In other news today...
-
The original thread started as a discussion of UBI and eventually over thousands of posts (and several years) it turned into the elon bashing thread.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear the experiment proved last time that it was perfectly possible to have a non-politically-motivated debate on the subject.
But on the subject: I don’t believe he should be expecting/demanding the kinds of working hours he is clearly expecting - it’s not healthy, it’s not safe, time and again studies have shown that consistently and extensively working 50+ hours a week is bad for the worker, bad for productivity and bad in general. It’s not aspirational to work yourself to death for an employer.
Edit: Especially when you consider such working hours are flat out illegal in the EU (and require special paperwork in the UK). Plus all the ongoing trials including a new one in the UK about moving to a 4 day week rather than the 5 day week model - working fewer hours overall.
-
@remi said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
Also, I thought that "the point" of being vegan is that you don't want use anything that caused an animal to suffer. There are people who don't eat meat for what they claim are health reasons, but that wouldn't extend to, e.g., a wool coat, right?
So, does the Eucharist cause Christ to suffer? Of course it does. The reason it works is that He suffered on the cross so that you may have eternal life.
I... think you've got things quite wrong here? I have never heard that taking the communion is causing Christ to suffer?
Christ suffered, yes, and did that for us and so on, but I don't think that at any point the communion was part of that suffering. It's about remembrance, it's about a covenant, it's about... communion, literally, but there isn't any suffering there.
OK, the Eucharist is about remembrance. What are we remembering?
It's that He died for our sins and descended into Hell where he was tortured by Satan for three days without cracking. If He didn't do that, it wouldn't be the Eucharist. It's a necessary step in the process. The Maillard reaction doesn't cause the cow to suffer either.
So unless you're saying that vegans wouldn't eat (or use) anything that was related to one animal that suffered at one point in its life (regardless of whether the thing itself is related to that suffering), that doesn't really seem to hold here.
And if vegans really are about that (rather than avoiding things that caused/were part of the suffering) then you can remove the suffering from the equation entirely and simply call it "nothing related to an animal" because I don't think it's possible for any (animal|human) to never suffer at all during their life? From a cursory search, it seems there is no universally agreed definition of veganism in that regard -- for example some vegans won't eat honey (because bees in "industrial" hives are "exploited") whereas others will (because bees naturally produce honey).
I think some of this is that words no longer have meaning.
A vegetarian is someone who won't eat animal flesh, but is generally OK with animal products that can be harvested without killing the animal - eggs, milk, wool, etc. Some people do this for supposed moral reasons, and some people do this for supposed scientific reasons - they claim that it is healthier for humans to eat an entirely plant based diet than one that includes meat.
Vegans don't use animal products at all, including the ones that can be harvested without killing the animal. In almost all cases (which contrasts with vegetarians), this is for moral reasons related to the suffering of the animals.
I assume you're familiar with the fact that some people claim to be Catholics and claim Catholicism allows them to do things that Catholicism actually forbids? This sounds like some of the vegans aren't very good vegans.
But notably, I don't think vegans (or anyone else) have dietary requirements based on human suffering (in part because human suffering in its worst forms e.g. slavery is something we object on a higher level than just food! but also because we consider that humans can choose what they want and so if they're OK to suffer to produce whatever they do, it's their choice).
I'm not so sure that's true. More people than you're giving credit to boycott various kinds of foods due to moral concerns related to human suffering.
There was a boycott of Coca Cola in the 1980s over apartheid. The point of fair trade coffee is that the small plantation coffee growers are certified to not have been exploited by the big coffee exporters. This one wouldn't have included vegans, but there was supposedly a boycott of Chick-Fil-A in the US because they were supposedly anti-gay. In the mid-to-late 1700s, there was a boycott of English tea in colonial America due to the fact that Parliament imposed a tax on it, and that the Parliament did not include any American representation.
I personally don't eat Boston cream donuts or drink Sam Adams beer because of their association with the city where everything is terrible.
