A_non_e-moose

Direct democracy a la Switzerland where issues are put up for vote for the entire population?

Although for direct democracy to be effective you would need a highly educated and politically engaged population

How do we, the "not the rich and powerful" fund lobbying efforts, considering current competitors?

> the Barrandov Bridge is one of the most crucial arteries. Designed by Karel Filsak, author of the similarly impressive Hotel Intercontinental on Pařížská Street

That hotel was also impressively filled with asbestos:

https://newsbeezer.com/czechrepubliceng/the-people-around-th...

Asbestos has been known to be a big health hazard since 1900s and has been heavily regulated since:

https://www.oracleasbestos.com/what-is-asbestos/asbestos-reg...

I personally can't appreciate or commend a building that was knowingly made with such a hazardous material.

> If we could figure out how to resist, in a reproducible way, the market pressure favoring antisocial behavior, the world would be a much better place.

Isn't that what regulation is for? If business practices harm society, then you legally rein in the business, financially discouraging them from committing such practices.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/no-chocolate-or-ice-cre...

https://wwwl.foodnavigator.com/Article/2015/01/07/Netherland...

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay?

I'd love to see something similar from China or North Korea.

I think this topic is not about physical VS virtual, but discrete VS continuous involvement of the manufacturer/provider.

A car is manufactured and sold once to a customer, which then goes on a road rampage. (physical, discrete)

A website is continuously served and maintained by a provider to a customer, which then uses it for shopping scams. (virtual, continuous)

A spreadsheet serial key for an offline app is sold by the developer to a customer, which then uses it for embezzlement. (virtual, discrete)

Some legal questions: Is the manufacturer/provider liable? Did they know the product/service was purchased with the intent to harm? At what point can the manufacturer/provider be considered an accomplice? The product was sold already, what can they do about it? The service is still being provided, should they stop it?

I'm wondering how long until we see the physical, continuous scenario, exactly like the road rampage, but with a connected car. Should the manufacturer disconnect that car? Should they remotely disable it?

Very complex legal and ethical questions ahead in our times.

Aurora Borealis? In this time of the year?

(can't wait for this one to get deleted...)

How many people not liking murder or theft did it take to make it into a law?

How many people not liking gaslighting personal-data-theft dark patterns will it take to make it into a law?

We're transitioning from purely physical beings to having a more virtual presence. Virtual crimes are much less visible and have much greater impact at scale than their physical counterparts, identity theft by Equifax breach or a hack, VS physical force or pickpocketing, for example.

"Fetchez la vache!"

Picanha is just a particular cut. You can get it from any cow, regardless of region.

I get that most picanha-branded meat is advertised as originating from Brazil, but if you really want to contribute to protecting the Amazon forest, why not boycott the real source of the problem, Brazilian originating meat?

You can also go to your local butcher, and ask for a picanha cut of any local cow. That way you can still enjoy picanha, without worrying about the Amazon.

Maybe search for other names as well, in US it's apparently unknown: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picanha

"In the United States, the cut is little known and often named top sirloin cap, rump cover, rump cap, or culotte. Instead, North American butchers generally divide this cut into other cuts like the rump, the round, and the loin."

Yep that same scary regulation that is intended to hinder businesses from selling me food with hydrogenated fats, overloaded with sugar or salt, that same regulation that forces auto manufacturers to not create exclusive overpriced repair consortiums for basic parts, and that generally makes life a bit less corporately tyrannical.

Shareholder value is only nice if you're a significant shareholder, and it is disproportionately nice to those shareholders at the cost of others, when lobbying overtakes regulation.

Isn't excessively hard water harsher on your kidneys?

Wonder how long that saying will last when ebook readers and paper-free trends hit that market.

Reminds me of the kinder egg VS AR15 ownership thing in the US

Fires like the ones in Athens are happening more often globally and they are a legitimate issue. Washington and California in the last year, Portugal 2 years ago.

I agree with your general idea, but society is a mechanism and many people in lower positions of power simply follow the incentives regardless of intention or impact around them.

We need people in higher positions of power, who have influence over those incentives and that believe in those climate issues, to change those incentives so that lower level power positions adopt the needed measures.

Sadly, I suspect previous generations will need to retire and new ones with direct awareness of those issues to take their place. And that will sadly take its sweet time...

