It's not a fact, that's just something you're repeating because it is convenient for your argument (ironically, because of feelings). Jobs, minimum wage or not, aren't intended for anything for the employee (barring maybe some government jobs, private sinecures, and charity work), they are intended for the employer's benefit because the employer gets to decide if the job exists; this is not a moral judgement, it's a fact.
If you truly want to say that these jobs are intended for kids in high school, then have a separate minimum wage for kid's summer jobs and for adults. There are actually places that do this. The net result is that this will fill with kids in high school first if those kids can do it, and if they still need more employees then the supply of high school students overall is too small, wage goes up, eventually it meets adult wage and adults get hired at a living wage. If it doesn't rise to the adult level anyway, well, nobody owes those adults a job and nobody owes those employers employees at less than a living wage.
It's not society's fault these people have either zero skills or zero ambition...
Life is tough. Life is unfair.
Here's where you contradict yourself. The first quote only makes any sense if you assume life is fair. The second quote outright says life is unfair. Which is it? Is it that shitty situations only happen to those who deserve it, or is it that life is unfair and sometimes a person has skills and ambition but are still stuck in a cyclical rut?
The original term, which you yourself quoted, was "effectively disenfranchise", not just disenfranchise. That lines up very well with the term "effectively meaningless" which you are objecting to. The adjective can't be ignored when you're quoting the definition if Disenfranchisement.
No, that's not a good reason. You skipped the step from "they are probably users too" to "they probably drive high". The vast majority of people drink alcohol sometimes, but we don't require teetotalers as Uber drivers, just people who are sober while driving.
The disqualifier would be the DUI you get for driving high as a kite.
I don't think your criticism applies in this case. Rebooting the Twilight Zone isn't like rebooting Transformers or Star Wars.
Twilight Zone is an anthology of short stories.
If old episodes are remade, that's another story. But it's not an unoriginal idea to reboot the Twilight Zone in the same way that it's not an unoriginal idea to write a book. It's the content that's original or unoriginal. Twilight Zone implies very little about the content.
The reality is 10% of jobs (using your numbers) are completely unavailable to white males. Those, by definition, go to unqualified non white males.
By definition they go to people who are not white males; nothing about the definition suggests unqualified. You have made the assumption that nobody qualified gets hired. Also, in the next sentence, you changed qualified to competent. Those words are related but not synonyms.
Then you comically miss the point here:
once you get a non white non American into a management role that entire part of the company soon turns into a mirror image of that manager's racial background
So...you acknowledge that people hire and retain matching their racial background over the competence pool of the society around them? That's *exactly* the point you were fighting against in the rest of the sentence. Most managers in the US are white males. You appear to be claiming that somehow, only white males do not have this problem. That's crazy. Everybody has the problem.
Whether Affirmative Action is the best possible solution is a legitimate point for debate. But your math sucks worse.
I know lots of people who have Netflix but not Hulu. Not a lot the other way around. For my use-case, they don't have a whole lot of overlap. Hulu overlaps with traditional cable a lot more, so if people are stuck to the cord (eg. because of local sports) they don't use Hulu. In my anecdotal experience, I find it's Hulu that nudges people to cutting the cord. Netflix is what nudged people to stop renting movies.
You've perhaps missed that they just lost an antitrust lawsuit in Europe (with respect to advertising their shopping site), to the tune of billions of dollars, two other antitrust investigations ongoing?
Moscow is a major political, economic, cultural, and scientific centre of Russia and Eastern Europe, as well as the largest city entirely on the European continent.
Saying it's in Russia and therefore "certainly" not Eastern Europe is like saying Hawaii is in the United States and certainly not the Pacific Ocean.
There's no state income tax in Washington in the first place. But charitable giving is still deductible under AMT.
This all misses the point though. Being taxed or not literally doesn't change Bill Gates' life at all. He's still a rich-ass multi-billionaire regardless. Doesn't matter to him, just a way to funnel more of it to charity. Which is literally the point of the charitable giving deduction, so it's not so much "cheating taxes" as "using the tax code exactly as intended, promoting charitable giving".
Those are value judgements, not fact judgements. It's not parallel. The anti-vaxxers don't tend to advance arguments that children getting sick and dying is good, nor do they even argue against effective and safe vaccines; they argue that vaccines are not effective and/or safe. That distinction is based on factual information and therefore we should be able to set an evidence threshold.
There's something to be said for doing this when the user does have the spare storage space to handle it. If the storage space becomes needed, the OS can freely kill processes that never ran in the first place to recover storage.