So that a human (=Christ) suffered during his life shouldn't be a barrier to vegans consuming him (though note we're circling back very close to cannibalism here, which obviously isn't what happens during communion). And besides, we're also back to the accidents/essence thing, where (in transubstantiation (and con- as well)) what the host takes is the essence of Christ and it's probably debatable whether that essence is human or not (whereas humanity is very clearly an accident of Christ... but since it's such a defining accident (by contrast with the other members of the trinity), perhaps humanity is part of Christ's essence?).
He suffered, He died, and now they're eating his flesh. That should probably give them pause.
Separately from that, the essence of Christ is that he's 100% God and 100% man. How He can be 100% of two things that are opposite is one of the mysteries of faith. (See also how there's one God in three persons.) The communion host has accidental characteristics separate from that after it's transubstantiated. But manliness and Godliness are both essential characteristics of Christ.
The Church doesn't demand that lay people actually attend Daily Mass, but in the US every Catholic Church is open to the public for Daily Mass and there's usually a few members of the congregation who are there every day.
As I said, in France there are far fewer priests than churches and many village churches are either closed most of the time (though if you know the responsible person, usually you can get it more or less any day, but it's just like any other public building), or open during daytime but with no priest. Priests will go round the main churches in their parish every Sunday, and sometimes during the week as well but there is really no rule (they obviously try and alternate locations on Sundays according to how their congregation is split, but that's just a practical arrangement depending on all sorts of material constraints).
(in large cities there is normally a public mass everyday in e.g. cathedrals, but even that is not the rule -- though you can be sure that there is at least one on Sunday, sometimes even several at different times)
(ETA: all that is obviously because of the very large number of churches, far more than the number of faithfuls nowadays, and obviously is the reason why it's not the same in the US where the number of faithfuls is not the result of a huge decline compared to when churches were built!)
I'm surprised at this, although I guess it's mostly because I'm guessing at the distances involved. In the US, in parishes where there are more physical church buildings than priests, they usually cycle through them and ask the congregation to follow them to the other church. You might have a congregation that meets at St. Theodore's on the first and third Sunday of the month, and St. Mary's on the second and fourth Sunday.
I could see how that would be difficult if the two churches were excessively far away though.
The other thing that happened in the US probably less than it did in France is that when most of the churches in the US were founded, they needed to have different congregations for people who spoke different languages. In the town my father grew up in, outside New York City, there was a largely Irish-American Catholic church (which operated in English) and a largely Polish-American Catholic church (that operated in Polish) very close by.
Today that town has lost a lot of population in general, and Christian religious attendance isn't as high, so they combined the Polish and Irish parishes around the Irish parish's buildings.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
The Maillard reaction doesn't cause the cow to suffer either.
Some of my favorite chemical reactions.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear the experiment proved last time that it was perfectly possible to have a non-politically-motivated debate on the subject.
Sure.
But on the subject: I don’t believe he should be expecting/demanding the kinds of working hours he is clearly expecting - it’s not healthy, it’s not safe, time and again studies have shown that consistently and extensively working 50+ hours a week is bad for the worker, bad for productivity and bad in general. It’s not aspirational to work yourself to death for an employer.
Are we talking about the Starlink article? Because I didn't see anything about working conditions in there. The fact that Elon Musk owns Starlink is very accidental/incidental to the article.
Edit: Especially when you consider such working hours are flat out illegal in the EU (and require special paperwork in the UK). Plus all the ongoing trials including a new one in the UK about moving to a 4 day week rather than the 5 day week model - working fewer hours overall.
Elon Musk is a villain because he dares to have his US-based company works 5 days per week despite the fact that the British government is thinking about demanding that private employers change everyone's schedules to 4 days per week, but hasn't done so yet?
And that's not a political topic? Sure, dude. Whatever you say.
-
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
If you want to settle for talking in space you can but I'm not going to be happy until we can use space lasers to force penguins into extinction.
