Don't be obtuse. I'm arguing that because America is different than Australia, what worked there isn't guaranteed to work here, and that the causes of our gun issues run a lot deeper than guns. Therefore, rather than taking a simpleton answer of 'it worked for them it'll work for us!' it makes sense to actually think about what are the underlying causes of our problems and if that solution will work or not.
SirEDCaLot
joined 1 year ago
This is the answer- especially if the job description explicitly states remote work. It's a significant shift in job requirements. That can count as constructive dismissal.
I heard a great quote once- this came from a guy running a maintenance operation for JetBlue back before they had labor issues. He proudly talked about how they paid their people well and treated them well and thus were one of the last non-union aircraft maintenance shops in the area, and in his words, 'Every shop around here that's gone union has deserved it'.
The problem is now the same thing it was in the early to mid 1900s when the labor movement first took off- companies view employees as disposable cogs in the machine, so the more work they can get out of each worker for the less pay, the less overhead they have to spend on adequate relief staffing and healthcare and PTO and whatnot, the better. Thus the best situation is high unemployment with desperate workers, where everybody NEEDS the job so they can balance the pay rate with hiring so people get fed up and quit at the same rate as they hire new people. And that way if someone gets sick they can just lay them off and not pay extra healthcare or whatever.
Of course that situation is great for the company, but shitty for the country. It requires a nation of wage-slaves. And that's a bad way to run a 'prosperous' nation.
Try dd-wrt firmware. Lets you dip your toe into the water so to speak, with a lot less of the complication of openwrt. At least it used to when I last used it several years ago.
If you have a spare old PC, pfSense is a great way to screw around. Even if it only has one NIC there is (or at least used to be) basic hostap support so you could use the builtin wifi card as a base station. Otherwise spend $20 on a supported USB-Ethernet adapter and you've got yourself a router to play with.
So would a router running pfsense then also become my primary WiFi routers too? Or is it best to keep pfsense strictly as a firewall and have a separate router strictly for WiFi?
pfSense doesn't really do WiFi. So you'd use it as a router/firewall, then have something else do your WiFi. I generally recommend Ubiquiti.
It's worth noting that a 'WiFi router' is usually 3 separate things in one box- a router/firewall, a WiFi access point, and a small switch of usually 4-6 ports. In a home you usually want these things in the same place so they're in one box. In an enterprise, the router/firewall is usually in the basement where there's no WiFi, network switches may be in many places and a tiny one in the router won't help you, and WiFi is up by where the workers are. So it's that sort of setup that pfSense is designed for.
The way I have my place set up- a pfSense machine is the router/firewall. I then use Netgear managed switches (there's a few, mainly GS110TP's), and Ubiquiti WiFi. The Ubiquiti controller runs inside Docker on a small Synology box. Highly recommend this setup.
But I'd just as highly recommend going Ubiquiti all the way. Dream Machine Pro SE is a great base router/firewall, and it has a built in PoE switch so you can hang a few U6 Pro access points off it. You get a bit more flexibility with pfSense but in most home environments it's not needed.
Apples to oranges. Australia doesn't have the same society as us- nowhere near the levels of drug problems and drug cartels, and they are more likely to treat addicts like patients who require treatment than criminals who should be punished by locking them up with even more violent criminals. Australia has WAY better mental and phyiscal health care and better protections for workers. It's much closer to a socialized society than the USA is.
As a result they have significantly different problems, specifically, they DON'T have anywhere near the same level of drug problems and violent crime. Their culture doesn't glorify violence as much as ours does, and we don't have that mixed in with a much more 'FU you're on your own' type socioeconomic policy.
THOSE changes are why much of AU is a safer society. I strongly advocate for making many of those changes in USA. Specifically- health care should be a human right (including mental health care), we should treat drug addicts like patients not criminals, and we should otherwise reform our society for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the corporations in the economy.
It's sort of both.
