Sentences with phrase «why systems thinking»

Not exact matches

The alums fingered a complicated tax code, an inefficient political system, a struggling K - 12 education system, and persistent pressure from abroad as reasons why the U.S. will become less competitive over the next three years — something 71 percent think will happen.

Since Help Scout is a help desk, it would be foolish to claim that I'm approaching this without a slight brush of bias, but I promise you my stance comes from experience; specifically, seeing new founders suggest to other new founders why they think a convoluted system of Gmail filters is «okay for now.»

It's the sort of socialist, welfare - state thinking that immediately kicks off that North American reflex of: «Why wouldn't everyone just abuse this system?»

To understand why this is problematic, think about what happens to your body if bacteria get through your skin and into your bloodstream: Your immune system goes on the offensive.

I have ignored reasons that might justify lower discount rates or higher GDP adjustments for China mainly because the purpose of this essay is to explain why the U.S. multiple is so much higher than China's, and of course these reasons exist, but I think whatever the correct ratio should be, there is no question that advanced economies always justify higher multiples than developing economies because they tend to be economically more diversified and politically more stable, and they usually have institutions, including clearer legal and regulatory frameworks, more sophisticated capital allocation processes, less rigid financial systems, and smaller state sectors (which make smooth adjustment, one of the most valuable and undervalued components of long - term growth, more likely).

I think it opens this question of why the system just hasn't had at least more of a demand around quality than it's had.

Why would one risk holding a bank deposit in a banking system, even with insurance and guarantees, if one thinks the banking system is vulnerable?»

As a lawyer, you're trained to think analytically so I took it upon myself to investigate ALL the legislation and history that played a role in the development of those rules so that we could truly understand why various aspects of the system operate as they do.

Third, the Federal Reserve System is now 100 % politicized, and run by sneaky, die - hard political ideologues who lie about why they do what they do and what they really think.

The American people confided to the courts the duty of thinking over their political system... Why need a good American ponder about fundamental political problems?

Why do believers like you think it's crucial to attempt to «trap» atheists into «admitting» that they have a belief system?

«I think I am right» des not make you right, that is why you have such a limited belief system because everything comes down to «I think I am right» therefore I can and do reject all knowledge that does not agree with my beliefs.

Why do you think the «christians» are trying so blasted hard to ruin school systems here in the states by making them teach «intelligent design» and «abstinence only»?

If we assume, as I think is reasonable, that the vast majority of these belief systems are the creations of sincere people striving to understand their god or gods, why do they have nothing in common?

So anyway, while I do think the Roman road system and common language helped the spread of the Gospel, I don't think we can say that this was why Jesus came at the time and place that He did.

If your brain is merely a minuscule portion and intermediate result of a guideless process of self - existing particles that just happened to unpack themselves from an unexplained singularity and arrange themselves into various integrated systems of matter and life of increasing complexity over billions of years, which will ultimately disorganize and dissipate into nothingness, why should any value be attached to your thoughts, or to your existence?

Why don't we just get down to a caste system, the touchables and the untouchables, the valuables and the invaluables or call it the shitmakers and the pickerupshitsters... just a thought, this way at least we can make our own labels.

Watching him live this double life of public man and poet, one wonders what Astrue — or Juster — is really thinking when he answers the biting questions of a reporter demanding to know why the new commissioner hasn't yet personally fixed the entire Social Security system.

I understand why you would say Atheism isn't healthy for kids, but in that same school of thought, you would have to deduce that NO belief system is healthy for children.

I don't know why you think I do, because I'm not the one who follows a belief system that promises eternal life in exchange for your soul.

Some just pick a religion or belief system that is convenient for them and that allows them to do what they want to do, so thinking about just what they believe would be inconvenient for them (isn't that why there are so many religions today that claim to be Jewish, or Muslim, Christian...?)

I wonder why he thinks Jesus gave us an obviously Greek system of a different religion, and why that religion has relevance to Christianity?