First, they do offer separate services generally. You can buy a Twitch subscription separately, or you can pay for shipping your goods every time you make an order, or you can digitally rent (or buy) each show you watch individually. Each of those individual actions is cheaper than a Prime subscription. Is there some service you want that you can't get without Prime? Or do you just want an intermediate price for intermediate bundles of services?
Second, your argument is based on the following irrational positions:
1. That the reason new services were added is that the existing services got cheaper to offer. 2. That offering the same service for the same price at a higher profit margin devalues the service that you had previously believed was worth it to you.
The second only makes sense if you have an alternative that did lower their price.
For the first, when Amazon adds another service, that would have the following obvious effects:
1. People who don't care about the new thing don't change their subscription status either way because it changes nothing, and the costs to Amazon are unchanged. 2. People who do care and are already subscribers, now get a new service, and increased happiness. Amazon's costs increase there. 3. People who would not be subscribers because they don't get the value per dollar they expect, now become subscribers (or decide not to unsubscribe after all). This will increase Amazon's revenue and may increase Amazon's profit, depending on how much service they consume vs. their alternative methods to access the service. 4. Even at breakeven, it encourages people who could just as easily choose Amazon or Wal-Mart, or Amazon vs. Youtube Red, or whatever, to choose Amazon due to the halo effect.
There are non-obvious knock-on effects, like the above AC's irrational cancellation, but these are the main ones. It's entirely possible that the cost to offer the services actually increased and that is driving the increase in services to increase volume to help counteract those effects (not saying that happened, just that it's not logically impossible).
I'd be very surprised if Amazon profited off of literally every Prime subscription vs. users just getting the same stuff a la carte. They have to offer Prime to those people as an opportunity cost to get Prime to others.
You need to look up the definition of "hard drugs". It doesn't mean federally illegal, it means physically addictive.
Nicotine, present in tobacco, is a hard drug. For the record, alcohol is also a hard drug, though not to the same degree. Marijuana is not. So what you said is literally the opposite of true.
4 months comes from the sort of people who wear a "parka" in 23 degree weather, rather than shorts and tshirt in 12 degree weather. Winter tires and snow boots is a huge exaggeration for Toronto although it does apply when you drive a short while out of the city & suburbs where the urban development traps heat. Similarly, step outside the city and everything is bug-infested. It's all the freestanding freshwater in Ontario. Cascadia is oddly low-insect even in wilderness areas.
Toronto tends to have slightly more rainfall than Vancouver, it's just that it's misting for a long period of time in Vancouver whereas Toronto tends to get periods of torrential downpours and then nothing. It's kind of shocking when you've never literally been in pain from rainfall impact before, instead living in a place where you can walk through the rain for hours and step inside and be dry within seconds.
You just quoted the previous guy telling you it's not about switching search engines. The charge isn't that you're being forced to use search. The charge is that you're being forced to use shopping because you already use search. It's irrelevant why you use search.
You can go ahead and think *that* rule is bullshit but it never had anything to do with switching search engines, it had to do with shopping. It's not illegal to have a monopoly or dominant market position, and therefore it doesn't matter how easy it is for somebody to skip participating in the monopoly, the fact is that they have a dominant market position regardless.
why is no one complaining about that [Microsoft 'hijacking' search] to the EU.
First, they are -- it's not working though , for all the reasons you just finished describing -- you just finished asking who is forcing you to use Google, implying that people are able to choose Google, implying that Microsoft is not able to stop them, implying that Microsoft either does not have or is not abusing a dominant adjacent market. If you see Bing become dominant and you can provide evidence that a dominant share of searches come from Microsoft-aligned products (hint: Android phones mean they don't), then you might be able to build a case.
These are frustrating conversations to me. I don't really like the incarnations of antitrust law in either the US or the EU. They have some cure-worse-than-the-disease properties. But it's clear most people haven't taken the time to even understand the argument, since a zillion people will point out that it's easy to switch away from Google by typing some other made-up word into the address bar, as though that matters at all.
Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
You are not punished for a monopoly or nearly a monopoly; neither of those things is illegal. They are punished for abusing a dominant market position: being a near-monopoly is one way to have a dominant market position.
You have to actually read the links given. You are super confused. You seem to think that "toxic masculinity" means blaming men. It doesn't. Toxic masculinity isn't men. It's the thing that is done *to* men.
Cognitive Accessibility is an important aspect because some people have cognitive disabilities and it's helpful to have games rated toward them if you're buying for somebody with such disabilities. Which may include buying for onerself -- not all cognitive disabilities are the same. I work with a woman who was recently struck with Multiple Sclerosis. Much to her distress, the memory cognitive accessibility aspect would be important to her, while fluid intelligence would not be a problem.
