Examples of <u>Special interest groups</u> include the AFL-CIO (representing the majority of labor unions) and citizen groups such as the American conservative union and zero population growth.
A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community within a large organization with a shared interest in advancing a particular area of knowledge, learning, or technology, where members collaborate and communicate to You can influence and create solutions.
Hold a meeting. The term was used by the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) in 1961. SIG later became popular with his CompuServe, an early online service provider. At CompuServe, SIGs were sections of services devoted to particular interests.
The ACM includes a number of SIGs, some of which began as small Special Interest Committees (SICs) and formed the first group in 1961. ACM supports further subdivision within the SIG for more impromptu informal discussion groups in conferences called Birds of a Feather (BoF).
Learn more about Special interest groups here: brainly.com/question/14363531
#SPJ4
D. All of the above, because in cross-cultural communication,you need those skills to be able to help/translate words and it's language properly without disrespecting their culture.
Answer:
Euphemism
Explanation:
Euphemism refers to the term or expression which is used in place of offensive or unpleasant terms. They are used as a medium to disclose certain ideas that are taboo in society. At times, they are focused on amusing thereby covering the offensive reality. The objects are not addressed directly as it may prove negative intended or bring embarrassment. It is used as a means to lessen the negative impact of the word used. As Jane, in the given question uses the term "big-boned", it means that she is using a euphemism. She does not use any negative term as it may bring negative remarks.
Protect and provide
The concept of government as provider comes next: government as provider of goods and services that individuals cannot provide individually for themselves. Government in this conception is the solution to collective action problems, the medium through which citizens create public goods that benefit everyone, but that are also subject to free-rider problems without some collective compulsion.
The basic economic infrastructure of human connectivity falls into this category: the means of physical travel, such as roads, bridges and ports of all kinds, and increasingly the means of virtual travel, such as broadband. All of this infrastructure can be, and typically initially is, provided by private entrepreneurs who see an opportunity to build a road, say, and charge users a toll, but the capital necessary is so great and the public benefit so obvious that ultimately the government takes over.
A more expansive concept of government as provider is the social welfare state: government can cushion the inability of citizens to provide for themselves, particularly in the vulnerable conditions of youth, old age, sickness, disability and unemployment due to economic forces beyond their control. As the welfare state has evolved, its critics have come to see it more as a protector from the harsh results of capitalism, or perhaps as a means of protecting the wealthy from the political rage of the dispossessed. At its best, however, it is providing an infrastructure of care to enable citizens to flourish socially and economically in the same way that an infrastructure of competition does. It provides a social security that enables citizens to create their own economic security.
The future of government builds on these foundations of protecting and providing. Government will continue to protect citizens from violence and from the worst vicissitudes of life. Government will continue to provide public goods, at a level necessary to ensure a globally competitive economy and a well-functioning society. But wherever possible, government should invest in citizen capabilities to enable them to provide for themselves in rapidly and continually changing circumstances.
Not surprisingly, this vision of government as investor comes from a deeply entrepreneurial culture. Technology reporter Gregory Ferenstein has polled leading silicon Valley entrepreneurs and concludedthat they “want the government to be an investor in citizens, rather than as a protector from capitalism. They want the government to heavily fund education, encourage more active citizenship, pursue binding international trade alliances and open borders to all immigrants.” In the words of Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt: “The combination of innovation, empowerment and creativity will be our solution.”
This celebration of human capacity is a welcome antidote to widespread pessimism about the capacity of government to meet current national and global economic, security, demographic and environmental challenges. Put into practice, however, government as investor will mean more than simply funding schools and opening borders. If government is to assume that in the main citizens can solve themselves more efficiently and effectively than government can provide for them, it will have to invest not only in the cultivation of citizen capabilities, but also in the provision of the resources and infrastructure to allow citizens to succeed at scale
