A union cannot "force a vote". A minimum of 30% of employees must express interest in unionizing before a vote is allowed to occur. So yeah, there's a range between 30% and 50% where they could squeak by with such tactics, but if they let things get bad enough that even 30% would be interested in unionizing, then that would mean Tesla had already thoroughly failed to do right by their workers.
How exactly do you think traffic gets to the mail server?
How exactly do you think that anything other than the mail server can reasonably judge whether an email message is spam or not? Nobody, and I mean nobody filters spam at the network level, other than possibly DOS blocking, and DOS blocking, as I mentioned elsewhere, can be done in ways that do not discriminate based on source. Just treat all abusive behavior equally regardless of which source is doing the abuse.
Which does lewve open the theoretical possibility that Comcast could definitely that Netflix is a bad guy.
No, it doesn't. Netflix cannot realistically ever be considered a DOS attack, because all traffic from Netflix is in response to a request by someone on Comcast's network. It's a pull model, not a push model.
This is probably NOT the way to diagnose modern cars. There is lots of instrumentation, and the OBD-II interface allows access to the codes and sensors, but diagnosing problems requires a system-level understanding of what those readouts that are exposed by the OBD-II interface actually mean. Simply replacing the "most likely" or "most proximate" part indicated by the code will only work some of the time. Context IS very important, and the context of a modern vehicle engine is very complicated.
Well, yeah, which is why you have a pile of technical service bulletins from the manufacturer. For the most part, car failures get diagnosed once, and then thousands of people with no actual mechanical skills simply repeat the diagnosis tens of thousands of times.:-D
I wish I were kidding. Sometimes, I think that most car repair folks couldn't diagnose their way out of a paper bag if they didn't have detailed instructions. The number of times I've seen diagnoses that say things like "blew out vacuum lines" as the fix for a problem, rather than a symptom, is terrifying. And I've seen car dealers take a week to find the source of a (thermally self-sealing) steam leak in an engine that turned out to just be a split in a metal line right under the top half of the air intake manifold. It should have taken them two minutes or less.
I'm glad we're moving to electric vehicles now. There are so many thousand fewer parts that can fail. I mean, the emissions control on a modern engine alone.... Complicated doesn't begin to cover it. And the best part is that smog checks require all those parts to tell you that everything is working, even if the engine itself would pass smog checks with them not working, so you end up spending thousands of extra dollars over the lifespan of a car just babysitting things that aren't really necessary, contribute nothing to the proper functioning of the car, and don't really contribute anything significant to the environmental impact of the car, just in case once in a while, those failures actually matter. What a train wreck.
Assuming an infinitely slow orbit is possible, I'd expect the limit to be at the midpoint between the sun and the nearest celestial body... so a couple of light years, give or take.
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
There wasn't actually a network neutrality bill that said pretty much that. No blocking the world's biggest spammers, you have to accept their mail. It's illegal to do anything about a DOS attack against you, you have to accept all the traffi from the Russian botnet.
Nope. Denial-of-service traffic can be blocked. DOSes just can't be blocked from one source without at least making a best effort to block DOSes from all sources (which I would hope that any competent ISP would do).
Of course, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Solar shingles have significantly lower power production per square foot than real panels (currently about 12 W/sq. ft. versus 22 W/sq. ft. for panels) and much higher cost per watt than real panels (about 3x as much as panels alone, and about twice the cost of installing standard shingles plus panels). The warranty is about the same (25 to 30 years, typically).
And solar shingles heat up your attic, which means that during the hot summer months, your cooling energy use is going to go up when you use solar shingles. By contrast, PV panels are air-gapped, which means they actually reduce the power you spend on cooling by keeping direct sunlight off your roof.
And for all that extra expense and reduced efficiency, the solar shingles still don't match the rest of your roof. No thanks.
Protecting the same near monopoly brands with years of federal NN rules did not result in the needed new ISP work.
Freeing up the federal NN rules will allow more new networks to get approved and allow people online with new ISP networks.
And unicorns will swoop down and carry Donald Trump off in a flaming chariot.