Netgate is the company that develops pfSense. They make pfSense available as a download that you can run on your own hardware or your own VM. They also sell pfSense routers that have official support and a free upgrade to their slightly nicer 'pfSense Plus' version. I generally recommend the official hardware (support the project and all that, and it's good quality if a bit more expensive). However if you want to save a few bucks you can get a cheap NUC-type PC with a few Intel Ethernet ports from Protectli or similar brands on Amazon.
Ensuring that your local community is free of guns
Nice in theory, impossible in practice.
We spend $30+billion/year ensuring our communities are free of drugs. How's that working out? From where I sit we may as well just put the cash in a giant pile and set it on fire, at least that way it would keep somebody warm.
Guns are easier to make than drugs. Any half-decent machine shop can make a gun, and unlike a drug lab, the machine shop has a lot of legitimate 'day shift' uses. Hobbyists make their own (legal) guns all the time in their basements. And the advent of cheap CNC machining tools makes it even easier.
Don't get me wrong- I'm all ears for any proposal that disarms criminals. I don't believe that disarming the law-abiding will help disarm criminals, at least I don't see anywhere in our nation's history where that has worked.
This is a nice idea, unfortunately it's not generally realistic. It's very ivory-tower idealistic.
Between rational people like you and I- yes I agree, violence is a failure. But not everybody is rational.
The fact is there ARE people in society who would harm their fellow humans, either for fun or for profit or because they just don't know any better. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.
Ignoring this fact does not prevent such people from harming others, or protect those victims. And saying we should remove the means of self-defense because violence is failure is like saying we should remove airbags and seatbelts from cars because crashes are failures. Sure crashes and violence are failures, but sometimes failures happen and you are either prepared for the consequences or you're not.
The other issue is that 'remove guns entirely' is simply not possible. You can disarm the law-abiding, but that will NOT disarm the criminals and those with no respect for the law. If you feel the law will prevent them from obtaining guns, then please explain why an anti-gun law will be any more effective than anti-drug laws (which we've been trying at for 30+ years, with little or no success).
Mac only utility, does not appear to be available for Windows.
Could be selection bias- that the kids who are smarter are more interested in reading for fun.
That said, I fully expect schools to get the message from this and assign more required reading of boring books, ensuring that any kids who still enjoy reading are taught to hate it.
Okay now we're getting somewhere. I agree entirely, public policy should not be based on 'vibes' or emotions of any sort, no matter whose vibes they are. In a 'Free Country', if you're going to set a policy or restrict someone's freedoms (especially Constitutionally-enumerated freedoms), you need a damn good reason and some proof that your policy will have the desired effect. My 'vibes' are insufficient and so are yours.
So I as I see it, the answer, from real numbers, is pretty simple.
Per FBI Uniform Crime Report, there are about 10k-12k homicides by firearm per year.
I'll take a moment to point out that rifles, which include the 'assault' rifles everyone wants to ban as well as other rifles, are used in about 200-350 homicides/year, which is less than half the 600-700 people who are punched and kicked to death. Not a huge threat there.
But back on subject. 10-12k firearm homicides per year.
In comparison, there are minimum of 55k defensive gun uses per year. A DGU is when a law-abiding person uses a legal firearm to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority end with no shots fired- the criminal sees the gun and runs away.
The exact number of such incidents is much harder to nail down, because unlike homicides, they aren't centrally tracked. Many DGUs don't get reported- the criminal runs away quickly so there's not much to report; and there's no central reporting or tracking as there is with homicide. Thus DGUs must be tracked by various statistical survey methods, leading to the a wide disparity in numbers. Anti-gun researcher Hemenway puts it at 55k-80k/year, pro-gun researcher Lott puts it in the millions. I say it's probably somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
So I look at these two pieces of data. 10-12k firearm homicide per year, a large % of which is done by prohibited persons and/or illegal guns (which are already illegal). On the other side, 55k+ DGUs, the vast majority of it done by legal persons and legal guns.
And I conclude if we enact anti-gun policy, it will affect the people who follow the law more than those who don't; namely; it will reduce DGUs at a greater rate than firearm homicide. And that is not a good trade in my book.
Curious to hear your thoughts?