Great. Does 996 require the schedule that it implies? If so, respectfully, those excuses are moot.
635 karma · joined February 17, 2023
Their post reads like an advertisement for LLM tech.
No different than clickbait techniques commonly used for yt videos.
Pearl clutching over "superintelligence is here" should give it away, aside from the overall style.
The CEO pay issue is agitprop nonsense. It's purely political without proved mooring to worker interests. It's predicated on the same fallacy that more taxes will mean more appreciably more social benefits for the poor. Instead, the money gets routed everywhere else. The only metric that matters for workers is their own pay. You have no idea if higher CEO pay isn't linked to comparably higher worker pay, not less. No worker in their right mind would spite-lower CEO pay just to have their own be static or decline.
If a child is having that much trouble with it, which would be unusual at grade-level, then the book is above their level. At that point, the child should probably be screened for a delay.
How this generally works is that young people ingest these books, and by doing so their language ability increases to be able to flexibly understand (and use, if stylistically appropriate), non-standard grammatical forms.
I also think that the monetary system is inherently imperfect. To put it mildly.
It is structurally unfixable and there is no possible utopia within it. Last, there is no other good option that I know of.
But pensions are not Basic Income, thank goodness. They're a payment into an investment fund that grows as lifetime earned income grows. They're an asset, exactly the same as a business is an asset.
In fact, pension funds invest in businesses.
Whether or not that fund is well managed is another discussion. Moreover, most people in the United States (at least) do not get pensions aside from a minimal social security payment. Which was also paid into a fund.
Working is only individually valuable when there are good jobs, or to fend off starvation.
What working is not is an immutable positive value that any de facto sweat shop owner can claim to offer the opportunity for.
At a certain point the social contract is broken and working becomes something, at the least, that is not virtuous to offer nor to fulfill. Except insofar as one's personal survival needs are concerned.
When there are only terrible jobs, then society should not feel morally compelled to work them. Especially when it has other income. And especially when a concurrent social value is to drop wages and benefits through the floor, by any means necessary.
For the sake of virtue, are business owners working underpaid second jobs "for the system"?
Are successful business owners widely coming out of retirement to work "for the sake of the system"?
We're not talking about volunteering at the old age home. We're talking about a real work schedule.
Society may have to work those jobs out of necessity, but they can and should tell people trying to morally shame them with a "come out of retirement and to work attitude" to go copulate with themselves.
Especially when the social contract between employers and employees is long-shattered beyond repair.
In society, there can be low paying jobs alongside well paying jobs. What there can't be is moralizing combined with decades of illegal shenanigans whose sole purpose is to suppress wages / job security (especially due to wages) and undermine working conditions.
"Productivity". Give us a break.
Unless your payment is compelling enough to get me to work, as a retired person the health of your business is not my morality nor my productivity. Your business is yours, and mine is my own.
Are those business owners going to come and "be productive" by cleaning my gutters after work? Are they going to "be productive" by doing my taxes?
>And if people don't work, or don't work nearly as much as they did before, then how is the system going to be sustained?
That may be the most communist mindset I've ever seen written out on this forum.
Being a WalMart floor employee is not a virtuous contribution to the system, above being retired. It's an agreement, for a certain wage, to be a part of the employee pool of the Walton family's for-profit vehicle.
Would it be virtuous to come out of retirement and work that job if it paid nothing?
Should the Walton's pay every red cent of their profit to employees, make nothing themselves, and run their business regardless and for the sake of the system?
The virtue is one's monetary needs, and the Walton's have to pay enough to meet the social contract requirement to maintain enough employees in their employee pool. If they don't have enough employees, then they aren't meeting the unspoken requirement. No amount of moralizing / whining is going to increase their social virtue. Only cash on-offer will.
Joe's construction or accounting business is not "the system" either. It's Joe's income vehicle. Retired people have their own income vehicles.
If the employer-employee relationship is a social contract, and not slavery, then working is no more "for the system" then making a profit is.
And if both are needed to "sustain the system", and the business owner can't draw enough people to work via a pay package, then the answer is to bring them in as partners.
If both are for the benefit of the system, and one person is going to be morally compelled to work, and another is going to be morally compelled to make a profit, and the pay isn't high enough to compel the employee, then they need to be made a profit partner in the business.
When I hear someone whining that they are worried about having enough workforce, I think that they are exhausting their vocabulary to avoid stating that they're too cheap to pay employees enough for the job.
I'm not saying that they have to be compelled to pay a minimum wage. Offer $1 an hour for all I would care. As long as the other side of that isn't to illegally / immorally undermine the labor pool.
But the other side of that is if they aren't paying enough to draw employees, then the "I'm going to employ people" part of their business is not viable.
The other side of it is not "people are too over-benefitted / over-privileged to work".
If you want someone to join a social contract, then you have to make a compelling enough offer. That's our only "system".
Anything else needs to be a partnership / significant enough profit split.
When the pay is rock-bottom, employees are scarce, and those profit shares are eventually legally compelled because "oh no, the system", then it's formal communism.
When the employees are legally compelled without partnerships, then its slavery.
If you aren't on the reading level for a specific book, that's another issue.
Renting a car with any liability exposure is a recipe for frustration. As far as I'm concerned, these scans mean that one will be billed if they legally can be. Regardless of actually accruing damage.
