That's a whole lot of writing for how little you're actually saying - how little is true fact rather than just personal opinion and perspective. I'm not going to take the time to respond to every line, but there are a couple of important points to be made just the same.
1) There are two types of jobs, yes, but it's even simpler than what you're suggesting. There are jobs that require experience or learned skillsets, and there are jobs that don't. Is it any wonder the former pays more? McDonalds pays a low wage because literally anyone can fill the job. If you hire a teenager who has never held a job in his life, he can learn everything he needs to know on day one, or by the end of his first week at the absolute latest. Manual labor jobs are the same way. You might have to pay out a little more for hazard pay or because people aren't interested in the work, but ultimately, it's something anyone can do.
The other jobs, the ones that require talent and ability, pay more because the supply of workers is much more limited. Perhaps those workers aren't on their feet all the time, or aren't stressed out all the time (though many are), or aren't "burning calories" the same way someone else might. But they're the only ones who can do that job, and they put in a lot of time, effort, and money to get to that point. That's why they're paid more.
2) I don't know how you can go right from a sentence saying "the opportunities are out there for people who go after them, even in fast food" to "personal responsibility isn't an option." It sounds to me like personal responsibility is the only option - those who put in the effort advance and get the rewards. And you yourself said you have the ability to get jobs because you know what you need to do to look good for your potential employers. What is that if not the personality responsibility you've taken on for yourself?
3) Your points about prisons and mines are just a mess of misinformation and bad opinion. We're nowhere near running out of resources to mine, and your framing of the US military as just a spot to put otherwise unemployed citizens is laughable. As for your "jobs are going away" gloom and doom talk, people have been saying that with every new technological advance for centuries. There will always be a place for the human element in the workforce.
4) No one worth listening to considers "government dependency" and "government employment" to be the same thing. Yes, the government employs a lot of people. How could it not? But when people complain about people relying on government aid, they're talking about handouts given out to people who AREN'T working, not salaries rightfully paid to people who are.
Not really... but weren't you ridiculous "conservative" idiots clamoring and crying about "picking winners and losers" just a couple years back? $5 billion to employ a couple thousand (underpaid..) construction workers is about as smart as paying Soy and Pork producers to sit on their unsellable wares because you wanted to pick a publicity fight with China (and then cave anyway).
You really need to get back to your "invisible hand" bullshit arguments, those were much more entertaining.
You may not agree with the purpose of a job - in this case, building a border wall - but it's still people laboring and being paid for that labor, not to mention suppliers being paid for construction materials actually used in the building of that wall. That's nothing at all like paying subsidies to an industry that otherwise can't support itself.
Is there anything wrong with that? A flip phone is the most sensible form factor - it's compact when closed, reaches the mouth and ear when open, AND you don't need to worry about buttons being pressed when you're not using it. The only reason they fell out of style was the same thing Samsung is trying to overcome here, that it's very difficult to have a decent computer-style screen on a folding device.
The far-right tends to see immigrant labor as labor being stolen from natives, when in fact the extra labor is needed to fill demand.
This is called Schrödinger's Immigrant.
Simultaneously doing nothing but collecting welfare and stealing your job at the same time.
Does anyone actually complain about immigrants stealing jobs these days? If memory serves, that was the talking point in the Clinton era, when the left was against illegal immigration because they thought it benefitted big corporations. Of course, now that immigration has become a social justice issue, their stance has completely flipped.
Or maybe he's trying to say that a word is just a word, and that we shouldn't spend so much time policing them as we could choose instead to just grow up and stop caring which combination of letters someone chose to put side by side.
All words convey meaning, and offensive words convey offensive meaning.
Personally I think it's more childish to use those words, and then act like you're a martian that doesn't understand what language is or something, to dodge responsibility for conveying the very meaning that the words were fully intended to convey..
Perfectly stated. The majority of parents (I imagine) don't let their children use language like that, but once you turn a certain age, suddenly it's okay? It's not like it takes a certain maturity to use profanity "correctly," since almost every time you hear an adult curse, it's done flippantly and with the same ease and intent as any other word they speak.
It should be illegal for cites and states to offer special advantages to anyone. You make a level playing field. Companies want to play in your sandbox, that's all good. Companies decide your sandbox has the wrong kind of sand and go elsewhere, that's good. Don't like it? Change the rules for everyone, not just $megaCorp. Do it in open sunlight, not in the dead of night with special rules that only apply to $megaCorp tomorrow.