There is the ADM-Aeolus whose ALADIN payload shoots an ultraviolet laser at earth. With a bit of very selective quoting, we can almost get there:
Development of the ALADIN instrument has been problematic. The ultraviolet laser was causing damage [...]
That said, I don't think we're quite at the level where you can use it to extinct penguins yet. (Baby steps. UV laser is a strong start, though.)
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
despite the fact that the British government is thinking about demanding that private employers change everyone's schedules to 4 days per week, but hasn't done so yet?
Nah. It's just a trial run by some non-profit organisation and researchers from a couple of universities into how 40 hours of work magically gets done in 32.
I'm sure from the other posts here that TechnoKing Musk wanted people in the office 40 hours a week which only seemed unreasonable when paired with the fact there isn't enough space in Tesla offices for everyone to do that.
-
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
I'm sure from the other posts here that TechnoKing Musk wanted people in the office 40 hours a week
The wording was no remote working until at least 40 hours had been put in per week in the office.
Which implies a working week of well beyond 40 hours - we're not talking 42 or 44 hours, for this to make sense we're talking '6 days a week working'.
This was then noted that 'this is less than we ask of the factory workers'.
Either of which is considered illegal in the EU on grounds of health and safety; the factory workers' shifts would violate multiple of the Working Time Directives which are there for worker safety.
In any case, it's long been shown that working beyond 40 hours a week is progressively diminishing returns.
As for the 40 hours in a 32 hour week, if you're working a 4 day week, the theory is you won't stretch 4 days work to fit a 5 day week, coupled with if you're resting more, you'll be more productive for those 4 days. The studies on the subject thus far in Iceland and New Zealand seem to bear this out.
Similarly, countries that offer 4+ weeks of paid annual vacation (separate from sick leave) show happier workers, better work/life balance, often less stress.
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
@Arantor what have the penguins ever done for me?
Alright, but apart from roads, irrigation, the fresh water system?
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
I'm sure from the other posts here that TechnoKing Musk wanted people in the office 40 hours a week
The wording was no remote working until at least 40 hours had been put in per week in the office.
Yes. It didn't say people were expected to do any more.
Which implies a working week of well beyond 40 hours - we're not talking 42 or 44 hours, for this to make sense we're talking '6 days a week working'.
It's TechnoKing Musk, I'm not expecting it to make sense.
This was then noted that 'this is less than we ask of the factory workers'.
Either of which is considered illegal in the EU on grounds of health and safety; the factory workers' shifts would violate multiple of the Working Time Directives which are there for worker safety.
Unless they opted out of it.
As for the 40 hours in a 32 hour week, if you're working a 4 day week, the theory is you won't stretch 4 days work to fit a 5 day week, coupled with if you're resting more, you'll be more productive for those 4 days. The studies on the subject thus far in Iceland and New Zealand seem to bear this out.
Have other studies been with particularly large companies? What sort of companies?
I'm not saying it flat out won't work for any company I just don't think the theory stacks up generally.The current trial in the UK is the world's biggest trial at just 70 companies with a combined total of 3300 employees. That's not a lot and I doubt represents a lot of companies.
-
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
As for the 40 hours in a 32 hour week, if you're working a 4 day week, the theory is you won't stretch 4 days work to fit a 5 day week, coupled with if you're resting more, you'll be more productive for those 4 days. The studies on the subject thus far in Iceland and New Zealand seem to bear this out.
Have other studies been with particularly large companies? What sort of companies?
I'm not saying it flat out won't work for any company I just don't think the theory stacks up generally.The current trial in the UK is the world's biggest trial at just 70 companies with a combined total of 3300 employees. That's not a lot and I doubt represents a lot of companies.
It would likely depend on the type of work being done. The more creativity a job requires, the faster productivity will drop off when people work too long, but even without that it is still an issue; you'll get goofing off at work (not that anyone here would do that *ahem*), and general having to redo things because the shit done the day before was so terrible due to tiredness. That's not productivity, that's just presenteeism.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
So, does the Eucharist cause Christ to suffer? Of course it does. The reason it works is that He suffered on the cross so that you may have eternal life.
