mieseratte

> you can’t really blame the pedestrians of ruling this system as stupid and opting not to follow it.

Sure I can, they have a shit culture with little regard for traffic signals. My city has the same problem. I'm the odd man out for waiting for a signal, and am mocked for it at times. Nothing wrong with the signals or timing as a pedestrian (as a cyclist that's another story), but people feel they are more important. That they're 15 - 90 seconds is worth more.

Similarly, had a man recklessly pass me in his vehicle while I was biking to work yesterday. He went fully into the oncoming well above the posted speed limit, and cut me off as I was turning from the forward-moving lane into the left-hand turning lane. All to get around me to a red light.

Some people feel their 15 seconds are more valuable than others safety. In the case of pedestrian jaywalking, that their safety isn't worth the inconvenience of using the nearest crosswalk.

With an insurer, you at least have a backstop of changing insurers.

If the government makes this decision, your backstop becomes "move to a new polity."

This is the core of the argument, that the government should not have this power. Say what you will of the sad state of the US health situation, there are potential solutions not involving this level of "We choose who can have what."

I'm not one with exotic health problems, the kind that involve going to a hospital for a week for a batter of tests and analysis, but I know people for whom this is the case. I suppose those people are the ones this is writing off.

Well you have assumed wrong. It was a reference to giving the government, likely unelected bureaucracies, power to decide who receives what healthcare.

Well this is, in essence, the concern of the "ObamaCare Death Panel"!

Only instead of determining by a board of doctors whether you are entitled to care, a bureaucratic measure to determine whether a company should investigate cures to what ails you. Better for society, worse for you as an individual.

Or create the aforementioned delivery / pickup parking and charge a fee for their use.

Gives citizens what they want, puts cost on the delivery services for their externalities, and doesn't engage in protectionism for local businesses.

I have no trouble making and sustaining friendships with or without an office, in fact only one of my (former) co-workers is an actual friend.

Regardless, something about the isolation of working from home for anything more than a day here or there is just too mentally harmful for me. A much lesser form of solitary confinement, I suppose. Even going out and doing things after work every single day is no cure. I've tried it on and off over the past decade, with and without a co-habitating girlfriend. With and without pets. I've tried working from coffee shops, working from parks, co-working spaces, etc.

For some it's not a matter of needing the office for friends, some people just need the office environment itself. Something about being there "in the shit" with your team, best I can tell, rings that mental bell.

So... uncritically take everything someone says at face value and ignore possible alternative explanations, assuming the worst about the person being discussed that isn't there to defend themselves or otherwise offer any possible context?

Sounds like a poor recipe for civic cohesion.

> How do you get your employer to hear you? I don't think these problems are isolated to women. I think women just don't understand that there's an "old boys club" that attacks other men too. I know lots of men who say the same things.

If anyone thinks this is a problem exclusive to men, conservatives, or whatever group it's en vogue to pillory they're flat-out ignorant.

I've seen women in power be utterly despicable to their fellow woman. I've seen #woke managers belittle the pious.

The real test of character is, when discussing these issues, do you assume immutable aspects are to blame or do you consider alternative realities.

Maybe "those people" are bad for being "those people," maybe they just suck.

Edit: The no comment downvote brigade is here, go ahead and flag me too.

While you're at it, leave a comment telling me you're downvoting me because I said something about it.

> I bet you he said Newton metre.

Are `meter` and `metre` pronounced differently?

> It's an extra kicker that people who don't use metric units also get to change the spelling of metric units the rest of us are using.

Assuming you are referring to the US, we use metric. We just don't use it for everything.

What a strange high-horse you sit on.

The corporation that owns it?

She posted her side of the story, with no material backing information making, as I’ve said, a he-said-she-said tale. We don’t know anything material of the exchange. Yet everyone feels compelled to assume bad faith on SE’s part.

Perhaps the most striking thing here is the surety of all these responses, it’s all nefarious, lies, sleight of hand.

