whitemary

Maybe, but capitalist rule of law makes hypothesis difficult to test.

Rule of law has probably been most influential under capitalist authoritarianism like Nazi Germany.

> The board should be responsible. You don't get to make $200m a year and just brush hundreds of lives off as a whoops.

I don't think you understand how capitalism works.

The better predictor would be the parents' wealth.

> This decision is unethical to full-time employees seeing the tidy profit they made.

Profit itself is unethical.

> legislating for the hell of it

Correction: legislating for the rich

Laws that favor very wealthy people pass through congress like a faint breeze on a daily basis (when congress is in session).

> It's not even a political issue. Just a matter of decency and fairness.

That's precisely what they want you to keep believing.

The truth is every single aspect of every employee/employer relationship is political, and always has been. If you don't accept it, your children won't have a choice to.

I think the technical term is pixel f*cking. Personally, I could care less about a venture capital firm's brand identity, but I absolutely sympathize with wanting to make a technical improvement as seamless as possible, and respectful of its less technical content. Furthermore, there is a valuable art in doing so. Even something like the separation of view and model is beautiful in itself.

I almost wrote a response, but then I kept reading. Frankly, your comment needs A LOT of citations, and good luck finding them.

Communism and private property are not at odds. Communism and private capital are.

Pinching myself as I witness actual Marxist analysis on HN of all places.

That is fair, sorry. I'm just saying the boss is in charge at the end of the day. Regardless of any observations or knowledge contradictory to their practices, they ultimately retain all the power.

Productivity (of something...) is ostensibly the intent of a capitalist venture, but the owner and ultimately prioritize anything they prefer. This is a problem for any hope of rational practice.

The "boots on the necks of workers" metaphor has been used over many generations as a reflection of the hostility that working people endure in the capitalist workplace. Complaining about the metaphor itself being "hostile" is just laughable. Sticks and stones, my friend.

In the real world, owners simply don't care about your enlightening idea. Why would they? And what are you gonna do about it when they don't?

It's almost like every company is its own little authoritarian regime. Hmmmmm, maybe Karl Marx was onto something...

Capitalism is predicated on profit. I don't know what system you're talking about.

It's not

The "free market" is so good at problem solving! I hope the entrepreneur who thought of this made a tremendous profit!

But I was always assured the US has the greatest healthcare system in the universe because it's privately profited from!

The spirit of the sweatshop is alive in India!

How does "presence" translate to "installing state officials"?

My poor sweet summer child...

Installing state officials in South America is historically a US tactic, not a Chinese tactic.

> Some healthy standards & protocols that actually leave users in power would start to cleanup the toxic waste dump operating-regime these products are in now.

Like many vague complaints ostensibly concerning technology, this is a political issue and the solutions will remain fleeting and/or unidentified until the issue is acknowledged and discussed as such.

> If we can do it for compliance officers, why not for CEOs?

CEOs are hired to be the public face of the company. The board who hires the CEO doesn't want the face of their company being a criminal, and in the U.S. corporate boards overwhelmingly dictate the law books. That's how capitalism works.

> Every team I've worked on that has switched from Kanban to Scrum has slowed down and never regained the previous velocity.

As an engineer on a team using scrum, this is my favorite part.

Bob Dylan is a meaningless comparison, and an injustice to the wonderful Connie Converse.

Great question! I don't have a certain answer, but I will say this again: debased.

It is not wrong to say the fed wants to increase unemployment. The fact is the fed doesn't have any other ideas so they want to do this one.

Maybe they would prefer not to, but who cares? They are going to do it anyway because they don't have any other ideas.

How many ways do you need someone to say it before you accept it?

> Feminists were not disparaging motherhood or unpaid work like if it was above them to do it.

Were? When are we talking about? This sounds like Lasch, in the 90s or maybe 80s, comparing 3rd wave feminism to 2nd wave feminism. However, now it sounds like he's critiquing 4th wave feminism, which is significantly more debased. I think you are talking past him either way, but it helps to be specific. Ultimately, your claims aren't contradicting his in my view.

Because financialized/late-stage capitalism makes long-term investments like nuclear power generation financially infeasible, while funneling subsidies to "green energy" solar/wind industries is extremely profitable in the short-term.

In other words, the thing that actually works is significantly less likely to happen, and therefore requires far more support.