PurpleBoxDragon

Do the voters of the fringe parties think that it is to the detriment of the political environment? It sounds almost like saying those groups don't deserve representation because of a ideological difference, which is not a justification to deny a certain voting system.

In a sibling comment chain the one who purposed the idea mentioned that a phase out might be needed for optics.

But if it doesn't ever phase out, it is really just a tax cut, and to be exact a tax cut. I'll take having to pay 7.5k less taxes (or getting an untaxed check for 7.5k from the same people I have to write my tax check to).

And that is why I think the core of the issue is consent. The power difference between the lawyers who understand the legal system and write these documents and the users who are forced to agree to use the service is so great that consent cannot exist between the two parties. We legally allow it, much like some countries will legally let a 9 year old sign some document and then hold them to it, but that is a legal fiction that needs to be done away with. Of course this would be a massive shock to how we do things (how would you sign up for a loan), but that alone doesn't justify allowing such abuse of consent to continue.

>It might be a slightly less reasonable comment on the details as written of the proposition above.

The more I think about it, the harder I think it is to create a program which doesn't result in this once combined with other programs. Any cutback, no matter how small, will be combined with all other cutbacks of all other programs, existing and future. As long as these benefits are independent, there is a that the sum of all the cutbacks will outweigh the raise that caused the cutbacks. Even if the max cutback was 10%, meaning it would take a 75k raise to remove all benefits, when combined with 9 other equally generous benefit programs and income tax you still end up with a loss.

When adjusting for the phase out being for optics limiting how the phase out works (as all phase outs for optics would tend to look similar to meet similar expectations), the risk of a raise resulting in lost total income isn't easily dismissed.

>No offense, but this feels like a “99%” and “most” that is something less than rigorous.

I've read the contracts I have to sign, and generally this throws people off drastically. When I ask, they tell me I'm the first to read them. Things like leases at a place that has been around decades and I'm the first to sit down and read before signing. While it isn't rigorous, from my experience with wet ink legal documents, saying 1% do read EULAs and privacy policies is a very optimistic over estimation by magnitudes.

So everyone is getting an extra $7,500, assuming they make at least that much? How isn't that just a tax credit on W2 taxes?

It would make sense to assume there is some cut off, and given how government cut offs work in the past, it would be reasonable to assume the cut off will be implemented in a fashion that creates a graph where sometimes raises will result in less pay, at least when combined with existing government aid programs.

The GDPR seems to be been designed to do the opposite of this by imposing a maximum cap on fees that could total many multiples of revenue for a small business but which will never be greater than a 1/25 the revenue of a large business.

>Working conditions are such a major aspect of any job

So they need to increase compensation even more to account for these aspects of the job. If they can't fill the position, it is because they aren't paying enough for the job. I don't see how anything changes except that employers don't want to admit that their jobs suck so much more than similar jobs that paying even twice the amount doesn't pull people in.

>Why is there a belief in this industry that working more hours == productivity?

Lack of manager ability to measure productivity based on anything else. Between POs, BAs, business representatives, and IT managers there are a lot of people who don't seem to be able to grasp why two relatively simple to describe tasks can require such vast differences in time. So it becomes hard for them to judge if their developer is wasting their time or not (and let's not even begin on overall lack of trust to begin with), so the only fall back measure is if they have their butt in the seat and appear to be working. And even if you are lucky enough that everyone you directly deal with either understands the basics on why sizing varies so greatly or able to accept it without question, you still have to deal with middle managers walking the floor who measure productivity the same as they would in a factory. And if you are lucky enough to not even have this problems, you still have to deal with cultural norms set in party by all the jobs which aren't as lucky.

Relations, the regulators that make them, and the incumbents that support those regulators are under a sort of survival of the fittest to optimize for regulations that protect the incumbents but do so without being obvious and with some benefit to the consumer. Regulations that clearly support the incumbent and which clearly have no benefit to consumers will be the easiest to attack and remove. So if you want to cherry pick regulations, you can make them seem like perfect things that no sane person would ever have an issue with.

Look at how fines work, say with the GDPR. The maximum fine is 20 million or 4% of revenue, which ever is larger, which means that small businesses see a much larger risk as a percent of revenue from these regulations. This is independent of the chance of the max fine being applied. This inherently creates a pro-incumbent bias even if nothing else about the law created pro-incumbent bias.

I think the key to answering that question is derived in a supreme court case that is almost entirely unrelated to this.

>There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.

Regardless of the merit of this claim in regards to what exists in text, tradition, or practice, it, in my opinion, shows that the legal system is effectively a huge game where the rules matter more than the concepts of which the game's existence is justified (such concepts are right and wrong, harm, guilt and innocence).

If you are about to be executed for a crime you were convicted of, but have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of your innocence, that alone is not worth demanding judicial consideration.

If the rules by which we murder people in cold blood are less nonsensical than the most recent version of D&D, then what hopes does far more mundane and boring issues like patents have?

>If the President (doesn't matter who) showed up at your house, in your living room, would you still claim the right to deny entry to anyone you chose?

Yes, including the ability to deny entry to anyone that Trump doesn't want there. But now a judge has ruled they have a right to be there if Trump was the one asking to ban them, but in doing so has created a loophole where as long as I want to deny them entry because Trump doesn't want them to be there (note that this isn't done on behalf of Trump, but because it is my own desire) they can be banned. It makes the judge's ruling extremely easy to work around, which indicates some fundamental problem with the ruling.

>I m not missing that part, because it hasn't happened yet.