I can at least sympathize with not being told what you did wrong, but this is still a he-said-she-said case. Until either SE or Monica releases details, the only two people who know are SE and her.

> The whole "put family members in jail" bit feels like a worthless appeal to emotion.

Using "but wouldn't you want to lock up those darn killers" is itself an emotional appeal.

One of the biggest issues with the scrum (master|lord|bag) model of Agile is that any process grievances magically transform from "this process has issues" to "that person is wrong."

> This is also why this new system is completely neutral.

That it is neutral today does not mean it will remain so.

> superficial characteristics correctly signal group affiliation, something that is simply not true

It does when appearance and affiliation are one.

> Nothing gets incremented here.

People's expectations and willingnesses are moved forward. Overton Window.

> This is the automated checkout system for State services, nothing more.

Look beyond the superficial, at larger issues.

Anyone can shoot any idea down by reducing it to a simple, innocuous sounding concept to make the other look ridiculous.

Claiming "there's nothing here" is wrong, saying "I recognize the potential for bad, but choose to accept that risk" is a different story.

> But it's not an incremental step. The French government already had that database. This is just using the data they already had in a new way.

Yes, it is a new, small, incremental step!

This is introducing a new procedure, a procedure they can change later to move the needle forward.

This is the whole point, doing small incremental steps. Each of which appears rather banal and unobjectionable.

That you don't care is proof it works!

Which is fine and dandy until the day you're a target. Power is a sword that cuts both ways.

> This app doesn't provide the government any new information

> wished to do what you described then this app wouldn't be the proverbial gateway drug to that point.

It's not about "gateway drug" - it's about taking small, incremental steps to get from point A to point B such that you don't realize it, and each action is a small change from the previous. This is widely known as Salami Slicing[0], though I like to call it "slow boiling a frog."

This is the same tactic I use to slowly bring errant teams and projects up-to-code at work, start off slow with a build server, add in pass-fail rules, add in style rules, add in test requirements, add in code review to ensure these things are up to snuff and before you know it we have a nice compliant project, whereas if I walked in on Day 0 and laid down the law there is guaranteed revolt.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing

1) I used to work in HFT, so I know what I’m talking about.

2) While it’s a joke, I have no knowledge that Schwaab engages in anything related to front-running:

> Nobody is front running some guy day trading AAPL on their lunch break.

Just like Google doesn’t spy on you, they spy on everyone together.

If this wasn’t a problem SEC wouldn’t have pressed for something like the CAT.

Perhaps you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Of course not! They just sell your data to the people who do.

> Unfortunately, your anecdote is not representative.

Of teachers starting today? Probably not.

Older government employees often had ludicrously lucrative compensation packages compared to what we have now.

It may or may not depending on what group we're talking about.

> Many older teachers are getting forced out because, well, they're expensive

Do you have information for that one, the link provided just lists starting and average salaries.

> What about things like healthcare costs, lifespan estimates, mass shootings, addiction rates, cost of housecare, and economic movement?

What do any of these things have to do with corporations?

It sounds like your gripe is with something else.

> Nobody wins in trade wars.

I would consider upholding higher-order principles to be a win.

> I think there is simply a trend of attacking the extremist trends that identify themselves as conservative

1. Outlaw "extremism"

2. Label your political enemies as "extrmist."

3. ???

4. Eutopia

Using weasel-words doesn't absolve ad hominem.

> if American conservatism continues to pander to and fall back on its racist and reactionary cores.

They don't.

> It isn't clear to me why social disapprobation and pressure on the whole to excise reactionaries is inappropriate in this context.

I consider the moral-fascism of modern illiberal progressive rhetoric to be rather abhorrent. Are you fine with being socially outcast?

Yes, and the baker was willing to sell them a cake. He was not willing to create a bespoke cake. This isn't about refusing service, but refusing compelled speech.

As I've expressed over and over, this isn't about refusing to conduct business.

Just like a baker can refuse to create a White Power cake covered in swastikas based on their sincerely held views!