Seriously, that's about as likely as ISPs suddenly coming into existence because of reduced regulation. ISPs are monopolies or near-monopolies for one reason, and one reason only: The expected payoff for bringing a new ISP into an area is a very large percentage of the total life expectancy of the required infrastructure.
I'll give you a moment to let that sink in. When your infrastructure (cables, amplifiers, etc.) lasts on average only about thirty years and it takes fifteen years to pay it down, there can realistically be at most two ISPs in a given area. And when you start out with one, it is suicidal to add a second one, because the first one, who has already paid off much of its infrastructure costs, can trivially undercut you for a long period of time until you go bankrupt, then buy your infrastructure for pennies on the dollar as a nearly free upgrade. This is almost always what happens when a new competitor enters pretty much any market.
The only markets where multiple ISPs exist in the United States are either markets in which more than one ISP existed in competition from the very beginning (e.g. where the phone company deployed fiber quickly enough to keep the cable company from eating its lunch) or markets in which the community itself built out the infrastructure and leased access to multiple ISPs.
No amount of deregulation can ever change that reality. Starting a new ISP in an area that already has an ISP is a great way to book a giant loss for tax purposes, but otherwise, it isn't a very useful practical to do.
There are only two ways to usefully get broadband competition: build out publicly owned (or non-profit-owned) infrastructure and lease it to ISPs, or pass laws that require all infrastructure companies to lease their lines to other companies, similar to the way DSL is regulated. Other than those two approaches, government cannot feasibly create competition in broadband. The tendency towards monopoly or, at best, duopoly is simply too strong, and this has been proven time and time again in city after city.
Remember the basic premise of NN, according to most advocates, is "carriers can't require payment before carrying a site's traffic".
Nice straw man. That's not a premise of NN at all. It's a natural side effect of NN, and only applies when that carrier is not that site's ISP.
Net Neutrality can be stated very simply: "An ISP shall carry all traffic in a manner that does not discriminate based on its source or destination." An ideal Net Neutrality law would also add "and shall not throttle traffic below the advertised speed except to the minimum extent required for quality-of-service and other similar network management," but that is somewhat less critical.
That's it. Everything else folks talk about as being part of Net Neutrality, is a natural side effect of that one simple rule. For example, Comcast would not be allowed to charge Netflix a fee in exchange for not throttling Netflix traffic to Comcast customers, because Comcast provides similar types of video-on-demand service, and if it throttled Netflix without throttling its own video-on-demand service, that would be discriminating against some video-on-demand traffic based on its source/destination. (It isn't that it would not be allowed to charge the fee so much as that even threatening to throttle the traffic in the first place would be per se illegal.)
Remember in all of American history, only two Presidents have been impeached. It's not something that normally happens. A president has to be a special kind of crooked to get impeached, or especially hated. "Impeach him" isn't the normal case.
Ironically, Bill Clinton was neither, but got impeached, yet Nixon was both, and resigned before it could happen.
Under common carrier rules that made NN unnecessary. Rules put in place by the same agency that put forth NN.
ISPs were never common carriers. That said, the GP was also wrong:
Free market was the DECADES of explosive growth the Internet had.
Explosive growth on the Internet was largely in spite of U.S. ISPs, not because of it. ISPs have never acted even slightly like a free market. They're a natural monopoly, because the high cost of infrastructure strongly favors any incumbent provider over any new provider so much that it is almost impossible for a second ISP to begin serving an area except in commercial centers of large cities.
And because adding bandwidth costs money, U.S. ISPs have always done just about everything in their power to keep speeds low and prices high, while the rest of the world improved much faster. It was only the explosive popularity of services like YouTube, Netflix, etc. that forced the ISPs to improve, and they have only done so to the minimum extent necessary to keep customers from challenging their license to continue using public rights-of-way.
The main reason net neutrality laws only started becoming necessary recently is that historically, most ISPs were telephone companies, whereas now, the overwhelming majority of broadband is provided by cable companies that also provide their own competing video-on-demand services and phone services. This gives those ISPs a strong incentive to shape bandwidth in ways that make their VoD services perform better than competing services. And some large ISPs began doing precisely that.
