So your position is that you can't make money laying your own lines...like the company that did it previously.
That's absolutely correct. The company that did it previously was a subsidized monopoly. Once the money is already spent to string one set of wires to a house there it considerably weakens the business case to string a second set of wires. The first competitor in has a nearly insurmountable cost advantage over any later competitors. It's one of the cases where more competition does not actually reduce prices.
But if you have the Government standing in the way keeping anyone from even trying, then what's the point?
The government can get out of the way entirely and it would still fail because the services we are talking about are good examples of natural monopolies. Adding competitors . You don't seem to comprehend what a natural monopoly is. Anyone building a new network where Comcast already exists is going to be at an almost insurmountable cost disadvantage.
Case in point...Power companies are researching sending signals over the power line.
They already have a network in place. That is a different situation than trying to build a new one from scratch. Without getting into the weeds I'd welcome more competition but you're talking apples to oranges here.
Other options, erecting local WiFi towers. There could be a perfectly viable business case there.
WiFi? Do you comprehend how short the range for WiFi is? You would have to have a dense population and positively blanket the place with towers. WiFi is a terrible solution where I and many other people live - my nearest neighbor is actually out of range of my base station. Furthermore there are problems with the limited amount of spectrum available for WiFi.
The problem is that the federal law would be even allowing LESS competition because reasons.
How could it allow less? I have precisely one reasonable ISP option to my house right now. (Comcast in my case) The only "competitor" is Frontier Communications which offers substantially slower DSL service or my other option is to go entirely wireless which would be problematic for various reasons.
What needs to happen is that a law needs to be passed that companies can deliver content or they can deliver the pipe but not both. And the pipe providers need to be regulated to a similar degree as the electric companies to ensure fair and non-discriminatory access at rational prices even to rural areas.
Simply eliminate all local monopolies on internet access and you will see all manner of companies jumping into the fray.
Exactly how do you think that would play out? It costs HUGE money to build out a wired network and less but still a lot for wireless. We have local monopolies because for the most part they are natural monopolies. Understand what that means before you say any more. You think AT&T or Comcast is going to play nice with a new entrant? Anyone jumping into a market larger than a single community had better have tens of billions in funding to build a (redundant) physical network from scratch. They already tried forcing ISPs to allow competitors on their networks and that went terribly nor did it decrease costs. (Hint: competitors cannot provide services for less money than the company that actually owns the wires and guess which company the wire owners are going to prioritize for repairs and service?)
Now what they should do is pass a regulation so that companies can either provide content or deliver content but not both. And you regulate the pipe providers so that they cannot discriminate among content providers and have to provide services for reasonable and non discriminatory prices just like we do for electricity.
BTW, these monopolies are created by local governments.
No, it was local governments combined with the economics of the product. You can take away the local monopoly but there won't be a rush to compete against already existing incumbents because it is too expensive to build the network. A well regulated monopoly in this case is actually the lowest cost option in most locations.
Consider that Intel spends more on marketing each year than AMDs entire R&D budget.
That's because Intel is a FAR larger company than AMD. Intel spends more money on marketing than AMDs entire REVENUE. AMD had revenues last year around $4.27 billion and Intel revenues were around $59.4 billion. The companies aren't even close to being peers. AMD spends a similar percentage of revenues on marketing but they simply aren't anywhere near as big. That doesn't mean AMD cares less about marketing - it just means they don't have as much cash to spend.
The "point" is that Intel, Microsoft, and many large 'technical' corporations are apparently more concerned with marketing than technical prowess
Software companies are different animals than hardware manufacturers. Every software company on the planet spends more on sales and marketing than on engineering and R&D. That's not a commentary on the relative important of those functions but rather just what they cost to perform those activities. Selling software is less able to achieve economies of scale in most cases. Look at the financial statements of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, and you'll see that around 10-30% of their costs are to actually design the products. SG&A (Sales and Marketing) typically is about double that amount or more. Intel has a lot more R&D costs because they have a lot of very expensive plants and tangible equipment to fund. Software R&D doesn't generally require building expensive hardware prototypes and research into novel applications of physics.
Why is your personal, anecdotal experience more valid than mine?