For ages theme parks have included weight, height, and age restrictions, and people didn't generally imagine that these things were ultimately going to lead to theme parks that only have rides that cater equally to the healthy young adult, newborn, and geriatric.
I actually think it's great that it breaks these things down so that people who care (who are mostly people who have to care) can look at the dimension important to them.
I was not familiar with many of the games they rated, but I note for instance that it rated the 2016 version of Blood Bowl very highly, 4.5 stars. And it's accessibility? Shitty in every category. Clearly these accessibility ratings are not actually standing in the way of a good score to those who do not have these disabilities. Interestingly, in the comments they recommend the video game version for people with disabilities.
I'm an older millennial I guess, at almost 33 years old, and I never knew until they were Netflix exclusive (or, rarely, hulu exclusive or amazon exclusive). I knew what channel they were on, meaning what numbers to press into the remote control. Why anyone would expect me to know what network was on what channel, I don't know.
With netflix it was relevant because I have to specifically go there, instead of to an arbitrary number.
My parents are in their early 60s, I doubt they knew the name of any network except *sigh* the weather network.
What we're trying to fix is the total pollution caused by 7.4 billion people. So you divide the problem equally by everyone.
If China decided tomorrow to be 4 countries tomorrow, one would imagine that the ultimate effort that the area known as China should have to expend, should be the same. That fits with a per-capita approach. With a per-country approach, each quarter of China is now half as polluting as the USA.
It's irrational to look at total country output because country is a mostly-arbitrary boundary. There is absolutely no reason to expect that China and the US and Luxembourg and Russia and the Vatican and Tuvalu should all have the same amount of pollution output as each other.
The situation here is that you refuse to clean up your room, where the shit is spilling into the hallway, because you have three brothers who all have cleaner rooms but in aggregate have more work to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when do human constructs have no relevance in the real world?
That's not FEELINGS. That's FACT.
It's not a fact, that's just something you're repeating because it is convenient for your argument (ironically, because of feelings). Jobs, minimum wage or not, aren't intended for anything for the employee (barring maybe some government jobs, private sinecures, and charity work), they are intended for the employer's benefit because the employer gets to decide if the job exists; this is not a moral judgement, it's a fact.
If you truly want to say that these jobs are intended for kids in high school, then have a separate minimum wage for kid's summer jobs and for adults. There are actually places that do this. The net result is that this will fill with kids in high school first if those kids can do it, and if they still need more employees then the supply of high school students overall is too small, wage goes up, eventually it meets adult wage and adults get hired at a living wage. If it doesn't rise to the adult level anyway, well, nobody owes those adults a job and nobody owes those employers employees at less than a living wage.
It's not society's fault these people have either zero skills or zero ambition...
Life is tough. Life is unfair.
Here's where you contradict yourself. The first quote only makes any sense if you assume life is fair. The second quote outright says life is unfair. Which is it? Is it that shitty situations only happen to those who deserve it, or is it that life is unfair and sometimes a person has skills and ambition but are still stuck in a cyclical rut?
The original term, which you yourself quoted, was "effectively disenfranchise", not just disenfranchise. That lines up very well with the term "effectively meaningless" which you are objecting to. The adjective can't be ignored when you're quoting the definition if Disenfranchisement.
No, that's not a good reason. You skipped the step from "they are probably users too" to "they probably drive high". The vast majority of people drink alcohol sometimes, but we don't require teetotalers as Uber drivers, just people who are sober while driving.
The disqualifier would be the DUI you get for driving high as a kite.
I don't think your criticism applies in this case. Rebooting the Twilight Zone isn't like rebooting Transformers or Star Wars.
Twilight Zone is an anthology of short stories.
If old episodes are remade, that's another story. But it's not an unoriginal idea to reboot the Twilight Zone in the same way that it's not an unoriginal idea to write a book. It's the content that's original or unoriginal. Twilight Zone implies very little about the content.
The reality is 10% of jobs (using your numbers) are completely unavailable to white males. Those, by definition, go to unqualified non white males.
By definition they go to people who are not white males; nothing about the definition suggests unqualified. You have made the assumption that nobody qualified gets hired. Also, in the next sentence, you changed qualified to competent. Those words are related but not synonyms.
Then you comically miss the point here:
once you get a non white non American into a management role that entire part of the company soon turns into a mirror image of that manager's racial background
So...you acknowledge that people hire and retain matching their racial background over the competence pool of the society around them? That's *exactly* the point you were fighting against in the rest of the sentence. Most managers in the US are white males. You appear to be claiming that somehow, only white males do not have this problem. That's crazy. Everybody has the problem.