This is why I think the American system is better — the government is supposed to stay out of the argument altogether, and let the arguments play themselves out.

Why is this system of thought taken without question and applied in large part even today?

Funny how star gazing gives one awe and a sense of eternity and in my case it removes the hope of heaven... i.e. there is no heaven, just space with gazeous substance... a place where it is childish and absurd to think we are going when we die... Our solar system / galaxy seem empty of organic life altogether... actually inorganic seems to be the norm... so my faith struggle of the week is how can I possibly believe in after life... when reality shows me decomposition of all that we are, scientific observation does not allow room for a «spirit body» to rise and go in some nebulae... So why do I still need to believe despite this raw evidence... I drive me crazy sometimes...

Why would we want a President that can not show the small amount of critical thinking needed to debunk this belief system?

«And I think that's why it's important not to just be fighting the system but to name the system and name the collateral damage of it.

Canada's system is MUCH better and if you think Americans have a better system tell me why Canadians on average live longer?

Immune System Booster Pumpkin seeds aren't a food you would normally think to put in a smoothie, but here's why it's a great idea.

On a final note, Wenger might think «I rotated in a few games and they didn't end up all to well» plus «The system is working, why change it», which are fair points but, priorities have to kick in too.

I think Ozil's playing style is not suitable for Arsenal's system in the last three season, that's why most of his assists came from set - pieces and he can not improvize in the field.

The Foxes will still have the massive Robert Huth but without Morgan they should be much more susceptible to balls into the box, which is why I think Arsenal should also go back to the old back four system and get the full backs to get forward and use the whole width of our pitch.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

His struggle lately has shown the effect, that was why I thought a taller forward like Morata, Aubameyang, Draxler, Cavani, Lukaku and Schick would be more suitable for Arsenal's system.

You have to be able to adapt; that's why I think it helps for the players to have grown up in a system like this.»

That's why I think the system suits him well.

take an example of Barca they have the best academy in the world, without a doubt, yet they go out in the market and buy a couple of players every season who they think will fit their system perfectly and make it better, why cant Arsene Wenger do that?

Your system just makes perfect sense — one of those «why didn't I think of that» ideas!»

Now you may think why you need a travel stroller while you will use public, or private travel system?

So I thought why not start my OWN page somewhere I could post whatever I wanted and be some sort of support system for all these woman something I was not lucky enough to have.

However, I think Mr. Bruske's post his on Better DC School Food today http://tinyurl.com/4sypbtm would help explain why simply doing away with the whole school lunch system will not solve the problem.

DAWN THOMPSON: For sure, I mean I think in my opinion and it's why I started improving birth, it's the consumer that needs to put pressure on the system to make it happen sooner.

«It was, I think, far broader than anyone could have ever imagined and that's why it's up to the court system,» she said.

And I think that's why we've got such a signification number of some $ 2.7 trillion worth of foreign earnings that are stashed abroad because it's a unitary and not a tax system.»

It's far easier to think of each decision as a yes / no answer, and this is largely why you usually have 2 major parties in any political system that supports multiple parties.

Plenty of editorials about the topic question the governor's seriousness when it comes to enacting reforms; if the Senate passed a system that didn't cover themselves, these would shift entirely to asking why they don't think they should be subject to the same fundraising limits they believe should apply to others.

Nationalistation of the banking system, or part thereof is sinister to Tories, but nobody has clearly spelled out why think this.

People think, «why bother,» said Griffin, the co-author of «Washington & Napoleon: Leadership in the Age of Revolution,» who said that kind of disengagement was also what permitted an ultimately despotic figure like Napoleon to emerge from a plebiscitary democracy rather than the electoral system that produced Washington.

Well, in a campaign about restoring the British people's trust in politics, I think it's important for all sides to be honest about who they are, and why they're arguing for or against this proposed change to our voting system.

However, there is an obvious gap in the White Paper as it stands - the very reason why a majority of people think their views are not represented, and one of the barriers to greater diversity of candidates for local elections: our First - Past - the - Post electoral system.