Perhaps they feel that tobacco farming and harvesting causes significantly less distress to the tobacco plants than animal farming and slaughter does to the animals.
6,113 karma · joined January 21, 2010
Are you aware that your attitude also affects everyone in a negative way (and you just don't care?), or are you oblivious to the damage you do to people?
Or maybe for you it's all about the output and how good your numbers look, and damaging people is just a price to pay?
How does it pair well with free speech? If I think that you might be recording me without telling me, I'll stop talking.
A bod there whose situation in life made him one of the most likely people in the world to know if anyone in the Lloyds markets was engaging (except anyone actually doing it), and has a long reputation of saying truthful things under the Chatham House rules in such conferences, said he'd not seen any of that and not heard of anyone doing it. It's not the same as fact, but with his long-term reputation and his position in life, it signficantly changed my working calculus on the subject. He didn't want to be professionally quoted on it, hence the CH rule.
Nothing at all to do with having the freedom to be a dickhead or anything like that. Nothing to do with wanting to lie to people without consequence.
And then wait for the lynch mob to come round because they disagree that {people shouldn't be property / women should be allowed to own property / etc }.
UHC and chums simply buy the medical providers, and can then use them to launder people's premiums. UHC et al can only keep a maximum of 20% (? - I forget the exact figure) of the premiums; but if UHC simply own the hospitals, then money laundered through those hospitals via very high profit procedures etc become permitted profits for UHC.
Why would they turn productivity improvements into lower costs, when they could instead turn them into higher profits? Big health insurers such as UHC practice "intercompany eliminations", as it's known; they own those providers you mention and use increasing charges there to get around the limits on how much of the insurance premiums they can keep for themselves. It's in their interests for the charges to go up, especially on anything that's actually cheap. Productivity improvements is just more profit to launder through the providers they own for the purpose of laundering those premiums.
Do you have any evidence of CEOs being fired by shareholders because workers got a payrise? Starbucks has been handing out payrises of a couple of percent this year but I don't see shareholders firing the CEO. Likewise many other public companies.
This is the most amazing thing about this story. Not only did the company not threaten him, they actually fixed the issues.
I absolutely would do that. Sometimes I already do wait that kind of time for a taxi or bus. Having the robo taxi turn up in ten minutes from when I decided I wanted to go to the shop would be fantastic.
Passive-aggressive minefield. Someone will see a change done to THEIR code, without the changer even asking, and it will feel like the person who did it is a passive aggressive dickhead. Resentment will brew, tempers will be lost. It will only get worse from there. Software engineers already aren't exactly known for their humbleness and ability to swallow their ego.
Definitely. This can work very much to your favour.
There have been times when I have happily shipped a product containing issues and bugs that would be catastrophic for any customer using it, because I know that no customer actually ever will. The product is shipped and released, everyone is happy.
The catastrophic issues won't ever come up because that shipped product will never be used by anyone.
Big people are happy because the product is shipped.
Team are happy because big people have stopped causing so much friction in their desire to ship.
When the measurement becomes "have we slapped the label shipped on it", then that's what you get. A label.
Yet people do, and they find it useful and it helps them solve problems and get results.
Some dickhead flinging racial slurs at me all day doesn't make me feel that they have my back. Quite the opposite, actually.
I'm not asking for us to fire people; I'd like to see the consequence that people are guided and helped to be better at their jobs, and the company stops making the same errors over and over.
We can look at the data. Aactual cities where jaywalking isn't a crime; they do not set the speed limit at 10, and it all seems to work fine.