I'm glad I don't live in a world where people refuse to prepare for court cases until the actual injury has happened. Many legal groups have built plans and arguments for potential injuries, either to test if their clients can do some behavior, or to have a proactive case against the government if the government takes some action. For example, many times when the ACLU challenges a law in court, they were planning for it long before the law actually passed. They can't engage in the actual challenge until there are injuries, but they sure can discuss it and plan for it.

In this particular instance, I'm not trying to launch an actual court case, so the court rules of when you have standing for a court case don't apply.

So if Trump isn't banned from using that website, where is the difference from this case?

The government official isn't the police, but even more so, I'm not talking about the government official, but the random public who attends. I can say they aren't allowed on my property at which point it is a crime for them to be there.

But you are missing the part where Trump is allowed to pick the private company, and is thus able to pick one which enforces a ToS that the government would not be able to enforce themselves. This creates a loophole where by the government only has to pick private companies that ban anyone who is against the current government to get a defacto censor on the public square that wouldn't otherwise be allowed.

But if I want to use the public forum that has been created, I'm forced to agree to those ToS. Imagine for a second if those ToS included something like banning all people from the state of New York or it banned all socialist. The government, by picking a service with a ToS to host a public forum, is there by enforcing the ToS as a requirement to participate in the public forum. So why can the government enforce a ToS that wouldn't be allowed without the 'private company' loophole?

Now, twitter banning someone from all other parts of its service wouldn't be impacted. But banning someone from participating in the public forum should no longer be allowed unless done for a reason that the government would be allowed to use as well.

If I was a government official and decided to host a public event at a private property which I paid for, where the private property said no women allowed (say it was a private club which allowed to do such), could I use that rules to prevent women from attending the event? Or would the rules of the private property either block me from utilizing them at all or be overridden in regards to my event?

>Not unless the government is the entity doing the banning (or collaborating with Twitter to ban accounts at its request).

But twitter is working with the government in hosting the tweets and thus assumes responsibility to provide a public square, in which case it cannot ban people.

Otherwise government should be banned from using twitter because by picking a private company to put government messages on, the government official (in this case Trump) is picking that company's existing policy (what ever it may be) as a means of banning people, which the government isn't allowed to do.

So you are saying the judge's ruling is wrong then. Because you can't defend twitter banning someone making them unable to respond to Trump's tweets while saying that people have the right to respond to Trump's tweets.

>Yeah, and now you can't respond to anything he says. You've had your voice taken away. The only way back into the conversation is to create a new Twitter account (in violation of the Twitter TOS).

When Trump uses his phone to talk to some people but doesn't take my call, is my voice taken away?

So can twitter ban me from using their services or viewing tweets? If we declare twitter the same as a DMV window, it greatly complicates the public/private division.

And what if Trump abandons twitter and decides to join chirper (I made that up, no relationship with anything that might have that name) which is just like twitter but invite only and has an open policy of banning liberals (which a private company is allowed to do), then what does this ruling mean? Does it mean that no government official can make use of any private company that has any level of discrimination against certain users (and by this I mean a legal discrimination, not based on protected class)? What about Trump joining a private club that doesn't let everyone be members?

>Regulations exist to protect the whole from the greed of a few.

Regulations exist so that entrenched players can use the lethal force of government to block new challengers. Never quite as blunt as I put it, but that is the threat backing all the actual outcomes.

And the overall solution is to allow them to fail next time. Don't fix it, let it crash and burn. Stop socializing the losses since the profits were privatized.

Is there are particular reasoning or meaning to each dot being 6 numbers? Is there any significant changes if you pick other numbers per dot, following the same pattern?

Based on the linked explanation here: https://beta.observablehq.com/@montyxcantsin/unwinding-the-u...

I built a small shed in my backyard. I didn't follow any building codes. I cooked a meal at home, I didn't follow any food safety standards. I build a gokart from scratch and ride it around my own property.

Should any of these be banned? Now if I tell my friend, 'Hey, you can store stuff in my shed/grab a plate of food/take the gokart for a spin', should any of it be banned?

If I run a soup kitchen and new regulations make it too costly for me to continue, I'm in the right to shut it down if I want. If anyone is against this decision, then they should open their own soup kitchen that meets the new regulations.

They are both lies, but they are different since they aren't equal violation of the social contract. When an interviewer wants to know my biggest weakness, they don't actually want to know my biggest weakness, they want to know how I handle answering a political question where too much honesty is a bad thing. They want me to lie, but only so much. Saying something like 'I work too hard' is too big a lie. Bringing up something that is a real but minor workplace weakness and what I do to avoid it is the lie they want, and bringing up a real weakness is being too truthful.

But when I say I worked at $place and did $thing with $technology, they want to me to mostly truthful. They understand there is some embellishing or generalizing, but an outright falsehood is a major violation of expectations.

HR speak is about giving the desired answer, regardless if it is true, mostly true, or a straight up lie. In some way it is seen as an justifiable reason to lie where as most other lying is not considered justifiable.

>The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one.

In this case, given the difference in power between the two entities, I think the issue is still consent not being valid. Arbitration is one bad thing to stick in, but there are many other clauses that a person would normally not agree to but who are coerced by the situation to agree to. To me the issue is still a matter of given consent when in a coercive interaction where the parties involved has significant power differences.

The problem is that the third party is often picked, to some degree, by one of the parties, and there is a perverse incentive between the third party and the party that is picking them.

>they are waiving their rights to legal action

The criminal matter can still be reported and dealt with the normal way, no? Isn't what is being waived is suing a third party for employing the accused (specifically, suing for negligence in employing the accused when they shouldn't have)?