maym86

Ok, sounds good, let's increase that federal aid and take the money from the military budget.

I don't think you understand. It's a thing we all pay for. It's a publicly funded service that defends the country. It's not about who gets in, it's about how it's paid for. We all pay together for something that is not explicitly for profit that we believe to be for the good of the country. This is socialism.

But also, to your point, colleges would still reject students based on grades. This happens in countries with free college education. Standards are still maintained but it doesn't depend on how much money you have. We would get the best candidates based on merit instead of their parents income.

Yes. That's not what defines it.

Yes

Sure. Those invisible fighter jets that don't work were a great investment.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/

The US military is a publicly funded socialist entity. Interesting how that's ok for war but not for education.

Sure, reappropriate some of the US military budget ($717 billion).

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-approves-717b-defense-s...

How does it work? Why is it so easy?

They have a supply chain for content/products why not have the option to sell it through any medium including cinemas/stores. Brick and mortar isn't going away and they want their cut too.

I can and often do but my brain just shuts out the podcast when I am concentrating and I don't hear it or can only vaguely remember the content. It becomes like music or white noise. Sometimes they end and I don't notice. I find it much better and less distracting than having background noise of an office or coffee shop and it's comparible to me listening to music.

Upside is that when I'm doing things that don't require high concentration that are kinda boring and easy I get to listen to the podcast while I do it. A faily large chunk of programming is me on autopilot writing things where I know exactly what to do so a podcast isn't a big deal.

The piece states 40% of directors and gives some voices to the workers. There will still be many other technical voices leading the company and the elected people may still be technical. This adds some people that at least have to consider worker issues and adds some other incentives. The trade-off seems reasonable to me. This is a small change and anyone saying it's a big issue is overstating it's effect. It's a small step in the right direction.

It's not like all the management will be elected and if a large company can't handle some voices in it's upper management structure that arn't entirely focused on shareholder profit then something else is wrong with that organization.

> “Fuck it, we’ll vote on it!” is a lazy solution.

It's a far better solution than no option at all. If people make a bad choice they'll just be back to where they started, with people in charge who care little about their welfare.

Of course not but let's start somewhere. Make gradual socitital changes in all the areas needed starting with this bill. Education and housing reform would also be worthwhile.

So you're arguing against all democracy? If there are regular votes to keep/replace this director if they are not performing to the benefit of the workers I don't see an issue. Sure they're will be some bad choices sometimes but the existence of the position in itself will exert some pressure to consider worker issues that the company didn't have to think about before.

Treating low paid workers as interchangeable, disposable resources needs to change and this is a very small step towards giving them a little more control of their situation. It's not perfect but it's better.

> It optimizes for the completely wrong qualities necessary for a directorship, and I could easily see it hurting the workers more than helping them.

No it doesn't (see other people can make completly unqualified statements too).

That's the point. Treating low paid workers as interchangeable, disposable resources needs to change and this is a small step towards giving them a little more control of their situation.

Unions and worker ownership can help make a company actually consider the workers rather than just profit. In the US the balance has gone so far in the direction of treating low wage workers as disposable resources that any step to improve worker power is a good thing. Even if this bill passes the system would still favour the owners but there could be a little more consideration of the employees.

The profit comes from the labour of people who work for the company. Any profit it makes is the difference between what their true labour is worth and what they are paid. So unless the owners are adding billions in value by themselves they are paying people less than the true value of their work. The extent at which this happens is where some ethical issues lie. If you keep wages low while making large profit there is a point of view that you are ripping off your workers and hopefully an extra voice at the top of the company can help here and emphasize some more consideration of worker needs.

This would be another labour law to increase accountability.

Right. If you ban racists openly spouting hate speech and inciting violence it's clearly a very fine line between that and banning baseball. Slippery slope. How can we possibly draw that line.

> trying to control every post on the Internet

Did I suggest this? The point is just unfollowing people as you suggested doesn't solve the problem.

In some case there is direct harm caused by the posts. Pizzagate was an example which led to a man turning up to a pizza shop with a gun based on the fake story and the business owners received death threats. Not everything is as easy as just unfollowing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

When it comes to hate speech, incitment to do harm or lies about elections a subset of people unfollowing doesn't mean there still won't be harmful consequences.

Funny how they can easily and quietly manage banning Kodi yet stuggle publicly with removing blatent hate speech. Not saying they're equivalent, just that Facebook is perfectly capable of blocking things when they want to despite the free and open perception they try to create for the platform when they don't want to.

Yeah 1 in 106 seems like an unbelievably high allowable failure rate.

> I don't think it's proven yet that someone was actually harassed.

Not yet. That's why it's going to court. Are you against being able to take things to court and have a jury decide if the law was broken? If you're against that then you're against a cornerstone of a free society.

> Why the person who doesn't like it just quit and go home.

Pleanty of cultures that people think are toxic are legal and people do just leave the company. This one crosses the line into ilegality because of sexual discrimination so there is a lawsuit. It's pretty simple, only certain types of toxic culture are illegal.

> Anyone can come along and claim a corporate culture is toxic for virtually any reason. If your company had a policy that...

Yes, yes, what about all the cases that aren't actually happening and all the lawsuits occuring for any made up situations that you can come up with? That's what we should focus on.

This is a specific example of a toxic culture and sexual harrasment in a workplace. It is real and not a thought experiment. When examples of your imaginary cases come to court we can discuss the merrits of those.

How is your point more rational?

This is a common argument used to detract from protests (I'm not saying you are using it deliberately). People ask why people have to be so distruptive and question the methods to move from the issues and focus on the individuals. Why can't the protest just be a little more reasonable and acceptable to them. Even though the only acceptable protest to the questioners would be one that didn't happen and caused zero disruption.

Protests are intentionally disruptive to get attention. Otherwise they wouldn't work and news reports and stories about the issue being protested wouldn't be made. We know this protest worked because we're still discussing it.

Think of it like an annoying advertising campaign where even if you don't like the advert now you are more likely to be aware of the product.

No. The point of this whole thread is there is no button so that when you approach the car it unlocks automatically. That's why this attack is possible by extending the range with repeaters. The key likely already has something similar to what you suggested but that can't prevent this attack.

It doesn't work like that. This can't be recorded and replayed later. This attack works by extending the range of the exchange between car and key in real time using handheld repeaters.