But there will never be a level playing field, even if you take money out of the mix. Certain cities will always have perks, tangible or intangible, that make companies want to build there instead of somewhere else. Perhaps it's low property taxes, or proximity to a university that specializes in the company's industry, or a nearby airport, or cities close by that have the demographics that would make the most of the new company's product. If you remove the ability for cities to incentivize businesses, you take away any chance they have of bettering themselves and their population with all the benefits a new business would provide.
Or more likely SJWs complained about a video in the channel. I didn't realize you could see a gun store in the background of one of my videos so it was correctly deleted. I blurred the name of the store and reuploaded, but people still complained about it so much that I had my channel banned. Screw YouTube.
What do you mean, "correctly deleted"? Is it really against their TOS to show a gun store?
Not at all - we just don't agree about the reason. To me it is obvious that people voted leave (by a small majority) because they were lied to by a small group of people, who either expect to gain personally from the chaos that is the consequence of Brexit (as we can already see now), or who hate all things foreign.
So because they don't share your point of view, they must have been simpletons who were lied to? That sounds like what Hillary Clinton said about all the women who voted for Trump - something like, "In those households, they probably voted for him because their husbands did."
News flash - just because a majority doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're gullible fools. I'm not British, so I can't speak for them, but it does sound very similar to the Trump situation over here. People can't comprehend why other people voted for Trump, and rather than try to understand those people, they just assume they're not very bright. And by condescending toward them, such people only solidify those voters' decisions.
We see articles about school shootings, even though dozens or hundreds of people are killed every day from gun crimes and gun violence. We see news about airplane crashes, even though (as Musk says), there are so many more automobile crashes. The thing is, no matter how bad something is, as long as it's commonplace, it's not going to make the news.
The business morons always make this type of prediction.
Locally, they said that increasing the minimum wage would destroy the restaurant industry, but in reality poor people spend a higher percent of their income eating out, and the dollars spent at restaurants increased!
It sounds like them being poor has less to do with what they're paid and more to do with how they manage their money. These are the people that supposedly can't afford housing, healthcare, and transportation, but they somehow have enough to eat out more often than higher income earners?
Actually it makes complete sense unless you're just trying to irrationally defend fossil fuel companies.
Consider this, say you use nuclear power to power your home, and you find out after years of research that the nuclear power plant has just been dumping it's nuclear waste in the environment where it's been seeping into water supplies and the food chain and causing massive damage.
That's not quite the same, though. A better comparison would be suing companies that mine uranium because the powerplants that use it dump their nuclear waste in an unsafe way. Which, of course, would be ridiculous.
ISPs will also be allowed to charge websites and online services for faster and more reliable network access.
I feel this is an aspect of net neutrality that often gets left out of the discussion: the fact that you can also get better service if you pay more. I was talking to a coworker about it the other day, and he had no idea that net neutrality meant anything other than network throttling...which of course is the only side that most people in favor of it consider.
If you listen to opponents of net neutrality, you'll find a large number of them are opposed to it because it HINDERS competition by forcing all ISPs into the same restrictions and regulations. As with anything, there are pros and cons to both sides, and it's refreshing to see a summary that mentions this side of the discussion.
In an active learning setting, you expect the students to learn about the equations before they get there.
So in other words, they have no solution to accelerate the initial process of learning the material, so they just shovel that responsibility entirely onto the student.
Not that active learning is bad, but you'd think if you are "replacing lectures" you'd actually replace them with something, not just skip to the lab/homework.
If I had mod points, I'd definitely give you some. Most classes of this sort, in my experience, have both a lecture and a lab. You learn the concepts in the lecture, and you apply them in the lab. If you switch to nothing but labs and require students to study the topics in advance, you've now isolated the students and taken them out of the environment where they can ask questions on things they don't understand, and hear other students' questions on things they didn't consider.
Labs are great, but lectures are just as important.
Yikes, it shouldn't be so easy to allow someone access to all your email or documents. I can see requesting permission to see one document though.
The thing is, innocuous apps ask all the time for access you wouldn't think they'd need, and users are used to granting permissions. MyFitnessPal, for example, needs access to your phone's camera for its UPC scanner. On the surface, it seems odd that a calorie counting app needs camera access, but it's easy to say, "Well, I want to use the app, so whatever, I guess."
And why wouldn't Google Docs (the legitimate one) need access to your email and other documents? That's pretty much its whole point, after all.