That assumption of a certain fairness, or give-and-take outcome, is only applicable in a democratic, free society.

The per capita argument makes sense from a human perspective, even for any culture globally, as it is an appeal to fairness and equality.

However, the natural phenomena governing the planet's weather does not care about anything other than absolute CO2.

Fair or not, absolute CO2 is the number that matters for the planet.

We can come up with a mitigation or fairness mechanism, but in the end the planet works just like a virus or a script, it's a complex mechanism that you cannot negotiate or reason with.

> Strong arming people into being vaccinated is the stick with which to try to limit these reservoirs.

I suppose then that after every single person in more developed countries is vaccinated, we should start readying the troops for invasion into the less developed countries that, inevitably, will not be fully vaccinated? Otherwise, pockets > variants > travel > reinfection.

Or is too inhumane to invade a country to force them to vaccinate fully? Maybe we should just isolate them economically and close borders with them until they do it themselves.

How far should we go?

I understood your personal thresholds, and thank you for sharing. For me only the government should make and enforce a decision on public health at scale, not any employer, that's my threshold.

I have seen other thresholds being crossed in the last 2 years, but now mine has been crossed, and I don't see this slowing down. What's the next threshold to be crossed?

> Unvaccinated people are literally like drunks.

I was not aware motor and speech discoordination were symptoms of covid.

Perhaps we as a society should find a new word that means what literally used to mean a few years ago.

I would agree to that, provided there is evidence to prove that the other person was infected from me and not anyone else and that this specific infection caused them harm.

Restitution on dubious causes is not something that would hold in a court, I think.

It's not an employer's job to enforce that though. If anything, it should come from the government.

What's next in this scope creep? Your local grocery forces you to vaccinate if you want any food?

That should not be happening in a healthy, democratic society.

If it does then it means anyone can be silenced based solely on an accusation of an action highly despised and criminalized by society.

Pedophilia accusations might be just a tad overescalated as a response to "your sub sucks"...

If it wasn't Tesla someone else would, most likely Rimac.

There are a few big techs out there with commitments to hire or have teams composed of x% black people. If that's a hard or large enough problem, solutions like that website naturally pop up.

I wonder if in tech we're crossing the threshold between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, how would we know? Or if people even think of that distinction.

It's hard enough to read tone, doubly so in an online forum.

> And how many men die in childbirth?

I'd say about 50% of the neonatal death rate.

:)

Seriously though, US has an unexpectedly high maternal death rate for a western country: https://www.statista.com/chart/23541/maternal-mortality-deve...

Corporations exist to bring value to shareholders. They do this by defining their own targets with their own economic interests in mind. Maximize paperclip sales YoY, minimize costs.

Just as a corporation cannot exist in a vacuum, neither should it's measure of success. It is impossible to have a corporation without financial, social and cultural impact in its operating environment.

Why do we let corporations decide unilaterally what their success looks like, without input from the society they are operating in?

How would our society look like if McDonald's was regularly taxed xcompanyScalepopulationObesity% for its operating country or region?

Or Marlboro taxed companyScaley^(zpopulationLungCancer%)?

There is certainly evidence linking those 2 societal, highly impacting "metrics" with the products of those corporations. The effects of which are amplified by the limitless maximization of burgers/cigarettes sold YoY.

Maybe if depression can be somehow measured, and linked to social media usage, the same could apply to Facebook. It's way more complicated than burgers or cigarettes though.

But the underlying cause is the same, the Friedman mantra of maximizing returns to shareholders, when taken from an exclusively economic perspective, is simply wrong and unethical.

The societies impacted by the operations of a corporation, should have a say in what success looks like for that corporation.

I have seen this line of whataboutist reasoning as a counterpoint in every single forum that approaches this topic.

I can't understand how such a contrived equalization is spread in so many different forums.

The other replies make excellent, well-sourced points for the distinction of the Morales and Belarusian situations, so I won't repeat them. It seems easy to understand and prove this distinction.

I'm genuinely curious if this whataboutist reasoning could be contributed to by an active campaign to muddy the Belarus discussion or just anti-west/pro-anarchy idealisms.

"... which was outside Ryanair's control."

No refunds for anyone...

Nothing can finish off a corporate announcement better than a Liability Avoidance and Risk Reduction statement :)