Can you link the tablet?
184 karma · joined June 4, 2009
If it was a German professor talking about buttermilk do you think he would given a build up?
But regardless, the reactions in the comments here are verging on hysterical - references to McCarthy, and even Stalin and Mao.
Perhaps you don’t - that’s fine. But can you see why other people might need such a warning?
If you were teaching a foreign language word with a similar sound to “motherfucker” what reaction would you expect from your class of 18-21 year olds?
I was surprised by the linked video though, it could have done with a prior warning in my opinion.
Of course, we have no idea of the context. But if it was anything like the linked video - and it could have been worse - it’s perfectly understandable why students would be surprised and perhaps upset.
If you disagree, its worth asking yourself, what reaction would you expect if you were a chinese professor enunciating the word “cunt” during a lecture, with no prior warning?
In the linked video it sounds exactly like the slur, To a surprising extent.
It was introduced with no warning and I’m not surprised people were shocked if this was the same context as the class - although we don’t know the full details!
I’d be surprised just to hear a word sounding like “fuck” in the middle of a chinese class, although it’s probably not considered as offensive.
It doesnt surprise me at all that some people were upset and it seems very unwise on the part of the professor, who would surely know that this would provoke a reaction. A suspension from teaching his one class for a term will defuse the situation and perhaps he can return to teaching after.
What kind of pressure did they fall under?
Its either a moral pressure (option 1) or a financial pressure (2) isnt it? What other kind of pressure is there?
Regarding your examples, i have no doubt that if Lego felt releasing such kits either violated their ethical standards (1) or threatened their profitability (2) they wouldnt make the kits, and that is where they (not I) presumably draw the line.
I understand you may be disappointed if you would have enjoyed this kit, but I cannot understand your logic here at all. Either:
1) Lego are adhering to a broader set of principles - acting as in a free or open society
Or
2) Lego are purely seeking to maximise profits - in which case they have determined that releasing the product will, in a broader sense, reduce profitability.
One of these two outlooks is driving the decision right?Which one do you object to?
I agree that freelancer sites have some problematic aspects, but I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea that you need to start small and build a reputation/profile. This applies to any bootstrapped business, not just when working via freelancer sites.
Because alcohol and tobacco have "negative externalities" to society. These would be mainly health related but I guess the discussion on this post is also around behavioural issues.
By adding a tax to a product, you can make the consumers and manufacturers together share the burden of paying off the externality, (e.g. care for lung cancer patients) and/or the tax will often discourage consumption in the first place. (The second being more applicable in the US where there is limited/no universal healthcare)
The reason you probably wouldn't tax kale, is because it's good for you, and if anything; you could say it has a "positive externality" in that consuming it makes you healthier, and thus benefits society. So it might make sense to actual SUBSIDISE kale production... although this may have very different effects from taxing unhealthy food.
As an example, Scotland has introduced a tax on alcohol called "minimum unit pricing" and there's a study here: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/5/e013497
The UK as a whole also has a "sugar tax" https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/research/research-action/features/uk...
"In the United States, the federal gas tax was $0.183 per gallon in 2019... The revenue goes into the federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for roadway maintenance."
https://www.thebalance.com/pigouvian-tax-definition-and-exam...
This might be bad for a tractor manufacturer; but an everlasting tractor would be great for society, right?
The incentive now is to innovate in order to create a better more efficient product. E.g.; a more fuel efficient tractor which increases productivity - then you'll get another sale.
Deliberately hobbling your product so that it needs repair or replacement disincentives innovation and is a form of rent-seeking https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp and as such should be treated as a market failure. (I.e., legislated against)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
I think really only a rabid free-marketer (as opposed to all economists as you imply in the first sentence) would expect the market to self correct on something like this.
I understood from a Microsoft conference I attended (regrettably I forget the speaker) that their decision to incorporate new features so rapidly was a very conscious decision, based on what I thought to be a quite perceptive look at the landscape - to some extent C# has always been a reaction to Java; a language that often comes under fire for its extremely slow and cautious incorporation of features.
https://www.hrdefenseblog.com/2018/05/say-goodbye-to-indepen...
This is very similar to the IR35 tests that operate in the UK, although that legislation is primarily used for determining what tax should be applied.
Do you agree with speed limits?
Once you've been exposed to a bit of that it would be natural to get curious about other parts of the JS ecosystem i.e. node.
The event stream is the canonical store.
> Nope but because they're subjected to an environment that only operates in terms of poverty.
So let's say you have now identified a root cause, and assuming we're looking for a solution - how do we fix this without a redistribution of wealth?
> My only metric is is it getting better on average for me and other people
This might be true for you, but may not be for all. Research suggests that on the whole people value relative wealth more than absolute wealth [1] making inequality an important predictor for social stability, a prerequisite for a capitalist system based on property rights.
> I hope capatilism lasts another couple of hundred years and everyone gets to level 3 or 4
As other comments have pointed out, it looks as though an economic system predicated on permanent growth - or even a particular rate of growth - might have some limits. It seems like it's not sustainable with our current level of technology.
[1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5854/1305.full?ijk...
This means that inequality is important for social stability - does social stability matter?
There are possibly other reasons as well - you could argue rich people invest differently, which has implications for the global allocation of resources. [2]
[1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/318/5854/1305.full?ijk...
[2] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/globe-wealth/artic...
I think many would dispute this point, at least in a general sense; although personally I might agree that current governments seem a bit paralysed in the face of some of global society's larger problems.
It does seem like we are living in an almost Victorian era age of high profile philanthropy/industrial barons.
Are you saying that poor people are poor because of their own ignorance or poor behaviours? And therefore if you give them money they'll just piss it away?