I... think you've got things quite wrong here? I have never heard that taking the communion is causing Christ to suffer?
[...]It's that He died for our sins and descended into Hell where he was tortured by Satan for three days without cracking. If He didn't do that, it wouldn't be the Eucharist. It's a necessary step in the process. The Maillard reaction doesn't cause the cow to suffer either.
But you're still getting the cause-effect relationship wrong, IMO. Christ didn't suffer because we were going to take the communion. He suffered, for whatever reasons he did (or chose to, in this case), and then, because he suffered, we take the communion (to remember that suffering etc.).
By comparison, a cow very much suffered (=was butchered) because it was going to be eaten -- if not for the fact it would be eaten later, it would not have been raised (and suffered during it, if you're follow the vegetarians/vegans ideas), and it would not have been butchered.
So no, I still don't think the "suffering" part is a valid analogy here.
I think some of this is that words no longer have meaning.
I kind of agree, to be honest. But we're here to endlessly
random topics, so... 
I assume you're familiar with the fact that some people claim to be Catholics and claim Catholicism allows them to do things that Catholicism actually forbids? This sounds like some of the vegans aren't very good vegans.
Maybe, but I think the key part that you're missing here is that while there is a single authority defining what "being a Catholic" means, there is no such thing for vegans (or even vegetarians, however for vegetarians there is less ambiguity). So everyone decides what "being a vegan" means. So yes, some vegans will think that other vegans are not "good vegans" because they have different definitions of it.
IMO the issue for vegans is that ultimately, almost all food stuff involves animals -- I've heard of vegans who object to eating stuff that was pollinated by animals! At that point I'm not even sure what they can eat. So obviously everyone will find their own point of comfort between what they believe (animal suffering etc.) and what they need (eat!). But simply phrasing it as if there is one authoritative definition of veganism and some people as being "bad vegans" for not following that definition is the wrong way to approach it.
He suffered, He died, and now they're eating his flesh. That should probably give them pause.
I think Catholics have long since found a way to solve that problem without it being cannibalism (since even in the Roman time this was a frequent critic thrown at them!). I assume it's yet another of those "mysteries of faith" which, tbh, from the outside look very much like a big cop-out ("you just have to believe and stop asking questions!"). Part of the issue can probably be brushed aside by saying that the accidents of what they eat isn't human, but that doesn't avoid the fact that indeed being human is part of the essence of Christ.
A quick search on the topic brings many results but the first ones I skimmed (from Catholic sources, so those aiming at justifying it, not critics!) are not extremely convincing. They draw differences between eating a part of a human vs. eating Christ as a whole (I assume that this is again linked to the essence thing that allows saying that the host contains the whole of Christ), or between eating something that is dead (or dying) vs. something that is alive (Christ) and so on. But from a quick read, these all look like sophistry more than real arguments. I guess you'll have to ask a proper Catholic theologian to get an answer to that?
I'm surprised at this, although I guess it's mostly because I'm guessing at the distances involved.
Not only that (distances aren't that large, but a large proportion of Catholics are elderly people with mobility issues, in a country with a less car-centric culture overall...), but also a whole lot of historical/cultural reasons.
I could write yet another wall of text about it, but I think the key difference is between an "old" country with a long history and a "young" one where less gradual evolution (in religious practice and everything else) has had time to happen. For simplicity you could also put that to "religious fervour," and it's likely you'd probably say that most French Catholics (even only counting those who actually go to mass somewhat regularly, not just those who only go to church for weddings and burials) aren't "true" Catholics (but then I'll point out that even the Church hierarchy doesn't agree with you here, and let you think whatever you like).
-
@remi said in In other news today...:
I've heard of vegans who object to eating stuff that was pollinated by animals! At that point I'm not even sure what they can eat. So obviously everyone will find their own point of comfort between what they believe (animal suffering etc.) and what they need (eat!).