I hope that it can and does, rather than allowing their product to be compromised by for-profit companies who enjoy local regulatory capture.
No one has to buy Apple products. There are myriad options. Those who push this regulation necessarily need to imply the opposite, as we see here.
It's false that consumer companies are widely compelled to grant third party access to their operating systems. This regulation is selectively applied.
If Apple plays hardball to the point that they are about to leave the market, we'll see if the histrionics were sincere or if it was dishonest manipulation toward encroaching on Apple's assets.
If Apple leaves then its regulation focused critics will have to buy other products themselves, continuously justify to the populace that having no Apple is better than a walled garden Apple, and continuously deal with the political fallout when that convincing largely fails.
That isn't practical. My guess is that this is bullying and bluster, and this looks to be Apple's guess as well.
Given that you work for the video game industry, perhaps your comment is in a sense perfect.
It's better to have a mediocre game that one can play, than an exceptional game that one can't.
You're free to make games now, and yet it's most often hard to justify money for a game that isn't a skin on a version of solitaire (on sale).
That's how bad your industry is. So, please, with your warning. As if you have work product to bargain with.
You act as if your industry is busy. Outside of a couple of exceptional studios, and infinite sequels on literally only a few popular formulas (whether or not these formulas are good is another discussion), your industry is largely non-productive. If we are utilizing your metric of good vs mediocre.
To advance the argument that a pot burial likely didn't indicate a poor burial.
Point the way to the line for rigid economic class assignments.
I acknowledge that "bilingual tots seem to outperform in cognitive development in the early years" seems both intuitive and logical.
This is a string of words that we'd expect to find together. We'd almost be offended if they weren't. Because both bilingualism and learning more things are better.
My concern over the reference to this research is that early cognitive development milestones are largely language acquisition milestones, and it has long been known that language acquisition is somewhat behind in bilingual tots. Rather than accelerated.
Generally, it is assumed that bilingual child development metrics will later catch up to those of their peer group.
Which is the inverse of "their monolingual classmates may catch up with them later".
Bilingual children aren't actually cognitively delayed, if only marginally on the face of their assessments, but rather they tend toward having a temporary delay in language acquisition due to to their bilingual environment. With any cognitive development disadvantage that this could theoretically cause essentially being non-risk.
However, I've never seen anything that indicates performant development due to bilingualism. Just the opposite, to a statistically relevant degree. Even if only marginally behind.
This is textbook information and part of the body of knowledge of language acquisition. It's not a vanguard research topic.
I don't know how people justify handling newspapers either.
Starting a successful company is virtually impossible, just looking at failure rate. Poverty is the outcome for whomever doesn't succeed and can't find a return to the workforce.
What a hostile work environment in corporate America is an argument for, actually, is either poor mental health or more Federal Employment. It reads like that's what you want.
A healthy corporate America is the only real antidote to massive dysfunction.
It isn't a coincidence that a healthy corporate America aligns with both a massively healthy GDP and a normal to advantageous labor pool for the average person.
If your country did not have cops, who would enforce the laws that are enforced?
Would the most powerful gang simply become the new government? Who?
Would you prefer pre-civilization to civilization, wherein there are no laws?
I well know the dynamics of mafia, and how they relate to the Police.
The system is not perfect, but it is the core structure of civilization.
We try to limit police power via the law, internal controls, and hiring moral men.
Some of that is breaking down everywhere. But its not breaking down via the prescriptions of those who designed the system.
Where in your system have the fail safes failed? No judgement, just curious.
Does your country have the potential for law and order, or not? Why not? What would you do differently, which is realistic?
For example, do cops participate here? Or people with cops in their families? Yet, we have a person who, in my opinion, seems to struggle with concepts of daily life that is calling them bastards.
Is that opinion moderated? If not, are in-kind responses allowed?
Or perhaps this forum is institutionally skewed to the poster's juvenile opinion.
You're arguing for active assurance of truth, assumedly forced on people, which isn't possible in principle. While using pseudo-intellectual refences to Foucault and the scientific method in an attempt to slyly imply that, in the end, truth has to be defined by your party interests.
I argue for freedom of individual choice, which is the fundamental democratic principle. You're arguing for the need for society wide consensus in belief, which is not a democratic principle.
Does a willingness to engage with the historical definition of how a true answer "would be arrived at" include the functional banning of future science and debate?
For the record, I wrote a graduate paper on the best evidence for the cause of autism. Not that the then-current best evidence definitely revealed the cause, but only that it was the best evidence at the time. Although the evidence did not point to vaccines, I would hold anyone who wanted to ban such debate as being too academically compromised to be a member of the scientific community. In private, I would be more direct.
The only way to ensure the existence of truth is to give people a choice in what to believe. There are no wildflowers (truth) without also permitting weeds (lies). Certainly, no "organization to manage and protect" can be trusted to manage and protect truth.
The democratic ideal is that people are permitted to come to their own conclusions, given all arguments. Not that the arguments are institutionally restricted.
What happens when your ideological opponents suddenly come into control of the "truth police"?
Freedom to choose is the only protection, unless one's goal isn't democratic.
Again, here is my substantive critique:
Earth is the only planet known to have the proven conditions for Life in that it has Life. On top that that, it is the home of the only known advanced intelligence that observes the Universe. There's nothing in the Universe with more significance.