damq

+1. In order for this to be punishable in the US, they would have had to have known this press release was fake before publishing it which would be a much different story.

The headline should be updated to say they were fined by France.

Have you tried purchasing health care before? It's not inexpensive. There's no way we could guarantee food, health care, and housing for everybody with no work requirement. Only a really stupid person would believe this could work.

You're really stupid.

Wrong.

Companies that buy advertising at games pay a pretty penny for it. Fans who buy tickets to games have paid to watch the game, not to advertise their cause. If fans want to advertise at games, they can pay the advertising rate.

+1. I gave up reading halfway through after he complained about sexism for the tenth time without giving a single example. It seems like the author just wants to complain and doesn't really know anything about what makes a company successful. Not worth reading at all.

This would imply the only thing he uses his phone for is to type in his passcode.

This guy is pretty far left (to the point that he banned meat in his offices). I doubt conservatives and libertarians are going to be bending over backwards to defend him.

The comment you're replying to is suggesting a way to prevent a PR crisis like this, not a way to escape an ongoing crisis.

It's hard to deny that there would be a much smaller PR issue here if the player had been prevented from voicing any opinion on Hong Kong in the first place.

Almost all studies about vegetarianism are born of an agenda to promote vegetarianism.

To a meat eater, studying the effects of eating an all vegetable diet is the same as studying the effects of walking backwards everywhere you go: it's not something we'd ever consider doing so we see no value in studying the effects of doing it. Furthermore, meat eaters do not care if other people don't want to eat meat. As such, most of the people conducting studies about vegetarianism are people who think eating meat is immoral. Their motivation to conduct the study is to stop other people from eating meat.

A whole bunch of irrelevant retorts + a personal attack. I've never seen a comment more deserving of getting flagged than this one.

One example is that news organizations will often choose not to report on crimes when they're committed by racial group A even when they report on the same crimes when committed by racial group B.

Highlighting or minimizing demographic information of victims and assailants in crimes is a huge way news organizations insert their biases while still reporting factually accurate information.

It's a bad idea for the same reason all other variants of socialism are a bad idea: it disincentivizes productivity. If it's possible to afford housing and food without working, some percentage of the population that would otherwise be working will choose to stop working.

> The data provide the most detailed view yet of the passenger experience inside vehicles from Waymo, which doesn’t disclose the information even though it uses public roads as its testing grounds.

What's up with this statement? Should I be forced to publicize my phone calls just because I made them while driving on public roads? It's utterly bizarre that the author thinks he is entitled to see Waymo's data.

> the notion that it's somewhat something to be ashamed of for an employee to leave its employer, while it's perfectly OK for the employer to terminate the employee at any time.

Did you just make this up? The stigma is the exact opposite. Western society makes it quite difficult to fire employees. Hell, it's even illegal to fire striking employees. You'd be hard-pressed to find any employer willing to fire an employee without thoroughly documented evidence of the employee's malfeasance.

The only time anybody gets fired is when they really really deserved it. In contrast, many employees leave their jobs capriciously with little to no consequence.

And the children are objective? I don't understand your point here. Objectivity has nothing to do with this.

Voting is only a Constitutional right for citizens. Hence the need to prove you're a citizen before voting.

1.81% is not a massive spike.

Also, "breaking democracy" is quite dramatic. Democracy isn't broken just because your candidate lost.

If that private company has a monopoly like youtube does, they should absolutely be forced to carry your message.

Yes, it very much it is okay. They're living cost-free at the taxpayer's expense because of crimes they committed against society. It's absolutely okay to pay them nothing for their labor since the cost to society they've already incurred greatly dwarfs the value of any stolen wages.