For me, it was the perfect combination of several factors:
1) I had shared documents with the person before, so this wasn't out of the ordinary.
2) We had just got done planning an event, which we often use Google Docs for.
3) I get share requests just often enough to not think anything of them, but not so often that I have a perfect image in my head of what an invite is supposed to look like.
4) My work network is such that I'm used to my authentication not being saved for sites, so it was normal that I had to log in again.
I haven't fallen for a scam like this for over a decade, so it was certainly embarrassing. Luckily I removed access to the app just moments after I realized what had happened, and no one in my contacts opened the link. Guess they were wiser than I was.
The "challenge" is an oppressive system set up by other humans. It's nothing more than petty power games and in-fighting. Choosing to step outside of the rat race is smarter than the fool who'll work himself to death for a suit who cares nothing for humanity.
The fact that you consider it "oppression" that a free market sets prices and work value is your first problem. Are you really so blind that you think companies don't pay exorbitant amounts for unskilled labor because of "petty power games and in-fighting"?
And yes, choosing to step out of the rat race may be smarter if you've got people willing to donate to your GoFundMe page or otherwise support your laziness and entitlement. For the rest of us, we understand that those who don't work, don't eat. It's not about working yourself to death for a boss; it's about putting in the required effort to support yourself and your family.
>The Boring Company is currently building a demo tunnel in SpaceX's parking lot
Before the inevitable post about how he has revolutionized yet another industry, realize the borer on site was purchased from another company that makes such things.
You've got to be a special kind of oblivious to think Musk invented tunnels. Still, revolution often comes not from creating completely new ideas, but from using existing ideas in completely new ways.
I miss the simplicity of it all. Sure, everyone pines for "simpler times" no matter what era they're from, but there's a striking difference in simplicity between computers of the 90s and computers of today. The biggest change is internet access and the requirement for it. Back on Windows 98 and Windows XP (and even, to some extent, Windows 7), things just worked. Sure, you could have an "active desktop" that displayed web content, but it wasn't a requirement. The only DRM was software keys or manual lookups ("what's the word on page 93"), and we could physically manage our disks and documentation. Single-player games could be played without an internet connection, and usually the first releases of applications were actually stable, with no Day 1 patches or DLC.
These days, I hope either Windows 7 is supported forever, or Microsoft releases another OS that I actually like. Windows 8 and 10 just don't do it for me, and I have little hope that their successors will, either. I don't know. I think, somewhere along the way, I just got stuck in 2010 and now I want to stay there forever.
How about manuals written like the developers actually enjoyed and appreciated their product? I remember Maxis and MicroProse manuals that not only told you how to play, but included historical information, humorous comics, and plenty of other content that added nothing to the game but plenty to your own understanding of what they were trying to simulate. Look at the original manuals for Railroad Tycoon, Colonization, Civilization, SimAnt, SimFarm, SimLife, etc., and you'll see they're much different from what we've got now.
Most of the durable goods bought at Walmart (tools, kitchen utensils, small kitchen appliances etc) probably end up being used a few times over the owner's lifetime. If they are going to bake all day, every day, they will buy a professional mixer instead of the deprecated KitchenAid crap that Target or Kohls or Walmart sells. Generally, why pay for "quality" -- do you really care if the kitchen gadget still works when your great grandchild inherits it and it's completely technologically obsolete anyway? Engineers should understand "cost:benefit" tradeoffs very well.
Are you sure KitchenAid is the brand you meant to call out? I've got a KitchenAid mixer from the 70s that works as well for me as it did for my grandma, and the 600 dollar ones they sell now, to me, seem like the best that's out there.
(Especially since demographically, their employees vote for a party that is all for taking people's stuff and redistributing it to the less fortunate.)
That's an outstanding point. You're only in favor of wealth redistribution until it's your wealth being redistributed. And, besides the fact that the employees weren't even guaranteed the money to begin with, what's the difference between this and higher taxes/premiums, other than that your "donation" is less likely to be burned away by bureaucracy on its way to the people it's supposed to help?
A private company is (and ought to remain) entitled to doing, what they fooking please — competition among them being a better guardian against abuses, than any kind of government regulator.
Twitter's not a private company, though. It's publicly traded, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a whole lot of writing for how little you're actually saying - how little is true fact rather than just personal opinion and perspective. I'm not going to take the time to respond to every line, but there are a couple of important points to be made just the same.