That's the most important thing to understand: Net neutrality regulations were a response to actual bad behavior. Many of those same companies now claim that they support net neutrality. This seems unlikely. Rather, it is far more likely that they're just sorry they got caught, and they'll be more careful in the future.
You'd almost a good argument, except that you are doing the usual shithead liar's technique of combining legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.
The original proposal for Trump's Muslim travel ban was largely about legal immigration (refugee status in particular).
And arguably, the only reason we have illegal immigration from our southern border in the first place is that our government has this bizarre notion that if we pretend Mexico isn't a failed state, it somehow isn't one. If you use the word "economic refugees" instead of "illegal immigrants", you get something more closely resembling reality.
Trump's wall is basically a repeat of post-WWII Germany, and just like then, the principal effect will be a bunch of desperate people getting shot in the demilitarized zone while trying to escape a failing state that deteriorates ever further. Sad.
I wonder if you asked her about anything Math related? Probably not.
Context is all. Most people have limited areas of expertise. Partly because they've not that much exposure to life outside a limited sphere, and partly because lots of stuff in the world simply doesn't interest them that much.
I freely admit to not knowing how to fix much on a modern car, even though I'm a proper (not software) engineer.
Mostly because diagnosing a modern car usually means plugging in an ODB-2 scanner and reading codes.
Although people do have limited interests and areas of knowledge, I find that the smartest people tend to have more interests than average, and those interests tend to be completely unrelated to what they do for a living. Mainly, the smarter the person, the more likely he or she is to enjoy learning, which almost inevitably results in at least some breadth of understanding.
Straight-A students overlap with that group, but the two sets are not as similar as many might assume. Lots of folks make good grades by rote, which is not the same thing as understanding. The ones who actually understand are the ones who can then apply that knowledge and intuit other information based on that knowledge.
I would absolutely be on board with suing an ISP that doesn't deliver what they advertise.
I would be absolutely on board with overturning the Federal Arbitration Act so that customers can do so.
The internet flourished without the level of oversight that NN proponents are pushing for.
I wouldn't say that it flourished. The United States has consistently been behind the rest of the world, speed-wise, for nearly the entire history of the Internet, largely because unlike the rest of the world, we used government funds to put our network in the hands of private corporations instead of letting the government continue to build out and manage the physical infrastructure. The only thing that brought us even slightly closer to catching up with the rest of the world was when the FCC mandated that incumbent phone companies allow other companies to lease their lines to provide Internet service.
This issue is so simple. Break up NBC Universal Comcast and ATT DirecTV HBO and whatever other mutant conglomerates we've allowed to exist.
That's a good start, but as long as ISPs exist as a natural monopoly, consumers will still need protection from ISPs that decide to make deals that aren't in consumers' best interests. Even if we broke up those conglomerates, short of it becoming legal to sue your ISP, we would still need some form of net neutrality laws, IMO.
Hitler was a nationalist populist. Some Nazi positions were left, some were right. But attempting to describe it fully in terms of modern parties is impossible, because no modern party would ever declare that immigrants and members of a particular religion are the cause of all of our country's problems, and that we have to cage them and deport them at all costs, and wall ourselves off from... no, wait....
That's what it IS. Quit spreading disinformation. Net neutrality rules covered ISPs, period. Websites were completely and totally out of scope for those laws. Do at least a tiny bit of research.
Ohio is a union state. Factory comes with UAW baggage and nonsense.
Meh. The union didn't keep the plant open. Those employees aren't likely to feel very beholden to them at this point. If Tesla came in and said, hey, we'll pay you less than you made before, but more than you made after you took the union dues out of your salary, under the condition that this is a non-union shop, they'd probably get a lot of takers.
Well, yes, and it benefits a broken, hopelessly overloaded court system by preventing it from becoming more so. And it prevents disputes from dragging on needlessly for decades when they could be solved by arbitration in a couple of weeks.
Arbitration — even binding arbitration — is great when applied to contracts between two groups of approximately equal power, e.g. when two individuals or small companies negotiate a contract with each other in good faith.
The problem with arbitration is when it gets applied to a contract of adhesion (any contract created by one party and given to the other in a take-it-or-leave-it way). In those situations, non-binding arbitration would be fine, and it would even be fine if the larger party agreed to let arbitration be binding upon them. But when it is binding upon the lesser party, it becomes highly problematic, in large part because arbiters have an inherent conflict of interest.
