orcdork

Nothing like redirecting the conversation by implying there's "outrage" that's somehow "manufactured", yes?

Particularly because it sidesteps the things the company actually did (areas razed to the ground include 25,000 hectares of habitations in Indonesia that are home to the critically endangered orangutan) while at the same putting the blame on consumers (just do xyz, why wouldn't you).

And who can forget those pesky journalists, reporting on stuff - how dare they.

Why shouldn't the bureaucracy be fed? These companies make money off of it.

I don't see any justification for your position besides a nebulous wish for Europe to have an equivalent of google/facebook, and to be honest, besides adding an extra line on all those "european unicorn" blog posts, i don't see much advantage to it either. There's obviously positives to more profitable businesses - but why another google/facebook?

It's like following a search result to experts exchange on the age of stack overflow.

That feels like whitewashing part of the blame that applies to engineers and product developers. We don't get to say "oh it's those pesky money people, how dare they", while drawing a salary from the same pockets.

"Sometimes its possible to care so much that you lose sight of what is important."

Oh come on.

Googling for 'Musk "south africa born"' (https://www.google.com/search?q=musk+"south+africa+born") seems to have articles on both sides of the argument (including one calling him the real life tony stark).

So any contract is fair and there is absolutely no chance of coercion or intimidation by a party with an unfair negotiating advantage?

Like every comment on youtube recipe videos, here's another random person telling us how wrong everyone else is and how to do it better.

The couple of things that spring to mind is accusing one of the cave rescuers recently of being a pedophile for no particular reason and without any proof, and a fairly well shared article by his first wife on his behavior.

From what I've seen/read of him as a person, he sounds like someone i would actively avoid in a social setting.

He's smart, and also a monumental dickwad. I'd expect people that dislike him to do so for the latter, not the former. (i'm on that boat too)

When you devalue the issues that people actually living in third word countries face, you can make your own privilege sound a bit less like one.

That part felt petty & mean spirited to me. If anything the person was playing "the game" in the way it should be played, yet the author felt the urge to unnecessary ridicule them (even anonymously so).

The key phrase in "grab a bike, ride to some isolated forest in France" being "in France". Shouldn't French citizens, through their laws and officials get to choose who gets to grab a bike and live in the french forests?

I'm probably more to the left as far as national borders are concerned compared to the average, but i don't see how your premise works. The French never signed a contract with you about living in a french forest (and i assume by your mention of a contract that you don't believe all ownership is theft), so why should you have the right to be there.

You can see the original fact sheet of the investigation here (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4782_en.htm). The reasoning for the investigation is at the bottom. There were two complaints and an independent investigation by the committee.

The fines "reflect the gravity and duration of the infringement. They are calculated under the framework of a set of Guidelines last revised in 2006." (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_101_en....). There's a link to the guidelines on the page.

I also had a look at how to file an anti-trust complaint but to be honest, most info was over my head and more appropriate for a lawyer - this seems to be a good start: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/contacts/electronic_document...

Branching conversations? In my internet discussion board?

I agree with you but there's other ways to do this than yet another unrelated comment.

Or: "Here's a list of all our referral links"

"London [...] still notorious for violent street crime"

Which I find fairly strange all things considered - the crime index (https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankings.jsp - admittedly this might not be the most accurate source) shows quite a gap between other similar cities like New York - a fairly common comparison. As a resident of a few years now, I definitely wouldn't say I felt London to have that kind of feel, if anything violent crime has the effect of being shocking because it is so uncommon.

I find it quite disheartening to see London's relatively soft-touch approach lose out over "automated" policing, there's quite a bit of grumbling lately over the reduction in actual people on the streets, mainly over police cuts.

Nothing like trying to ridicule people that care about privacy, while hiding behind an "/s", huh?

Ok so...

There's no "BBC fee". Theres a TV Licence fee.

You don't need to pay it if you don't own a tv. Or you own a tv hooked up to a playstation. There's also many other (legal) reasons to not pay for it.

There's no such thing as a "british council court house". There's magistrates court, where non-payment of the license fee might end up at.

"50 percent of the criminals that pass through a British councils court houses, are there for non payment of bbc license fee" is a ridiculous statement. It's closer to 1 in 10, a fact you could have discovered by a simple google search. You can find a related article here: https://fullfact.org/news/do-tv-licence-offences-account-one...

A criminal conviction for non payment of the tv license fee will not show up in most checks, and you don't have to disclose it.

Every single thing you typed above is either completely incorrect, or specifically misleading.

What about "evil capitalists" using their advantage unfairly to stifle & crush competition, keeping their profits high, while keeping salaries artificially deflated for the majority of workers.

But ok, let's just create this fantastical narrative that "paying workers too little" and "paying people too much" cannot possibly apply at the same time to different segments of the population.

Hell, let's even use the loaded phrase "evil capitalists", a great term if what we're looking for is to deftly avoid any real criticism of capitalism.

These read like cold-reading for money - broad generalisations that apply mostly because of their broadness.

I recognized your user name from the other thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17095217), it looks like you've made up your mind (to the point where your comments where ridiculous enough to be deleted) and no amount of argument will even get you to consider any other options.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

Refute what exactly? A bunch of assumptions and pseudo-statistics?

What a bunch of redpill bullshit.

And people say devs are not grounded in reality - how dare those fat car plutocrats force workers to show up at 9. What is this, the mid to late 90s?

Poor, persecuted homophobes.

I want a society where this kind of backwards, reductive and downright hateful notions, passed as "free speech", "politics" or just "speaking my mind, bro" have no place.

And i do want (and in some cases expect) organizations to support that kind of society and show the door to people holding these views.

How dare they kick out the guy that's so anti-gay marriage, he donated money to that "cause".

Your example is the result of years of government failure to provide adequate funding and support to the health system, not some kind of fantastical moocher, using ambulances for no reason.

How about no?