1) There are two types of jobs, yes, but it's even simpler than what you're suggesting. There are jobs that require experience or learned skillsets, and there are jobs that don't. Is it any wonder the former pays more? McDonalds pays a low wage because literally anyone can fill the job. If you hire a teenager who has never held a job in his life, he can learn everything he needs to know on day one, or by the end of his first week at the absolute latest. Manual labor jobs are the same way. You might have to pay out a little more for hazard pay or because people aren't interested in the work, but ultimately, it's something anyone can do.
The other jobs, the ones that require talent and ability, pay more because the supply of workers is much more limited. Perhaps those workers aren't on their feet all the time, or aren't stressed out all the time (though many are), or aren't "burning calories" the same way someone else might. But they're the only ones who can do that job, and they put in a lot of time, effort, and money to get to that point. That's why they're paid more.
2) I don't know how you can go right from a sentence saying "the opportunities are out there for people who go after them, even in fast food" to "personal responsibility isn't an option." It sounds to me like personal responsibility is the only option - those who put in the effort advance and get the rewards. And you yourself said you have the ability to get jobs because you know what you need to do to look good for your potential employers. What is that if not the personality responsibility you've taken on for yourself?
3) Your points about prisons and mines are just a mess of misinformation and bad opinion. We're nowhere near running out of resources to mine, and your framing of the US military as just a spot to put otherwise unemployed citizens is laughable. As for your "jobs are going away" gloom and doom talk, people have been saying that with every new technological advance for centuries. There will always be a place for the human element in the workforce.
4) No one worth listening to considers "government dependency" and "government employment" to be the same thing. Yes, the government employs a lot of people. How could it not? But when people complain about people relying on government aid, they're talking about handouts given out to people who AREN'T working, not salaries rightfully paid to people who are.
Not really... but weren't you ridiculous "conservative" idiots clamoring and crying about "picking winners and losers" just a couple years back? $5 billion to employ a couple thousand (underpaid..) construction workers is about as smart as paying Soy and Pork producers to sit on their unsellable wares because you wanted to pick a publicity fight with China (and then cave anyway).
You really need to get back to your "invisible hand" bullshit arguments, those were much more entertaining.
You may not agree with the purpose of a job - in this case, building a border wall - but it's still people laboring and being paid for that labor, not to mention suppliers being paid for construction materials actually used in the building of that wall. That's nothing at all like paying subsidies to an industry that otherwise can't support itself.
So ride-sharing companies pull out of New York, and taxi companies are back in business. It's no surprise to me why they voted for this.
Is there anything wrong with that? A flip phone is the most sensible form factor - it's compact when closed, reaches the mouth and ear when open, AND you don't need to worry about buttons being pressed when you're not using it. The only reason they fell out of style was the same thing Samsung is trying to overcome here, that it's very difficult to have a decent computer-style screen on a folding device.
The far-right tends to see immigrant labor as labor being stolen from natives, when in fact the extra labor is needed to fill demand.
This is called Schrödinger's Immigrant.
Simultaneously doing nothing but collecting welfare and stealing your job at the same time.
Does anyone actually complain about immigrants stealing jobs these days? If memory serves, that was the talking point in the Clinton era, when the left was against illegal immigration because they thought it benefitted big corporations. Of course, now that immigration has become a social justice issue, their stance has completely flipped.
Or maybe he's trying to say that a word is just a word, and that we shouldn't spend so much time policing them as we could choose instead to just grow up and stop caring which combination of letters someone chose to put side by side.
All words convey meaning, and offensive words convey offensive meaning.
Personally I think it's more childish to use those words, and then act like you're a martian that doesn't understand what language is or something, to dodge responsibility for conveying the very meaning that the words were fully intended to convey. .
Perfectly stated. The majority of parents (I imagine) don't let their children use language like that, but once you turn a certain age, suddenly it's okay? It's not like it takes a certain maturity to use profanity "correctly," since almost every time you hear an adult curse, it's done flippantly and with the same ease and intent as any other word they speak.
It should be illegal for cites and states to offer special advantages to anyone. You make a level playing field. Companies want to play in your sandbox, that's all good. Companies decide your sandbox has the wrong kind of sand and go elsewhere, that's good. Don't like it? Change the rules for everyone, not just $megaCorp. Do it in open sunlight, not in the dead of night with special rules that only apply to $megaCorp tomorrow.
