systen than in the current fishy US system.