If there was any evidence of widespread instability in Firefox it would become news and it hasn't. I would believe someone who claimed to have problems with a specific machine since that would be reasonable. My own experience with Firefox directly contradicts any assertion of general instability.
You must be a Gnome developer. "It works for me therefore it's definitely you, not the software".
Nope. Not a developer at all nor any interest in becoming one. Actually I'm an industrial engineer as well as an accountant by trade. But I have been a user of literally every major browser since Mosaic back in 1993. I've used Firefox as my primary browser since its release. If something meaningfully better came along I'm not brand loyal but I regard Chrome (and Safari and Edge) as fine but not any better.
That said you have to be able to replicate a problem to fix it. I have no doubt that some installations of Firefox will have issues but there are enough trolls that I don't take the word of some random AC on slashdot about it. If he really has a problem then report it to Mozilla rather than bitching here where nobody really cares.
Anyway, why is this even surprising, it's clearly a major change for 57, there's going to be problems along the line. Problems can be fixed, but denying that anyone has them is not going to help.
Anonymous, undetailed, and unsupported claims of "massive instability" on slashdot is worse than useless. It is pure unadulterated FUD probably meant to troll.
that Firefox 57 just broke a mountain of plugins (mine included) and makes fixing said plugins difficult if not impossible (still wrestling with that).
Every plug in that I use still works fine and seemed to make the transition without any issue. Your mileage may very of course.
It's also been horribly unstable for me since the 57 update. Not a crash for years before. Practically a daily occurrence when 57 first came out.
Works fine for me. Hasn't crashed once yet on me (and hasn't in years before that) and it's considerably faster than previous versions. I've run it on Windows, Macs and Linux on somewhere north of 20 machines. Color me dubious.
So far, Firefox 57 is somewhere around Windows 10 on the scale of new versions I don't want anywhere near my machines, but given security risks, staying on an older version is not practical in the long term.
Vague and unsupported assertions of instability from an Anonymous Coward. Very believable.
Google has been at the center of a lot of "works best with Chrome" messages we're starting to see appear on the web.
This is one of the (lesser) reasons I still use Firefox. Already been down this road once with Microsoft. Don't need to do it again with Google. Nothing particularly against Chrome but any particular browser getting too much market share is a bad thing.
On the other hand I haven't really seen any sites yet that actually require Chrome. Back in the day when IE6 was dominant it actually got kind of hard at times to use the web without resorting to IE6 now and then.
safeguarding our elections. That makes me feel soooooooo confident.
And who exactly would you prefer be involved? The folks in Florida who gave us hanging chad? Honestly I trust those companies as much or more than I do companies like Diebold.
I understand the hesitation against needless tech influence in elections but we can do without the knee jerk reactions.
I wouldn't want Microsoft, or any other software giant for that matter, near my government.
A) They already are involved in the government (or were you under the delusion that governments still run using typewriters and mimeographs?), and B) they could hardly make it worse. Democracies require everyone to be involved to work and that includes big tech companies whether or not you like it.
Write them from the POV of a customer. "I took the wrong door into the kitchen while looking for the bathroom, and saw them putting spoiled, stinky meat into the soup..."
Your argument is that they should lie about who they are and what their motivations might be? There goes any credibility. Disagree with this completely. Do it right and with integrity or don't do it at all.
As far as OSHA and health inspectors, they can be slow to act.
Sometimes but so what? You think a negative review on Google Maps or Yelp is going to have any sort of immediate impact? Most likely people are going to ignore it or think you are some kind of a crank.
Journalists? Yeah. But what's wrong with citizens pointing out corruption on their own? You shouldn't need to work for the mainstream media to be able to make a difference.
Nothing is wrong with it but let's be honest. You and I probably don't have much of an audience. A post to Google Maps or Yelp won't really change that. Journalists do have an audience AND they have an aligned interest in getting a story of interest. Journalists are in a good position to make a real difference in the event of genuine wrongdoing. And if you don't have a story that is interesting enough to get a journalists attention then it's probably not an interesting story to anyone else either.
Employers aren't your betters that you should cringe and bow before them, thanking them for every mistreatment. They're subject to and deserving of criticism, same as any other entity.