But there will never be a level playing field, even if you take money out of the mix. Certain cities will always have perks, tangible or intangible, that make companies want to build there instead of somewhere else. Perhaps it's low property taxes, or proximity to a university that specializes in the company's industry, or a nearby airport, or cities close by that have the demographics that would make the most of the new company's product. If you remove the ability for cities to incentivize businesses, you take away any chance they have of bettering themselves and their population with all the benefits a new business would provide.
Or more likely SJWs complained about a video in the channel. I didn't realize you could see a gun store in the background of one of my videos so it was correctly deleted. I blurred the name of the store and reuploaded, but people still complained about it so much that I had my channel banned. Screw YouTube.
What do you mean, "correctly deleted"? Is it really against their TOS to show a gun store?
And people wonder why Britain voted out.
Not at all - we just don't agree about the reason. To me it is obvious that people voted leave (by a small majority) because they were lied to by a small group of people, who either expect to gain personally from the chaos that is the consequence of Brexit (as we can already see now), or who hate all things foreign.
So because they don't share your point of view, they must have been simpletons who were lied to? That sounds like what Hillary Clinton said about all the women who voted for Trump - something like, "In those households, they probably voted for him because their husbands did."
News flash - just because a majority doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they're gullible fools. I'm not British, so I can't speak for them, but it does sound very similar to the Trump situation over here. People can't comprehend why other people voted for Trump, and rather than try to understand those people, they just assume they're not very bright. And by condescending toward them, such people only solidify those voters' decisions.
We see articles about school shootings, even though dozens or hundreds of people are killed every day from gun crimes and gun violence. We see news about airplane crashes, even though (as Musk says), there are so many more automobile crashes. The thing is, no matter how bad something is, as long as it's commonplace, it's not going to make the news.
Maybe there's other completely open roamers out there, but I'm not sure what they are.
Have you never played a Fallout game?
The business morons always make this type of prediction.
Locally, they said that increasing the minimum wage would destroy the restaurant industry, but in reality poor people spend a higher percent of their income eating out, and the dollars spent at restaurants increased!
It sounds like them being poor has less to do with what they're paid and more to do with how they manage their money. These are the people that supposedly can't afford housing, healthcare, and transportation, but they somehow have enough to eat out more often than higher income earners?
Actually it makes complete sense unless you're just trying to irrationally defend fossil fuel companies.
Consider this, say you use nuclear power to power your home, and you find out after years of research that the nuclear power plant has just been dumping it's nuclear waste in the environment where it's been seeping into water supplies and the food chain and causing massive damage.
That's not quite the same, though. A better comparison would be suing companies that mine uranium because the powerplants that use it dump their nuclear waste in an unsafe way. Which, of course, would be ridiculous.
ISPs will also be allowed to charge websites and online services for faster and more reliable network access.
I feel this is an aspect of net neutrality that often gets left out of the discussion: the fact that you can also get better service if you pay more. I was talking to a coworker about it the other day, and he had no idea that net neutrality meant anything other than network throttling...which of course is the only side that most people in favor of it consider.
If you listen to opponents of net neutrality, you'll find a large number of them are opposed to it because it HINDERS competition by forcing all ISPs into the same restrictions and regulations. As with anything, there are pros and cons to both sides, and it's refreshing to see a summary that mentions this side of the discussion.
In an active learning setting, you expect the students to learn about the equations before they get there.
So in other words, they have no solution to accelerate the initial process of learning the material, so they just shovel that responsibility entirely onto the student.
Not that active learning is bad, but you'd think if you are "replacing lectures" you'd actually replace them with something, not just skip to the lab/homework.
If I had mod points, I'd definitely give you some. Most classes of this sort, in my experience, have both a lecture and a lab. You learn the concepts in the lecture, and you apply them in the lab. If you switch to nothing but labs and require students to study the topics in advance, you've now isolated the students and taken them out of the environment where they can ask questions on things they don't understand, and hear other students' questions on things they didn't consider.
Labs are great, but lectures are just as important.
Yikes, it shouldn't be so easy to allow someone access to all your email or documents. I can see requesting permission to see one document though.
The thing is, innocuous apps ask all the time for access you wouldn't think they'd need, and users are used to granting permissions. MyFitnessPal, for example, needs access to your phone's camera for its UPC scanner. On the surface, it seems odd that a calorie counting app needs camera access, but it's easy to say, "Well, I want to use the app, so whatever, I guess."
And why wouldn't Google Docs (the legitimate one) need access to your email and other documents? That's pretty much its whole point, after all.
