y.st./source/pages/en/weblog/2016/12-December/04.xhtml

<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2016 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'title' => 'The tree threatens to be a let-down.',
	'body' => <<<END
<img src="/img/CC_BY-SA_4.0/y.st./weblog/2016/12/04.jpg" alt="Modern art, with glare and blurriness of night" class="weblog-header-image" width="809" height="480" />
<h2 id="general">General news</h2>
<p>
	I had a closing shift last night and an opening shift this morning.
	I&apos;ve had this sort of close/open shift pairs before, but I don&apos;t remember them sucking so much.
	I didn&apos;t get enough sleep and I barely dragged myself in to work.
	I didn&apos;t bring anything in to make lunch with either because I didn&apos;t have the energy to deal with it.
	However, as the day went on, it got easier.
	I wouldn&apos;t say that I&apos;m energized now, but I&apos;m certainly not as exhausted as I was this morning.
</p>
<p>
	I talked to the shift leader today to get the location of the tree with a sidewalk through its trunk.
	It seems that it&apos;s near the corner of Mill Street and J Street.
	They also showed me a photograph though, which was less than impressive.
	A huge cone-shaped evergreen is indeed growing over the sidewalk, but the branches reach all the way to the ground.
	From the looks of it, the tunnel through the tree doesn&apos;t pass through its trunk, but through the branches.
	However, I was very clear when I asked about the tree&apos;s location, specifically asking about a tree with a sidewalk through the <strong>*trunk*</strong>.
	Either the shift leader didn&apos;t catch my wording or people really can walk through the trunk of the tree.
	Without a closer photograph or a trip there in person though, I can&apos;t know for sure.
</p>
<p>
	After work, I started heading to the tree&apos;s location, but I quickly realized that I was being too optimistic; it&apos;s winter time here in the northern hemisphere.
	I spent most of the limited number of daylight hours at work, and I&apos;d never make it to the tree before darkness had set in too much to get a viable photograph of the tree.
	In fact, all of the photographs that I took as soon as I got off work are blurry and full of glare.
	It sort of works with the modern art sculpture photograph that I settled on because it&apos;s art, but mostly because I don&apos;t have a way to get a better photograph today.
	My plant photographs from today need to be thrown out though.
</p>
<p>
	My <a href="/a/canary.txt">canary</a> still sings the tune of freedom and transparency.
</p>
<h2 id="dreams">Dream journal</h2>
<p>
	I had a strange dream last night in which my significant other asked me to move in with them.
	I turned the offer down, thinking that my mother would freak out if I accepted.
	Instead, my mother freaked out that I hadn&apos;t accepted the offer, gotten out of my mother&apos;s hair, and offered my mother access to my significant other&apos;s trash services.
</p>
<p>
	For the record though, I&apos;ve never actually had a significant other, this is just one that I had in the dream.
</p>
<h2 id="university">University life</h2>
<p>
	I wrote up my discussion post for the week, kind of a long one:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>
	The important phrasing is <q>or whose interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of what the organization does</q>.
	If you think about it, there are a lot more stakeholders than one might expect.
	For example, if you care about your planet and don&apos;t want harm to come to it, you&apos;re a stakeholder in pretty much <strong>*every*</strong> organization.
	The chapter this week mentions an example in which anti-Walmart activists have little stake in the firm while still having a heavy influence over what the firm does.
	In that light, it appears to make little sense that these activists have that much power.
	However, what the text doesn&apos;t take into account is that these people do have significant stake in the <strong>*situation*</strong>, as it affects their living environment and the future of their respective towns.
	Walmart&apos;s arrival impacts job availability (including availability of jobs with competing stores), pricing of goods (again, including the prices offered by the competition), and general attitude of the town.
	It&apos;s exceedingly important to recognize that having little stake in a company is <strong>*not*</strong> the same as having little stake in the actions of that company.
	By looking at it that way, we get a much clearer picture of who the real stakeholders are.
	People with stakes in the company are still well-addressed, as the situation has a high impact on the company, but relevant outsiders are taken into consideration as well.
</p>
<p>
	In the case of the water utility company, who the shareholders are can vary based on the configuration of the company itself.
	One of my siblings tells me about a water company somewhere in my state (I forget exactly where) that sells water almost <strong>*at cost*</strong>.
	If I recall, they&apos;re run by the government, so they probably don&apos;t have shareholders.
	Their biggest stakeholders are probably their customers, the government, environmentalists, and competing utility companies.
	That also brings me to an interesting point, which is that utility companies often have monopolies over their respective territories.
	When one utility company has the &quot;rights&quot; to an area, other utility companies are kept from doing business there.
	I&apos;m not sure if this makes other utility companies bigger stakeholders (because the presence of the existing utility company has a huge effect, keeping them out of the area) or smaller stakeholders (because the utility companies don&apos;t interact much).
	Employees would of course have a stake.
	I&apos;m fairly certain that the water utility company in my area is a for-profit company though, which likely means that they have shareholders that also have a stake in what the company does.
	Customers have a stake because of the costs that they will have to pay.
	Especially because the utility company likely has a monopoly over the area, customers will either have to pay whatever price that the utility company sets or they&apos;ll have to do without indoor plumbing.
	I imagine that living without running water in the house is extremely inconvenient, so people will pay the price that they have to to get water.
	The government has a stake because they&apos;re going to be regulating the utility company.
	In the case of the government-run utility companies, they also obviously also deal with day-to-day tasks at the utility company site.
	Environmentalists will also have a stake, as the utility company could act responsibly when obtaining water to sell or they could cause damage to our environment.
	Shareholders, if any, and the owner of the utility company, if privately-owned, also have a stake because of the money that they stand to gain.
	Employees also have to deal with the company and its actions on a daily basis, as well as having to carry out actions on behalf of the company, making them stakeholders.
</p>
<p>
	A multi-national food company acts on a global scale, so they&apos;re going to have a lot more stakeholders.
	The governments of each country that they operate in will have a stake in what the company does, as well as any local governments (for example, in the United States, city, county, and/or stare governments) involved.
	Specifically, sections of the government dealing with income, imports, exports, and food safety would be involved, among potentially other government agencies.
	These government agencies will need to keep an eye on the company and regulate it.
	Customers and employees always have a stake, as both are dealing very closely with the company.
	Employees have to cary out actions on behalf of the company while customers are having to deal with prices and products.
	Shareholders would have a stake, as would the owners, as they stand to make money from the company.
	Likely, depending on the actions of the company, certain activist groups might have a stake in what the company does as well.
	The food company can have an environmental impact, but it can also use ingredients that people feel are unsafe or unethical.
</p>
<p>
	As with the other two, the local airport&apos;s stakeholders include customers and employees.
	Customers will be affected by prices, flight availability, destination locations, and flight quality.
	Employees will be carrying out the will of the airport and dealing with company policies.
	The owners would have a stake, as would shareholders (if any), as they have money to make from the airport.
	The local government would have a stake.
	If international flights are offered, foreign governments would also have a stake.
	As usual, the governments tend to have a hand in regulations.
	Boarder crossing, flight safety, and taxes are all factors that the government will have a hand in.
	Environmentalists would also have a stake.
	Efficient flights that don&apos;t damage the environment are better for preserving our planet.
</p>
</blockquote>
END
);