I doubt anyone would argue to the contrary. But posting a warning rant to Google Maps is likely to be ineffective, petty, and counterproductive. If a company is really misbehaving there are FAR more effective means of exposing their misdeeds. I have seen plenty of calls to OSHA or local health inspectors. I have seen tips to local journalists. There even are internet sites actually devoted to dealing with employer misconduct. Google maps isn't one of them. If you want to expose a company do it the right way.
If I see a rant on Google maps about some employer my first thought is going to be that this is the ravings of someone who got fired for cause and is still salty about it. It's an act of petty revenge by a small minded person. It makes the person doing it look like a jerk even if every word they say happens to be true.
Yeah but that's assuming you leave a review that is identifiable you specifically by people who don't know you and why would you even do that with a good or bad review?
An anonymous negative review from a "former employee" has about as much credibility as an email from a Nigerian Prince offering you the deal of a lifetime. If you really have an ax to grind then put your name on it. If you fear retribution then there are better ways to deal with the problem then a hot headed rant on google maps.
Lets be honest. It's going to be a very rare negative review of a former employer that is A) factually correct, B) objectively written, C) emotionally cool and D) has any motivation beyond petty revenge. The only thing they are doing it trying to hurt other people because they are angry.
what's the point in having a system than only lets 'good' reviews past? It defeats the point of having reviews to begin with.
Negative reviews are only useful it they are from a reasonably objective source over verifiable evidence. A butthurt lunatic who is trying to get revenge for being fired is worse than useless. Nobody is arguing that negative reviews aren't useful.
Ooh, I don't know, would you appreciate being informed by a former employee that the restaurant you are about to eat at scrapes the rice out of the bowls and off the dishes that come off the cleared tables, washes the stuff in a sieve, makes fried rice out of it and sells it back to the next customer?
And just because said former employee writes it why exactly should I believe it to be true without any corroborating evidence? The only thing I know for certain is that if the former employee is actually a former employee then they have a built in conflict of interest. Maybe they are telling the truth but it's equally if not more likely that they are making up nonsense because they are salty about some aspect of their time with their former employer. People lie in internet reviews all the time. Pissed off people who lost their job and are angry even more so.
Abusive employers are the unprofessional ones. It is a public service to expose them.
No it really isn't. Here's how this plays out. Even if an employer is genuinely terrible your rant about them is NOT going to "expose" them or make any difference at all. What will happen is people who read it are mostly going to think you are an irrational jerk who got fired for cause and is salty about it. (which is probably true) Future prospective employers who read it will conclude "this is a person who may be willing to bash us publicly - we should hire someone else". The company will not be impacted in any meaningful way and you might be hurting yourself in the process. Even if you have a genuine gripe and they are actually the worst company ever it's still an objectively stupid thing to do and will almost certainly accomplish nothing useful. Quite possibly it will even be counterproductive.
If you want to bring attention to a shitty employer there are FAR more effective tactics to use then an emotional and probably irrational rant on google maps.
Power and money grubbing scum are not deserving of your imagined "professionalism", you have Stockholm syndrome.
Pretending that you are saving the world by posting a negative review on google maps about a company that fired you is delusional.
So what if they are? I've worked for some shitty employers. I'm not about to publicly say something stupid about them that is going to hurt my future and double down on letting them screw me. Future employers might read what you wrote and there is a reasonable chance they won't look on it favorably. Unless you have enough cause to have an actual lawsuit then let it go and move on. It's not your problem anymore. Your bad review isn't saving anyone and it probably just makes you look like a petty and irrational jackass even if every word you write is the gospel truth.
Why would you publicly defame current or former employers? Not only is it rude, it's not graceful nor professional in any way to burn bridges on exit.
It's also a great way to ensure that any future prospective employers who do a background check and read your comments will not hire you. Any sane company will be very reluctant to hire someone who was willing to bash their employer in public even if they had excellent cause to do so.
Abusive employers need to be outed in all possible venues, maps are an excellent place to warn interviewees.
So we should believe everything some random pissed off person of unknown mental stability writes on the internet with no context or rebuttal? Good plan. [/sarcasm]
Top tip: Just because some person you do not know anything about claims an employer was mean to them on the internet does not automatically make it true.
The world is (supposed to be) a slightly better place every time a news reporter travels somewhere to get a story. At least in theory.