I'm perfectly happy to let them find their own point of discomfort because they're morally unable to eat anything.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@remi said in In other news today...:
I've heard of vegans who object to eating stuff that was pollinated by animals! At that point I'm not even sure what they can eat. So obviously everyone will find their own point of comfort between what they believe (animal suffering etc.) and what they need (eat!).
I'm perfectly happy to let them find their own point of discomfort because they're morally unable to eat anything.
How about other vegans?
-
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Unless they opted out of it.
You cannot opt out of an inalienable right.
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Unless they opted out of it.
You cannot opt out of an inalienable right.
But you can choose not to exercise it.
OTOH, you can't opt out of someone else's inalienable right.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@remi said in In other news today...:
I've heard of vegans who object to eating stuff that was pollinated by animals! At that point I'm not even sure what they can eat. So obviously everyone will find their own point of comfort between what they believe (animal suffering etc.) and what they need (eat!).
I'm perfectly happy to let them find their own point of discomfort because they're morally unable to eat anything.
How about other vegans?
Eating the meat eaters would be the better long term strategy to reduce animal suffering.
-
@Watson said in In other news today...:
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Unless they opted out of it.
You cannot opt out of an inalienable right.
But you can choose not to exercise it.
OTOH, you can't opt out of someone else's inalienable right.
90% of the Garage is us pointing at people who are trying to opt out of somebody else's inalienable rights.
-
@Watson said in In other news today...:
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Unless they opted out of it.
You cannot opt out of an inalienable right.
But you can choose not to exercise it.
OTOH, you can't opt out of someone else's inalienable right.
But if Steve works 100 hours a week, I refuse to exceed the legal limit of 60, and then I get passed over in favour of Steve for a promotion or bonus, were my rights infringed?
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
But if Steve works 100 hours a week, I refuse to exceed the legal limit of 60, and then I get passed over in favour of Steve for a promotion or bonus, were my rights infringed?
If Steve is working that much, ill-health will catch up with him soon.
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
But if Steve works 100 hours a week, I refuse to exceed the legal limit of 60, and then I get passed over in favour of Steve for a promotion or bonus, were my rights infringed?
No, they weren't.
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Unless they opted out of it.
You cannot opt out of an inalienable right.
Do shoulder aliens get inalienable rights?
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@Watson said in In other news today...:
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Unless they opted out of it.
You cannot opt out of an inalienable right.
But you can choose not to exercise it.
OTOH, you can't opt out of someone else's inalienable right.
But if Steve works 100 hours a week, I refuse to exceed the legal limit of 60, and then I get passed over in favour of Steve for a promotion or bonus, were my rights infringed?
As I understand it, the EU Working Time Directive says this is not allowed; would have to show if pushed that Steve earned the promotion on other grounds than being a slave to the capitalist machine.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Unless they opted out of it.
You cannot opt out of an inalienable right.
Do shoulder aliens get inalienable rights?
Only to be shot if it's Windows Update time.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@Watson said in In other news today...:
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Unless they opted out of it.
You cannot opt out of an inalienable right.
But you can choose not to exercise it.
OTOH, you can't opt out of someone else's inalienable right.
But if Steve works 100 hours a week, I refuse to exceed the legal limit of 60, and then I get passed over in favour of Steve for a promotion or bonus, were my rights infringed?
As I understand it, the EU Working Time Directive says this is not allowed; would have to show if pushed that Steve earned the promotion on other grounds than being a slave to the capitalist machine.
You understand that this is the answer to a different question than "Were @loopback0's inalienable rights infringed?", right?
Inalienable rights come from God, not from whichever EU functionary has to approve of promotion practices at ostensibly private businesses.
In fact, one of the inalienable rights is the right to own property and specifically to trade your labor for property at a mutually agreeable exchange rate.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
90% of the Garage is us pointing at people who are trying to opt out of somebody else's inalienable rights.
And the other 10% is us pointing at people who are trying to create new inalienable rights.
-
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear yes, I do. Good thing I wasn’t replying to loopback0 then, isn’t it?