For me, it was the perfect combination of several factors:
1) I had shared documents with the person before, so this wasn't out of the ordinary.
2) We had just got done planning an event, which we often use Google Docs for.
3) I get share requests just often enough to not think anything of them, but not so often that I have a perfect image in my head of what an invite is supposed to look like.
4) My work network is such that I'm used to my authentication not being saved for sites, so it was normal that I had to log in again.
I haven't fallen for a scam like this for over a decade, so it was certainly embarrassing. Luckily I removed access to the app just moments after I realized what had happened, and no one in my contacts opened the link. Guess they were wiser than I was.
The "challenge" is an oppressive system set up by other humans. It's nothing more than petty power games and in-fighting. Choosing to step outside of the rat race is smarter than the fool who'll work himself to death for a suit who cares nothing for humanity.
The fact that you consider it "oppression" that a free market sets prices and work value is your first problem. Are you really so blind that you think companies don't pay exorbitant amounts for unskilled labor because of "petty power games and in-fighting"?
And yes, choosing to step out of the rat race may be smarter if you've got people willing to donate to your GoFundMe page or otherwise support your laziness and entitlement. For the rest of us, we understand that those who don't work, don't eat. It's not about working yourself to death for a boss; it's about putting in the required effort to support yourself and your family.
>The Boring Company is currently building a demo tunnel in SpaceX's parking lot
Before the inevitable post about how he has revolutionized yet another industry, realize the borer on site was purchased from another company that makes such things.
You've got to be a special kind of oblivious to think Musk invented tunnels. Still, revolution often comes not from creating completely new ideas, but from using existing ideas in completely new ways.
Here in the US, we are stuck with Common Core revelations.
Are people still making a fuss about Common Core now that Obama is out of office?
Believe it or not, it wasn't just an anti-Obama talking point, but something people have a legitimate issue with.
I miss the simplicity of it all. Sure, everyone pines for "simpler times" no matter what era they're from, but there's a striking difference in simplicity between computers of the 90s and computers of today. The biggest change is internet access and the requirement for it. Back on Windows 98 and Windows XP (and even, to some extent, Windows 7), things just worked. Sure, you could have an "active desktop" that displayed web content, but it wasn't a requirement. The only DRM was software keys or manual lookups ("what's the word on page 93"), and we could physically manage our disks and documentation. Single-player games could be played without an internet connection, and usually the first releases of applications were actually stable, with no Day 1 patches or DLC.
These days, I hope either Windows 7 is supported forever, or Microsoft releases another OS that I actually like. Windows 8 and 10 just don't do it for me, and I have little hope that their successors will, either. I don't know. I think, somewhere along the way, I just got stuck in 2010 and now I want to stay there forever.
How about manuals written like the developers actually enjoyed and appreciated their product? I remember Maxis and MicroProse manuals that not only told you how to play, but included historical information, humorous comics, and plenty of other content that added nothing to the game but plenty to your own understanding of what they were trying to simulate. Look at the original manuals for Railroad Tycoon, Colonization, Civilization, SimAnt, SimFarm, SimLife, etc., and you'll see they're much different from what we've got now.
Most of the durable goods bought at Walmart (tools, kitchen utensils, small kitchen appliances etc) probably end up being used a few times over the owner's lifetime. If they are going to bake all day, every day, they will buy a professional mixer instead of the deprecated KitchenAid crap that Target or Kohls or Walmart sells. Generally, why pay for "quality" -- do you really care if the kitchen gadget still works when your great grandchild inherits it and it's completely technologically obsolete anyway? Engineers should understand "cost:benefit" tradeoffs very well.
Are you sure KitchenAid is the brand you meant to call out? I've got a KitchenAid mixer from the 70s that works as well for me as it did for my grandma, and the 600 dollar ones they sell now, to me, seem like the best that's out there.
(Especially since demographically, their employees vote for a party that is all for taking people's stuff and redistributing it to the less fortunate.)
That's an outstanding point. You're only in favor of wealth redistribution until it's your wealth being redistributed. And, besides the fact that the employees weren't even guaranteed the money to begin with, what's the difference between this and higher taxes/premiums, other than that your "donation" is less likely to be burned away by bureaucracy on its way to the people it's supposed to help?
A private company is (and ought to remain) entitled to doing, what they fooking please — competition among them being a better guardian against abuses, than any kind of government regulator.
Twitter's not a private company, though. It's publicly traded, anyway.