Except they pretty much don't get any stories out of North Korea. Normally I'd agree with you but the hermit kingdom is locked down so tight that the notion of journalists uncovering something big by going there is a fantasy.
I would rather play dealers against each other and get a good deal than paying MSRP every single time, because that is what you are doing when buying from Tesla. Don't like the price, tough shit.
If you think you are getting a better deal by having a middle man involved you are dumber than a rock. You aren't playing them off against each other because it doesn't matter which one you go with you still are paying a substantial markup on the cost of the vehicle. The MSRP has ZERO relationship to the actual cost of the vehicle. Remember what the S in MSRP stands for. ("Suggested") It's an arbitrarily chosen markup dealers like to pretend has some importance.
If you buy through a dealer you are simply adding to the cost of the vehicle for zero benefit to you.
There is roughly a zero chance of getting mugged in DPRK. Yes, you can go to prison for things.
Like pointing out that their Dear Leader is an asshat. Or looking at anything your handler doesn't approve of. Or photographing anything unapproved. Or talking with the locals without permission.
But so long as you play the part of good tourist, you are much safer in DPRK than Mexico (or the US).
Curiosity? For all the bad things you hear about the country it doesn't seem to be the worst for tourists, I hear more bad things about Mexico.
That's because A) there is more news about Mexico and some of it is bound to be bad, B) you obviously haven't been to Mexico and C) people who have a great experience in Mexico (most of them) don't complain about it. I've worked in Mexico and spent quite a lot of time there. Mexico is great for the most part. Honestly the US is roughly just as dangerous to visit as Mexico and neither place is really especially dangerous. There is no reason to be afraid of visiting either country as a general proposition.
There are lots of things I'm curious about but I don't do the ones that carry a non trivial chance of me ending up in a labor camp. If you want to stick your head in the lions mouth knock yourself out but personally I'll just visit pleasant places. There are worse places to go (like Syria) but not a lot of them.
Slashdot Mirror
So your position is that you can't make money laying your own lines...like the company that did it previously.
That's absolutely correct. The company that did it previously was a subsidized monopoly. Once the money is already spent to string one set of wires to a house there it considerably weakens the business case to string a second set of wires. The first competitor in has a nearly insurmountable cost advantage over any later competitors. It's one of the cases where more competition does not actually reduce prices.
But if you have the Government standing in the way keeping anyone from even trying, then what's the point?
The government can get out of the way entirely and it would still fail because the services we are talking about are good examples of natural monopolies. Adding competitors . You don't seem to comprehend what a natural monopoly is. Anyone building a new network where Comcast already exists is going to be at an almost insurmountable cost disadvantage.
Case in point...Power companies are researching sending signals over the power line.
They already have a network in place. That is a different situation than trying to build a new one from scratch. Without getting into the weeds I'd welcome more competition but you're talking apples to oranges here.
Other options, erecting local WiFi towers. There could be a perfectly viable business case there.
WiFi? Do you comprehend how short the range for WiFi is? You would have to have a dense population and positively blanket the place with towers. WiFi is a terrible solution where I and many other people live - my nearest neighbor is actually out of range of my base station. Furthermore there are problems with the limited amount of spectrum available for WiFi.
The problem is that the federal law would be even allowing LESS competition because reasons.
How could it allow less? I have precisely one reasonable ISP option to my house right now. (Comcast in my case) The only "competitor" is Frontier Communications which offers substantially slower DSL service or my other option is to go entirely wireless which would be problematic for various reasons.
What needs to happen is that a law needs to be passed that companies can deliver content or they can deliver the pipe but not both. And the pipe providers need to be regulated to a similar degree as the electric companies to ensure fair and non-discriminatory access at rational prices even to rural areas.
Simply eliminate all local monopolies on internet access and you will see all manner of companies jumping into the fray.
Exactly how do you think that would play out? It costs HUGE money to build out a wired network and less but still a lot for wireless. We have local monopolies because for the most part they are natural monopolies. Understand what that means before you say any more. You think AT&T or Comcast is going to play nice with a new entrant? Anyone jumping into a market larger than a single community had better have tens of billions in funding to build a (redundant) physical network from scratch. They already tried forcing ISPs to allow competitors on their networks and that went terribly nor did it decrease costs. (Hint: competitors cannot provide services for less money than the company that actually owns the wires and guess which company the wire owners are going to prioritize for repairs and service?)
