He is terrible, but he's better than any replacement, he's shown a willingness to work with Dems, and most importantly, if he ever breaks any promises, the Dems can sick him to the wolves.
BraveSirZaphod
joined 1 year ago
If something is possible, and this simply indeed is, someone is going to develop it regardless of how we feel about it, so it's important for non-malicious actors to make people aware of the potential negative impacts so we can start to develop ways to handle them before actively malicious actors start deploying it.
Critical businesses and governments need to know that identity verification via video and voice is much less trustworthy than it used to be, and so if you're currently doing that, you need to mitigate these risks. There are tools, namely public-private key cryptography, that can be used to verify identity in a much tighter way, and we're probably going to need to start implementing them in more places.
An extremely specific and highly regulated type of work action has a lot of rules in order to legally be protected.
For instance:
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a “sitdown” strike, when employees simply stay in the plant and refuse to work is not protected by the law.
Especially at the level of working for Google, employment is a voluntary agreement, not a right. If the employees find it unconscionable to work for Google, the correct thing to do is to, you know, not work for Google.
Workers have essentially zero right to protest on company time on company property and disrupting work.
It would be another thing if, to address your counter-example, an employer went through everyone's social media and systematically fired everyone who made the "wrong" public stance in an avenue that has nothing to do with the job (still legal probably, but much shittier), but using your own work time to interrupt business operations isn't going to be tolerated pretty much anywhere.
Again, if these employees had been protesting outside the company offices on their own time and were fired for that, I'd be more sympathetic, but that's not what happened here.
Speaking strictly legally, Yale and any other private university have a non-trivial amount of authority to regulate the use of their own private spaces, and even ignoring that, the right to protest is not unlimited, particularly when it starts to impede the ability of others to conduct their own legal activities. Yale claims that the trespassing decision was made due to the protests blocking the ability of faculty and staff to access their facilities.
There's also reports of one student being stabbed in the eye with a flag pole, and fundamentally, the Constitution does not give anyone the right to camp and protest on private land. Students were warned multiple times before police were finally moved in. Part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of said disobedience. Those arrested knew what would happen and chose accordingly. I won't fault them for that.
That is not at all what right to work means.
I get the frustration, but if you're going to criticize a thing, it's a lot more effective if you actually know what the thing is.
You're never going to get an honest answer to this question, but props for asking it anyway.
Maybe you can run the servers and pay the engineers with good vibes or praxis?
PPP loans were meant to be forgiven so long as they were spent properly on payroll. So long as those politicians followed the rules of the loans, any hypocrisy on the side scummy, but not criminal.
The fact that they deliberately chose to make the sequel to those cringe edgelords' favorite movie a musical with Lady Gaga makes me think that they very much understand how that particular audience reacted to the first movie and have no intention of appealing to them again.
That, and Lady Gaga would not sign on to a male rage fantasy. I'm pretty confident this is gonna be a fascinating movie.
This guy's inability to fathom that there exists music outside of Rock is bordering on hilarious. Not to even mention the entire world of music before Rock, which is especially hilarious given him citing musical history. Does he think Nat King Cole or Ella Fitzgerald wrote their own music?
Whelp, I had a large response typed up that I lost by accidentally swiping back, so I'll just say that if you're going to call Beyonce a terrible person, I probably wouldn't cite rock stars as paragons of morality, or shall we ask Cynthia Lennon how nice John was to her? I hardly need to bring up Michael Jackson. Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether they wrote their songs or not, which is the actual topic, so I'm not sure why you bring that up at all.
Genres have obviously shifted, but if you compare pop musicians of today to the pop musicians of the 70s and 80s, yes, there is absolutely more songwriting today by the artists. Rock is a very different genre with its own traditions and tends to be based around groups rather than solo artists, so it's not a very apt comparison. Not to mention, it's not like rock artists back then weren't shitting on disco groups for this exact reason back in the day. The Village People weren't exactly prolific songwriters.
It almost feels like your real issue is that rock is dead, and sure, that's unfortunate. But luckily for you, rumor has it that Beyonce's next album will be based in rock.
view more: next ›
I mean, it's both, among other things.
Target would absolutely love to charge $1000 for a carton of eggs, and would if they could, but they can't. There has always been some ceiling price past which most consumers will simply walk away and go somewhere else. What exactly that number is depends firstly on the actual cost of getting the item in the first place, since no store will sell an item at a loss (unless they expect that to drive greater returns elsewhere), but then on how much money people actually have available to spend, and that very much is influenced by how much money the Fed is printing, among plenty of other things.
My point here isn't that corporate greed isn't a factor, but it's not a new factor. It's not like corporations were feeling generous in 2019 and then got in a greedy mood in 2021. They always have and always will charge as much as people are willing to pay, so any changes to what they're charging should be examined by looking at what other factors might be at play. In this case, they've probably realized that they've gotten past the point of driving too many customers away.
Obviously corporate PR will never come out and say "We're being greedy because fuck you, but we got a little too greedy so please come back", but that is and always has been the dynamic.