Whether Affirmative Action is the best possible solution is a legitimate point for debate. But your math sucks worse.
I know lots of people who have Netflix but not Hulu. Not a lot the other way around. For my use-case, they don't have a whole lot of overlap. Hulu overlaps with traditional cable a lot more, so if people are stuck to the cord (eg. because of local sports) they don't use Hulu. In my anecdotal experience, I find it's Hulu that nudges people to cutting the cord. Netflix is what nudged people to stop renting movies.
You've perhaps missed that they just lost an antitrust lawsuit in Europe (with respect to advertising their shopping site), to the tune of billions of dollars, two other antitrust investigations ongoing?
As a native English speaker, I think you're the one playing word games.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Moscow is a major political, economic, cultural, and scientific centre of Russia and Eastern Europe, as well as the largest city entirely on the European continent.
Saying it's in Russia and therefore "certainly" not Eastern Europe is like saying Hawaii is in the United States and certainly not the Pacific Ocean.
There's no state income tax in Washington in the first place. But charitable giving is still deductible under AMT.
This all misses the point though. Being taxed or not literally doesn't change Bill Gates' life at all. He's still a rich-ass multi-billionaire regardless. Doesn't matter to him, just a way to funnel more of it to charity. Which is literally the point of the charitable giving deduction, so it's not so much "cheating taxes" as "using the tax code exactly as intended, promoting charitable giving".
Those are value judgements, not fact judgements. It's not parallel. The anti-vaxxers don't tend to advance arguments that children getting sick and dying is good, nor do they even argue against effective and safe vaccines; they argue that vaccines are not effective and/or safe. That distinction is based on factual information and therefore we should be able to set an evidence threshold.
There's something to be said for doing this when the user does have the spare storage space to handle it. If the storage space becomes needed, the OS can freely kill processes that never ran in the first place to recover storage.
First, they do offer separate services generally. You can buy a Twitch subscription separately, or you can pay for shipping your goods every time you make an order, or you can digitally rent (or buy) each show you watch individually. Each of those individual actions is cheaper than a Prime subscription. Is there some service you want that you can't get without Prime? Or do you just want an intermediate price for intermediate bundles of services?
Second, your argument is based on the following irrational positions:
1. That the reason new services were added is that the existing services got cheaper to offer.
2. That offering the same service for the same price at a higher profit margin devalues the service that you had previously believed was worth it to you.
The second only makes sense if you have an alternative that did lower their price.
For the first, when Amazon adds another service, that would have the following obvious effects:
1. People who don't care about the new thing don't change their subscription status either way because it changes nothing, and the costs to Amazon are unchanged.
2. People who do care and are already subscribers, now get a new service, and increased happiness. Amazon's costs increase there.
3. People who would not be subscribers because they don't get the value per dollar they expect, now become subscribers (or decide not to unsubscribe after all). This will increase Amazon's revenue and may increase Amazon's profit, depending on how much service they consume vs. their alternative methods to access the service.
4. Even at breakeven, it encourages people who could just as easily choose Amazon or Wal-Mart, or Amazon vs. Youtube Red, or whatever, to choose Amazon due to the halo effect.
There are non-obvious knock-on effects, like the above AC's irrational cancellation, but these are the main ones. It's entirely possible that the cost to offer the services actually increased and that is driving the increase in services to increase volume to help counteract those effects (not saying that happened, just that it's not logically impossible).
I'd be very surprised if Amazon profited off of literally every Prime subscription vs. users just getting the same stuff a la carte. They have to offer Prime to those people as an opportunity cost to get Prime to others.
You need to look up the definition of "hard drugs". It doesn't mean federally illegal, it means physically addictive.
Nicotine, present in tobacco, is a hard drug. For the record, alcohol is also a hard drug, though not to the same degree. Marijuana is not. So what you said is literally the opposite of true.
To learn: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w...
4 months comes from the sort of people who wear a "parka" in 23 degree weather, rather than shorts and tshirt in 12 degree weather. Winter tires and snow boots is a huge exaggeration for Toronto although it does apply when you drive a short while out of the city & suburbs where the urban development traps heat. Similarly, step outside the city and everything is bug-infested. It's all the freestanding freshwater in Ontario. Cascadia is oddly low-insect even in wilderness areas.
Toronto tends to have slightly more rainfall than Vancouver, it's just that it's misting for a long period of time in Vancouver whereas Toronto tends to get periods of torrential downpours and then nothing. It's kind of shocking when you've never literally been in pain from rainfall impact before, instead living in a place where you can walk through the rain for hours and step inside and be dry within seconds.