Now what they should do is pass a regulation so that companies can either provide content or deliver content but not both. And you regulate the pipe providers so that they cannot discriminate among content providers and have to provide services for reasonable and non discriminatory prices just like we do for electricity.
BTW, these monopolies are created by local governments.
No, it was local governments combined with the economics of the product. You can take away the local monopoly but there won't be a rush to compete against already existing incumbents because it is too expensive to build the network. A well regulated monopoly in this case is actually the lowest cost option in most locations.
Consider that Intel spends more on marketing each year than AMDs entire R&D budget.
That's because Intel is a FAR larger company than AMD. Intel spends more money on marketing than AMDs entire REVENUE. AMD had revenues last year around $4.27 billion and Intel revenues were around $59.4 billion. The companies aren't even close to being peers. AMD spends a similar percentage of revenues on marketing but they simply aren't anywhere near as big. That doesn't mean AMD cares less about marketing - it just means they don't have as much cash to spend.
The "point" is that Intel, Microsoft, and many large 'technical' corporations are apparently more concerned with marketing than technical prowess
Software companies are different animals than hardware manufacturers. Every software company on the planet spends more on sales and marketing than on engineering and R&D. That's not a commentary on the relative important of those functions but rather just what they cost to perform those activities. Selling software is less able to achieve economies of scale in most cases. Look at the financial statements of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, and you'll see that around 10-30% of their costs are to actually design the products. SG&A (Sales and Marketing) typically is about double that amount or more. Intel has a lot more R&D costs because they have a lot of very expensive plants and tangible equipment to fund. Software R&D doesn't generally require building expensive hardware prototypes and research into novel applications of physics.
Why is your personal, anecdotal experience more valid than mine?
If there was any evidence of widespread instability in Firefox it would become news and it hasn't. I would believe someone who claimed to have problems with a specific machine since that would be reasonable. My own experience with Firefox directly contradicts any assertion of general instability.
You must be a Gnome developer. "It works for me therefore it's definitely you, not the software".
Nope. Not a developer at all nor any interest in becoming one. Actually I'm an industrial engineer as well as an accountant by trade. But I have been a user of literally every major browser since Mosaic back in 1993. I've used Firefox as my primary browser since its release. If something meaningfully better came along I'm not brand loyal but I regard Chrome (and Safari and Edge) as fine but not any better.
That said you have to be able to replicate a problem to fix it. I have no doubt that some installations of Firefox will have issues but there are enough trolls that I don't take the word of some random AC on slashdot about it. If he really has a problem then report it to Mozilla rather than bitching here where nobody really cares.
Anyway, why is this even surprising, it's clearly a major change for 57, there's going to be problems along the line. Problems can be fixed, but denying that anyone has them is not going to help.
Anonymous, undetailed, and unsupported claims of "massive instability" on slashdot is worse than useless. It is pure unadulterated FUD probably meant to troll.
that Firefox 57 just broke a mountain of plugins (mine included) and makes fixing said plugins difficult if not impossible (still wrestling with that).
Every plug in that I use still works fine and seemed to make the transition without any issue. Your mileage may very of course.
It's also been horribly unstable for me since the 57 update. Not a crash for years before. Practically a daily occurrence when 57 first came out.
Works fine for me. Hasn't crashed once yet on me (and hasn't in years before that) and it's considerably faster than previous versions. I've run it on Windows, Macs and Linux on somewhere north of 20 machines. Color me dubious.
So far, Firefox 57 is somewhere around Windows 10 on the scale of new versions I don't want anywhere near my machines, but given security risks, staying on an older version is not practical in the long term.
Vague and unsupported assertions of instability from an Anonymous Coward. Very believable.
Google has been at the center of a lot of "works best with Chrome" messages we're starting to see appear on the web.
This is one of the (lesser) reasons I still use Firefox. Already been down this road once with Microsoft. Don't need to do it again with Google. Nothing particularly against Chrome but any particular browser getting too much market share is a bad thing.
On the other hand I haven't really seen any sites yet that actually require Chrome. Back in the day when IE6 was dominant it actually got kind of hard at times to use the web without resorting to IE6 now and then.