You see, a random person going after a big company will almost certainly never give an arbiter repeat business. However, a corporation might. Therefore, it is in the arbiter's best interest financially to find for the corporation more often than not. Further, in many cases, the corporation pays the bills, which makes it even more in the arbiter's interest to find for the corporation. That is why binding arbitration in contracts of adhesion qualifies as unmitigated evil.
To be fair, conflicts of interest can also at least ostensibly occur in a court of law. The difference is that the existence of multiple levels of judicial review makes it dramatically less likely that the larger party can get a favorable verdict through such a conflict of interest unless the lesser party runs out of money (which, of course, can usually be avoided by lawyers agreeing to work on retainer or by getting help from a rights group, such as the ACLU, assuming the case actually has merit).
You mean me? Where do you get that I oppose residential zoning laws? And I'm pretty sure no free market Republican would be in favor of more commercial zoning regulations.
There are people who are ill and can't lose wight no matter what, but they make up a small percentage of those who are obese.
Actually, in all likelihood, all people who are obese are ill, not "a small percentage" as you claim.
First, around a third of obese people have Adenovirus-36, which is known to cause obesity in mouse studies. That's not a small percentage.
Second, nearly all obese people have a gut biome that contributes to obesity. In twin studies, when gut bacteria from an obese twin were transferred into mice, the mice got fat, and when gut bacteria from the non-obese twin were transferred into mice, they did not.
Most people fail at losing weight because of lack of discipline.
No, most people fail at losing weight because their biology actively fights against losing weight. Obesity is a disease. Anyone claiming otherwise is at least twenty or thirty years out-of-date on medical research in the field.
Credit availability and/or cash availability. High salaries, in turn, drive housing prices higher, which means employees demand higher salaries. It's a vicious circle.
The only real solution, believe it or not, is more commercial zoning regulations. The best thing we could do for the Bay Area would be to create a regional zoning commission that could do things like create tax incentives for tech companies to locate further inland in places like Salinas, Gilroy, Sacramento, Watsonville, etc. There's plenty of room to expand towards Monterey, and if companies build their headquarters down that direction, instead of everybody commuting into the South Bay, lots of folks will commute out of it, traffic will balance out more, housing prices will start to increase in the southeast and decrease in the South/North/East Bay/Peninsula, and so on.
And it needs to start with places like Cupertino, Mountain View, and Menlo Park saying "no" when companies like Apple and Google and Facebook ask to build new giant mega-campuses. The desire to centralize your employees in one place is strong, and the only way to combat that is with significant financial incentives to spread out, and significant financial *dis*incentives to centralize operations in one city.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the old joke about politicians.
Q: How do you know a politician is lying?
A: His/her lips are moving.
In much the same vein, you know a coverage map is lying because the carrier provided it.
A union cannot "force a vote". A minimum of 30% of employees must express interest in unionizing before a vote is allowed to occur. So yeah, there's a range between 30% and 50% where they could squeak by with such tactics, but if they let things get bad enough that even 30% would be interested in unionizing, then that would mean Tesla had already thoroughly failed to do right by their workers.
How exactly do you think that anything other than the mail server can reasonably judge whether an email message is spam or not? Nobody, and I mean nobody filters spam at the network level, other than possibly DOS blocking, and DOS blocking, as I mentioned elsewhere, can be done in ways that do not discriminate based on source. Just treat all abusive behavior equally regardless of which source is doing the abuse.
No, it doesn't. Netflix cannot realistically ever be considered a DOS attack, because all traffic from Netflix is in response to a request by someone on Comcast's network. It's a pull model, not a push model.
Well, yeah, which is why you have a pile of technical service bulletins from the manufacturer. For the most part, car failures get diagnosed once, and then thousands of people with no actual mechanical skills simply repeat the diagnosis tens of thousands of times. :-D
I wish I were kidding. Sometimes, I think that most car repair folks couldn't diagnose their way out of a paper bag if they didn't have detailed instructions. The number of times I've seen diagnoses that say things like "blew out vacuum lines" as the fix for a problem, rather than a symptom, is terrifying. And I've seen car dealers take a week to find the source of a (thermally self-sealing) steam leak in an engine that turned out to just be a split in a metal line right under the top half of the air intake manifold. It should have taken them two minutes or less.