Especially as the question I did add something to (because I didn’t actually really answer it) didn’t use the word inalienable, and focused on a fact that I don’t think would come up under what are the inalienable rights, just answering it with one possible take with one possible context.
Yes, you have the inalienable right to work yourself to death, I guess? But companies don’t (generally?) get the inalienable right to pass you over for promotion if you decide to adhere to the laws of the country you happen to be working in rather than opting out of them for the company’s benefit?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear magic tooth fairy in the sky thread is
.
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Unless they opted out of it.
You cannot opt out of an inalienable right.
But you can opt out of the Working Time Directive.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
rather than opting out of them for the company’s benefit?
I've opted out of the Working Time Directive in previous jobs for my own benefit.
Mo' hours, mo' money.
-
@loopback0 Sure, but that was specifically not the focus of what I was answering.
I too have opted out of the WTD on occasion, for much the same reason. But one of the things about the WTD is that a company cannot penalise someone for not opting out, which is what the scenario I responded to was about.
In that hypothetical, it's possible for 'Steve' to work 100 hours a week and receive a promotion if the promotion can be demonstrated that working 40 hours more a week is not part of the equation; he may well be the better candidate, better qualified etc. for a promotion, and that's fine. You just can't refuse the promotion to not-Steve solely on the basis of not-Steve staying within the WTD.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
But companies don’t (generally?) get the inalienable right to pass you over for promotion if you decide to adhere to the laws of the country you happen to be working in rather than opting out of them for the company’s benefit?
Yes, they do. That's what inalienable means.
If you don't want to work under a particular contract, then don't work under it and let someone else take the job. If no one wants to work under a particular contract, the employer will have to modify the contract to make it more palatable.
If an employee is willing to work under a certain contract, and the employer is willing to pay the employee under that contract, by interfering, the government is violating both the rights of the employer and the employee.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
If an employee is willing to work under a certain contract, and the employer is willing to pay the employee under that contract, by interfering, the government is
All contracts are considered enforceable, a-priori? There is nothing too onerous to allow?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
Inalienable rights come from God
I don't recall actually doing that. You guys sure are creative. I might regret what happens next week.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear Before you start getting into
territory, let's deal with something more fundamental.People have inalienable rights. No question.
Can a company? If so, how? Companies are not people (except maybe in a legal technical sense in some jurisdictions), but they are constructs created and regulated by the laws of the land in which they exist.
By definition a government has already 'interfered' and in so many ways.
But in any case, that still wasn't the point specifically being addressed. In the hypothetical example I addressed, Steve and not-Steve both are paid under a contract and have agreed to it. They may have different contracts, they may have the same contract. For the question being raised it wasn't relevant.
The only stipulation is that if Steve and not-Steve were both up for a promotion, not-Steve can't be disqualified solely for not working non-mandatory overtime.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
If you don't want to work under a particular contract, then don't work under it and let someone else take the job. If no one wants to work under a particular contract, the employer will have to modify the contract to make it more palatable.
You want to flip burgers for us? You vote as we tell you to. You don't want to do that? We control 80% of employability in this town and 90% of minimum wage jobs. Have fun starving.
-
-
Hey guys - why are you all shitposting on WTDWTF? You guys don't have phones or what? Diablo Immortal has released!
Heh.
-
-
@Gribnit said in In other news today...:
I might regret what happens next week.
We're all pulling for that outcome.
-
Most of the positive reviews from critics, reviewed the game without microtransactions (which their review copy didn't have). So they are of the game play alone, which by all accounts its a solid D3 like playstyle, little more grind near the end game though.
-
@Arantor said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear Before you start getting into
territory, let's deal with something more fundamental.People have inalienable rights. No question.
Can a company? If so, how? Companies are not people (except maybe in a legal technical sense in some jurisdictions), but they are constructs created and regulated by the laws of the land in which they exist.
By definition a government has already 'interfered' and in so many ways.