I'll not hold my breath waiting for Apple. They're getting worse and worse lately.
Don't let the fact that they've already addressed the issue interfere with your anti Apple bias.
If the US had not made "communism" and "Russia" the number one bad guy on the planet, why would need anyone a defense against them?
Ask Ukraine.
safeguarding our elections. That makes me feel soooooooo confident.
And who exactly would you prefer be involved? The folks in Florida who gave us hanging chad? Honestly I trust those companies as much or more than I do companies like Diebold.
I understand the hesitation against needless tech influence in elections but we can do without the knee jerk reactions.
I wouldn't want Microsoft, or any other software giant for that matter, near my government.
A) They already are involved in the government (or were you under the delusion that governments still run using typewriters and mimeographs?), and B) they could hardly make it worse. Democracies require everyone to be involved to work and that includes big tech companies whether or not you like it.
Write them from the POV of a customer. "I took the wrong door into the kitchen while looking for the bathroom, and saw them putting spoiled, stinky meat into the soup..."
Your argument is that they should lie about who they are and what their motivations might be? There goes any credibility. Disagree with this completely. Do it right and with integrity or don't do it at all.
As far as OSHA and health inspectors, they can be slow to act.
Sometimes but so what? You think a negative review on Google Maps or Yelp is going to have any sort of immediate impact? Most likely people are going to ignore it or think you are some kind of a crank.
Journalists? Yeah. But what's wrong with citizens pointing out corruption on their own? You shouldn't need to work for the mainstream media to be able to make a difference.
Nothing is wrong with it but let's be honest. You and I probably don't have much of an audience. A post to Google Maps or Yelp won't really change that. Journalists do have an audience AND they have an aligned interest in getting a story of interest. Journalists are in a good position to make a real difference in the event of genuine wrongdoing. And if you don't have a story that is interesting enough to get a journalists attention then it's probably not an interesting story to anyone else either.
Employers aren't your betters that you should cringe and bow before them, thanking them for every mistreatment. They're subject to and deserving of criticism, same as any other entity.
I doubt anyone would argue to the contrary. But posting a warning rant to Google Maps is likely to be ineffective, petty, and counterproductive. If a company is really misbehaving there are FAR more effective means of exposing their misdeeds. I have seen plenty of calls to OSHA or local health inspectors. I have seen tips to local journalists. There even are internet sites actually devoted to dealing with employer misconduct. Google maps isn't one of them. If you want to expose a company do it the right way.
If I see a rant on Google maps about some employer my first thought is going to be that this is the ravings of someone who got fired for cause and is still salty about it. It's an act of petty revenge by a small minded person. It makes the person doing it look like a jerk even if every word they say happens to be true.
Yeah but that's assuming you leave a review that is identifiable you specifically by people who don't know you and why would you even do that with a good or bad review?
An anonymous negative review from a "former employee" has about as much credibility as an email from a Nigerian Prince offering you the deal of a lifetime. If you really have an ax to grind then put your name on it. If you fear retribution then there are better ways to deal with the problem then a hot headed rant on google maps.
Lets be honest. It's going to be a very rare negative review of a former employer that is A) factually correct, B) objectively written, C) emotionally cool and D) has any motivation beyond petty revenge. The only thing they are doing it trying to hurt other people because they are angry.
what's the point in having a system than only lets 'good' reviews past? It defeats the point of having reviews to begin with.
Negative reviews are only useful it they are from a reasonably objective source over verifiable evidence. A butthurt lunatic who is trying to get revenge for being fired is worse than useless. Nobody is arguing that negative reviews aren't useful.
Ooh, I don't know, would you appreciate being informed by a former employee that the restaurant you are about to eat at scrapes the rice out of the bowls and off the dishes that come off the cleared tables, washes the stuff in a sieve, makes fried rice out of it and sells it back to the next customer?
And just because said former employee writes it why exactly should I believe it to be true without any corroborating evidence? The only thing I know for certain is that if the former employee is actually a former employee then they have a built in conflict of interest. Maybe they are telling the truth but it's equally if not more likely that they are making up nonsense because they are salty about some aspect of their time with their former employer. People lie in internet reviews all the time. Pissed off people who lost their job and are angry even more so.