I'm glad we're moving to electric vehicles now. There are so many thousand fewer parts that can fail. I mean, the emissions control on a modern engine alone.... Complicated doesn't begin to cover it. And the best part is that smog checks require all those parts to tell you that everything is working, even if the engine itself would pass smog checks with them not working, so you end up spending thousands of extra dollars over the lifespan of a car just babysitting things that aren't really necessary, contribute nothing to the proper functioning of the car, and don't really contribute anything significant to the environmental impact of the car, just in case once in a while, those failures actually matter. What a train wreck.
Assuming an infinitely slow orbit is possible, I'd expect the limit to be at the midpoint between the sun and the nearest celestial body... so a couple of light years, give or take.
You missed your chance to quote Douglas Adams.
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
Nope. Denial-of-service traffic can be blocked. DOSes just can't be blocked from one source without at least making a best effort to block DOSes from all sources (which I would hope that any competent ISP would do).
An email system is not an ISP. Fail.
Of course, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Solar shingles have significantly lower power production per square foot than real panels (currently about 12 W/sq. ft. versus 22 W/sq. ft. for panels) and much higher cost per watt than real panels (about 3x as much as panels alone, and about twice the cost of installing standard shingles plus panels). The warranty is about the same (25 to 30 years, typically).
And solar shingles heat up your attic, which means that during the hot summer months, your cooling energy use is going to go up when you use solar shingles. By contrast, PV panels are air-gapped, which means they actually reduce the power you spend on cooling by keeping direct sunlight off your roof.
And for all that extra expense and reduced efficiency, the solar shingles still don't match the rest of your roof. No thanks.
Protecting the same near monopoly brands with years of federal NN rules did not result in the needed new ISP work.
Freeing up the federal NN rules will allow more new networks to get approved and allow people online with new ISP networks.
And unicorns will swoop down and carry Donald Trump off in a flaming chariot.
Seriously, that's about as likely as ISPs suddenly coming into existence because of reduced regulation. ISPs are monopolies or near-monopolies for one reason, and one reason only: The expected payoff for bringing a new ISP into an area is a very large percentage of the total life expectancy of the required infrastructure.
I'll give you a moment to let that sink in. When your infrastructure (cables, amplifiers, etc.) lasts on average only about thirty years and it takes fifteen years to pay it down, there can realistically be at most two ISPs in a given area. And when you start out with one, it is suicidal to add a second one, because the first one, who has already paid off much of its infrastructure costs, can trivially undercut you for a long period of time until you go bankrupt, then buy your infrastructure for pennies on the dollar as a nearly free upgrade. This is almost always what happens when a new competitor enters pretty much any market.
The only markets where multiple ISPs exist in the United States are either markets in which more than one ISP existed in competition from the very beginning (e.g. where the phone company deployed fiber quickly enough to keep the cable company from eating its lunch) or markets in which the community itself built out the infrastructure and leased access to multiple ISPs.
No amount of deregulation can ever change that reality. Starting a new ISP in an area that already has an ISP is a great way to book a giant loss for tax purposes, but otherwise, it isn't a very useful practical to do.
There are only two ways to usefully get broadband competition: build out publicly owned (or non-profit-owned) infrastructure and lease it to ISPs, or pass laws that require all infrastructure companies to lease their lines to other companies, similar to the way DSL is regulated. Other than those two approaches, government cannot feasibly create competition in broadband. The tendency towards monopoly or, at best, duopoly is simply too strong, and this has been proven time and time again in city after city.
Nice straw man. That's not a premise of NN at all. It's a natural side effect of NN, and only applies when that carrier is not that site's ISP.
Net Neutrality can be stated very simply: "An ISP shall carry all traffic in a manner that does not discriminate based on its source or destination." An ideal Net Neutrality law would also add "and shall not throttle traffic below the advertised speed except to the minimum extent required for quality-of-service and other similar network management," but that is somewhat less critical.