Who is forcing us to use Google
You just quoted the previous guy telling you it's not about switching search engines. The charge isn't that you're being forced to use search. The charge is that you're being forced to use shopping because you already use search. It's irrelevant why you use search.
You can go ahead and think *that* rule is bullshit but it never had anything to do with switching search engines, it had to do with shopping. It's not illegal to have a monopoly or dominant market position, and therefore it doesn't matter how easy it is for somebody to skip participating in the monopoly, the fact is that they have a dominant market position regardless.
why is no one complaining about that [Microsoft 'hijacking' search] to the EU.
First, they are -- it's not working though , for all the reasons you just finished describing -- you just finished asking who is forcing you to use Google, implying that people are able to choose Google, implying that Microsoft is not able to stop them, implying that Microsoft either does not have or is not abusing a dominant adjacent market. If you see Bing become dominant and you can provide evidence that a dominant share of searches come from Microsoft-aligned products (hint: Android phones mean they don't), then you might be able to build a case.
These are frustrating conversations to me. I don't really like the incarnations of antitrust law in either the US or the EU. They have some cure-worse-than-the-disease properties. But it's clear most people haven't taken the time to even understand the argument, since a zillion people will point out that it's easy to switch away from Google by typing some other made-up word into the address bar, as though that matters at all.
This isn't a statement about reality, it's a statement about ethics. And therefore, the fact that he thinks it is *does* make it so.
But which law is broken? If they don't have monopoly, they aren't abusing a monopoly.
The law is against abusing a dominant market position. Arguing whether a monopoly has to be absolutely total is irrelevant.
Here's your citation: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal...
My emphasis in the following:
Article 102
(ex Article 82 TEC)
Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
You are not punished for a monopoly or nearly a monopoly; neither of those things is illegal. They are punished for abusing a dominant market position: being a near-monopoly is one way to have a dominant market position.
You have to actually read the links given. You are super confused. You seem to think that "toxic masculinity" means blaming men. It doesn't. Toxic masculinity isn't men. It's the thing that is done *to* men.
Cognitive Accessibility is an important aspect because some people have cognitive disabilities and it's helpful to have games rated toward them if you're buying for somebody with such disabilities. Which may include buying for onerself -- not all cognitive disabilities are the same. I work with a woman who was recently struck with Multiple Sclerosis. Much to her distress, the memory cognitive accessibility aspect would be important to her, while fluid intelligence would not be a problem.
For ages theme parks have included weight, height, and age restrictions, and people didn't generally imagine that these things were ultimately going to lead to theme parks that only have rides that cater equally to the healthy young adult, newborn, and geriatric.
I actually think it's great that it breaks these things down so that people who care (who are mostly people who have to care) can look at the dimension important to them.
I was not familiar with many of the games they rated, but I note for instance that it rated the 2016 version of Blood Bowl very highly, 4.5 stars. And it's accessibility? Shitty in every category. Clearly these accessibility ratings are not actually standing in the way of a good score to those who do not have these disabilities. Interestingly, in the comments they recommend the video game version for people with disabilities.
You realize that the subject here is a set of guidelines?
It's literally just some helpful guidance? There's no laws here at all.
And you think others are the psychopaths. How about you argue with this subject instead of your imaginary boogeyman?
You are assuming that everybody is using the same editor (and that their diff tool is the same as their editor).
I'm an older millennial I guess, at almost 33 years old, and I never knew until they were Netflix exclusive (or, rarely, hulu exclusive or amazon exclusive). I knew what channel they were on, meaning what numbers to press into the remote control. Why anyone would expect me to know what network was on what channel, I don't know.
With netflix it was relevant because I have to specifically go there, instead of to an arbitrary number.
My parents are in their early 60s, I doubt they knew the name of any network except *sigh* the weather network.
What we're trying to fix is the total pollution caused by 7.4 billion people. So you divide the problem equally by everyone.
If China decided tomorrow to be 4 countries tomorrow, one would imagine that the ultimate effort that the area known as China should have to expend, should be the same. That fits with a per-capita approach. With a per-country approach, each quarter of China is now half as polluting as the USA.
It's irrational to look at total country output because country is a mostly-arbitrary boundary. There is absolutely no reason to expect that China and the US and Luxembourg and Russia and the Vatican and Tuvalu should all have the same amount of pollution output as each other.
How is that except?
The situation here is that you refuse to clean up your room, where the shit is spilling into the hallway, because you have three brothers who all have cleaner rooms but in aggregate have more work to do.