Abusive employers are the unprofessional ones. It is a public service to expose them.
No it really isn't. Here's how this plays out. Even if an employer is genuinely terrible your rant about them is NOT going to "expose" them or make any difference at all. What will happen is people who read it are mostly going to think you are an irrational jerk who got fired for cause and is salty about it. (which is probably true) Future prospective employers who read it will conclude "this is a person who may be willing to bash us publicly - we should hire someone else". The company will not be impacted in any meaningful way and you might be hurting yourself in the process. Even if you have a genuine gripe and they are actually the worst company ever it's still an objectively stupid thing to do and will almost certainly accomplish nothing useful. Quite possibly it will even be counterproductive.
If you want to bring attention to a shitty employer there are FAR more effective tactics to use then an emotional and probably irrational rant on google maps.
Power and money grubbing scum are not deserving of your imagined "professionalism", you have Stockholm syndrome.
Pretending that you are saving the world by posting a negative review on google maps about a company that fired you is delusional.
But what if they are actually shit?
So what if they are? I've worked for some shitty employers. I'm not about to publicly say something stupid about them that is going to hurt my future and double down on letting them screw me. Future employers might read what you wrote and there is a reasonable chance they won't look on it favorably. Unless you have enough cause to have an actual lawsuit then let it go and move on. It's not your problem anymore. Your bad review isn't saving anyone and it probably just makes you look like a petty and irrational jackass even if every word you write is the gospel truth.
Why would you publicly defame current or former employers? Not only is it rude, it's not graceful nor professional in any way to burn bridges on exit.
It's also a great way to ensure that any future prospective employers who do a background check and read your comments will not hire you. Any sane company will be very reluctant to hire someone who was willing to bash their employer in public even if they had excellent cause to do so.
Abusive employers need to be outed in all possible venues, maps are an excellent place to warn interviewees.
So we should believe everything some random pissed off person of unknown mental stability writes on the internet with no context or rebuttal? Good plan. [/sarcasm]
Top tip: Just because some person you do not know anything about claims an employer was mean to them on the internet does not automatically make it true.
The world is (supposed to be) a slightly better place every time a news reporter travels somewhere to get a story. At least in theory.
Except they pretty much don't get any stories out of North Korea. Normally I'd agree with you but the hermit kingdom is locked down so tight that the notion of journalists uncovering something big by going there is a fantasy.
I would rather play dealers against each other and get a good deal than paying MSRP every single time, because that is what you are doing when buying from Tesla. Don't like the price, tough shit.
If you think you are getting a better deal by having a middle man involved you are dumber than a rock. You aren't playing them off against each other because it doesn't matter which one you go with you still are paying a substantial markup on the cost of the vehicle. The MSRP has ZERO relationship to the actual cost of the vehicle. Remember what the S in MSRP stands for. ("Suggested") It's an arbitrarily chosen markup dealers like to pretend has some importance.
If you buy through a dealer you are simply adding to the cost of the vehicle for zero benefit to you.
There is roughly a zero chance of getting mugged in DPRK. Yes, you can go to prison for things.
Like pointing out that their Dear Leader is an asshat. Or looking at anything your handler doesn't approve of. Or photographing anything unapproved. Or talking with the locals without permission.
But so long as you play the part of good tourist, you are much safer in DPRK than Mexico (or the US).
Bullshit. I guarantee I'm safer in the US or Mexico. It's not even a close contest.
Curiosity? For all the bad things you hear about the country it doesn't seem to be the worst for tourists, I hear more bad things about Mexico.
That's because A) there is more news about Mexico and some of it is bound to be bad, B) you obviously haven't been to Mexico and C) people who have a great experience in Mexico (most of them) don't complain about it. I've worked in Mexico and spent quite a lot of time there. Mexico is great for the most part. Honestly the US is roughly just as dangerous to visit as Mexico and neither place is really especially dangerous. There is no reason to be afraid of visiting either country as a general proposition.
There are lots of things I'm curious about but I don't do the ones that carry a non trivial chance of me ending up in a labor camp. If you want to stick your head in the lions mouth knock yourself out but personally I'll just visit pleasant places. There are worse places to go (like Syria) but not a lot of them.