That's it. Everything else folks talk about as being part of Net Neutrality, is a natural side effect of that one simple rule. For example, Comcast would not be allowed to charge Netflix a fee in exchange for not throttling Netflix traffic to Comcast customers, because Comcast provides similar types of video-on-demand service, and if it throttled Netflix without throttling its own video-on-demand service, that would be discriminating against some video-on-demand traffic based on its source/destination. (It isn't that it would not be allowed to charge the fee so much as that even threatening to throttle the traffic in the first place would be per se illegal.)
Ironically, Bill Clinton was neither, but got impeached, yet Nixon was both, and resigned before it could happen.
ISPs were never common carriers. That said, the GP was also wrong:
Explosive growth on the Internet was largely in spite of U.S. ISPs, not because of it. ISPs have never acted even slightly like a free market. They're a natural monopoly, because the high cost of infrastructure strongly favors any incumbent provider over any new provider so much that it is almost impossible for a second ISP to begin serving an area except in commercial centers of large cities.
And because adding bandwidth costs money, U.S. ISPs have always done just about everything in their power to keep speeds low and prices high, while the rest of the world improved much faster. It was only the explosive popularity of services like YouTube, Netflix, etc. that forced the ISPs to improve, and they have only done so to the minimum extent necessary to keep customers from challenging their license to continue using public rights-of-way.
The main reason net neutrality laws only started becoming necessary recently is that historically, most ISPs were telephone companies, whereas now, the overwhelming majority of broadband is provided by cable companies that also provide their own competing video-on-demand services and phone services. This gives those ISPs a strong incentive to shape bandwidth in ways that make their VoD services perform better than competing services. And some large ISPs began doing precisely that.
That's the most important thing to understand: Net neutrality regulations were a response to actual bad behavior. Many of those same companies now claim that they support net neutrality. This seems unlikely. Rather, it is far more likely that they're just sorry they got caught, and they'll be more careful in the future.
The original proposal for Trump's Muslim travel ban was largely about legal immigration (refugee status in particular).
And arguably, the only reason we have illegal immigration from our southern border in the first place is that our government has this bizarre notion that if we pretend Mexico isn't a failed state, it somehow isn't one. If you use the word "economic refugees" instead of "illegal immigrants", you get something more closely resembling reality.
Trump's wall is basically a repeat of post-WWII Germany, and just like then, the principal effect will be a bunch of desperate people getting shot in the demilitarized zone while trying to escape a failing state that deteriorates ever further. Sad.
I wonder if you asked her about anything Math related? Probably not.
Context is all. Most people have limited areas of expertise. Partly because they've not that much exposure to life outside a limited sphere, and partly because lots of stuff in the world simply doesn't interest them that much.
I freely admit to not knowing how to fix much on a modern car, even though I'm a proper (not software) engineer.
Mostly because diagnosing a modern car usually means plugging in an ODB-2 scanner and reading codes.
Although people do have limited interests and areas of knowledge, I find that the smartest people tend to have more interests than average, and those interests tend to be completely unrelated to what they do for a living. Mainly, the smarter the person, the more likely he or she is to enjoy learning, which almost inevitably results in at least some breadth of understanding.
Straight-A students overlap with that group, but the two sets are not as similar as many might assume. Lots of folks make good grades by rote, which is not the same thing as understanding. The ones who actually understand are the ones who can then apply that knowledge and intuit other information based on that knowledge.
I would be absolutely on board with overturning the Federal Arbitration Act so that customers can do so.
I wouldn't say that it flourished. The United States has consistently been behind the rest of the world, speed-wise, for nearly the entire history of the Internet, largely because unlike the rest of the world, we used government funds to put our network in the hands of private corporations instead of letting the government continue to build out and manage the physical infrastructure. The only thing that brought us even slightly closer to catching up with the rest of the world was when the FCC mandated that incumbent phone companies allow other companies to lease their lines to provide Internet service.
That's a good start, but as long as ISPs exist as a natural monopoly, consumers will still need protection from ISPs that decide to make deals that aren't in consumers' best interests. Even if we broke up those conglomerates, short of it becoming legal to sue your ISP, we would still need some form of net neutrality laws, IMO.