No, companies do not have inalienable rights. However, that's a red herring because the people who own companies have inalienable rights, so it amounts to the same thing. If we're talking about anything at all, we're talking about your claim that Elon Musk is a bad guy because of the actions of his businesses.
Just like he doesn't give up moral responsibility for his actions by incorporating a business, he also doesn't give up his rights.
Government enforcing property rights by enforcing valid contracts isn't the same thing as interfering.
But in any case, that still wasn't the point specifically being addressed. In the hypothetical example I addressed, Steve and not-Steve both are paid under a contract and have agreed to it. They may have different contracts, they may have the same contract. For the question being raised it wasn't relevant.
The only stipulation is that if Steve and not-Steve were both up for a promotion, not-Steve can't be disqualified solely for not working non-mandatory overtime.
And if Elon wants to offer not-Steve a contract to work 50 hours per week at a salary they both agree to, that's not any of Steve's business. Even if not-Steve was offered the contract based on his history of working 50 hour weeks and Steve's history of working 40 hour weeks.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear magic tooth fairy in the sky thread is
.Everyone else here seems to agree that human rights are a thing. It can't possibly be true that the European Union is in charge of handing them out, and they must have come from somewhere...
-
@cvi said in In other news today...:
Hey guys - why are you all shitposting on WTDWTF? You guys don't have phones or what? Diablo Immortal has released!
Heh.
Didn't release in my country for legal reasons. Probably gambling laws though they never stated explicitly.
-
@Dragoon I did skim through a review (not from a large outlet). They mentioned that the game play is decent at least, and that early on, the game doesn't suck in terms of pay2win/microtransactions. But the latter apparently ramp up a lot later at the same time when the grind hits. There's apparently a mechanic where paying $$$ gets you significantly better gear very quickly.
Not that it matters much. Mobile game + microtransactions killed any interest I might have had.
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
If you don't want to work under a particular contract, then don't work under it and let someone else take the job. If no one wants to work under a particular contract, the employer will have to modify the contract to make it more palatable.
You want to flip burgers for us? **You vote as we tell you to.*" You don't want to do that? We control 80% of employability in this town and 90% of minimum wage jobs. Have fun starving.
Good thing that the right to free speech (and specifically in this instance, the right to freedom from compelled speech) is an inalienable right, huh?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
If you don't want to work under a particular contract, then don't work under it and let someone else take the job. If no one wants to work under a particular contract, the employer will have to modify the contract to make it more palatable.
You want to flip burgers for us? **You vote as we tell you to.*" You don't want to do that? We control 80% of employability in this town and 90% of minimum wage jobs. Have fun starving.
Good thing that the right to free speech (and specifically in this instance, the right to freedom from compelled speech) is an inalienable right, huh?
Which, by your earlier post, you think you should be able to sign away.
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in In other news today...:
If you don't want to work under a particular contract, then don't work under it and let someone else take the job. If no one wants to work under a particular contract, the employer will have to modify the contract to make it more palatable.
You want to flip burgers for us? **You vote as we tell you to.*" You don't want to do that? We control 80% of employability in this town and 90% of minimum wage jobs. Have fun starving.
Good thing that the right to free speech (and specifically in this instance, the right to freedom from compelled speech) is an inalienable right, huh?
Which, by your earlier post, you think you should be able to sign away.
There is actually an interesting discussion there about contract laws/ads/paid content/etc..., but not in this thread. This is the news thread.
So, here is some SCIENCE to get us back on track:
Using chemical-vapor deposition to build five layered single-crystal hexagonal boron nitride structures
A team of researchers affiliated with multiple institutions in the Republic of Korea working with a colleague from the University of Cambridge, has developed a way to use chemical-vapor deposition to ...
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
Didn't release in my country for legal reasons. Probably gambling laws though they never stated explicitly.
Didn't release in Belgium either. It's exactly that.
It costs £88,000 to fully upgrade your character in Diablo Immortal
It costs £88,000 ($110,000) to fully upgrade a character in Diablo Immortal. That's according to Bellular News (thanks,…