Hitler was a nationalist populist. Some Nazi positions were left, some were right. But attempting to describe it fully in terms of modern parties is impossible, because no modern party would ever declare that immigrants and members of a particular religion are the cause of all of our country's problems, and that we have to cage them and deport them at all costs, and wall ourselves off from... no, wait....
That's what it IS. Quit spreading disinformation. Net neutrality rules covered ISPs, period. Websites were completely and totally out of scope for those laws. Do at least a tiny bit of research.
Meh. The union didn't keep the plant open. Those employees aren't likely to feel very beholden to them at this point. If Tesla came in and said, hey, we'll pay you less than you made before, but more than you made after you took the union dues out of your salary, under the condition that this is a non-union shop, they'd probably get a lot of takers.
Well, yes, and it benefits a broken, hopelessly overloaded court system by preventing it from becoming more so. And it prevents disputes from dragging on needlessly for decades when they could be solved by arbitration in a couple of weeks.
Arbitration — even binding arbitration — is great when applied to contracts between two groups of approximately equal power, e.g. when two individuals or small companies negotiate a contract with each other in good faith.
The problem with arbitration is when it gets applied to a contract of adhesion (any contract created by one party and given to the other in a take-it-or-leave-it way). In those situations, non-binding arbitration would be fine, and it would even be fine if the larger party agreed to let arbitration be binding upon them. But when it is binding upon the lesser party, it becomes highly problematic, in large part because arbiters have an inherent conflict of interest.
You see, a random person going after a big company will almost certainly never give an arbiter repeat business. However, a corporation might. Therefore, it is in the arbiter's best interest financially to find for the corporation more often than not. Further, in many cases, the corporation pays the bills, which makes it even more in the arbiter's interest to find for the corporation. That is why binding arbitration in contracts of adhesion qualifies as unmitigated evil.
To be fair, conflicts of interest can also at least ostensibly occur in a court of law. The difference is that the existence of multiple levels of judicial review makes it dramatically less likely that the larger party can get a favorable verdict through such a conflict of interest unless the lesser party runs out of money (which, of course, can usually be avoided by lawyers agreeing to work on retainer or by getting help from a rights group, such as the ACLU, assuming the case actually has merit).
You mean me? Where do you get that I oppose residential zoning laws? And I'm pretty sure no free market Republican would be in favor of more commercial zoning regulations.
Depends on whether you have to chase the fast food or can just shoot it from the comfort of your chair.
Actually, in all likelihood, all people who are obese are ill, not "a small percentage" as you claim.
First, around a third of obese people have Adenovirus-36, which is known to cause obesity in mouse studies. That's not a small percentage.
Second, nearly all obese people have a gut biome that contributes to obesity. In twin studies, when gut bacteria from an obese twin were transferred into mice, the mice got fat, and when gut bacteria from the non-obese twin were transferred into mice, they did not.
No, most people fail at losing weight because their biology actively fights against losing weight. Obesity is a disease. Anyone claiming otherwise is at least twenty or thirty years out-of-date on medical research in the field.
Well within. The lowest note on a piano is 27.5 Hz. 50 Hz is almost an octave up from there.
Credit availability and/or cash availability. High salaries, in turn, drive housing prices higher, which means employees demand higher salaries. It's a vicious circle.
The only real solution, believe it or not, is more commercial zoning regulations. The best thing we could do for the Bay Area would be to create a regional zoning commission that could do things like create tax incentives for tech companies to locate further inland in places like Salinas, Gilroy, Sacramento, Watsonville, etc. There's plenty of room to expand towards Monterey, and if companies build their headquarters down that direction, instead of everybody commuting into the South Bay, lots of folks will commute out of it, traffic will balance out more, housing prices will start to increase in the southeast and decrease in the South/North/East Bay/Peninsula, and so on.
And it needs to start with places like Cupertino, Mountain View, and Menlo Park saying "no" when companies like Apple and Google and Facebook ask to build new giant mega-campuses. The desire to centralize your employees in one place is strong, and the only way to combat that is with significant financial incentives to spread out, and significant financial *dis*incentives to centralize operations in one city.