Obama let Chelsea Manning off so he/she has nothing to lose or gain to help any one.
With trump it may of been death by firing squad
Actually she does. Since she would be a witness and not a defendent shew can be compelled to testify concerning events, although she could plead the fifth in regards to specific criminal activities she may have engaged in. Since she was not pardoned she may be able to invoke the fifth more readily; since a pardon would have prevented further prosecution for wjhat she did, depending on its scope.
I think Starz' "social compliance security team" did their job so that Twitters' "patent and ethics supervisory team" did their job and Torrentleak got burned wrongly because of the short sightedness of both. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity - the old adage which is even more true today.
What was the downside for Starz? Twitter is more likely to take down the tweets (the path of least resistance) than fight the request; if the request is not valid they can leave fighting it up to the person who tweeted it. Most are unlikely to do that and Twitter saves time and money. Sure, a request is a legal document and Starz could be accused of making a false statement; but I have no doubt a decent lawyer colod argue it was made in a good faith belief the tweet violated Starz copyright. Is torrentfreak going to pay to litigate where copyright's boundaries are and argue against Starz? I doubt it. So in the end Starz wins.
As for the Streisand effect, I doubt much od Starz audience cares about DCNA takedown requests and just wants to see their shows.
This is not exactly socialism. When fundamental forces like supply and demand can interact to properly price goods and services markets work most efficiently. This could easily be capitalism when you think about it.
Exactly, A union, in many ways, is simply another supplier of goods. If the supply exceeds demand then they will have to price less, if it doesn't they can price higher.
1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.
2) Assange does not have a security clearance. He has never promised to keep US secrets. And there is no expectation that he keep US secrets.
3) MSM publishes classified leaks all time. Do you think the MSM has some special rights?
4) Is Assange "pretending" to be a journalist? Has he called himself that? What exactly makes somebody a real journalist?
True. IANAL, but a more plausible charge would be a conspiracy charge based on his actions with Manning. His emails, any phone conversation, chats, etc. would most probably have gone through US servers as well as had direct contacts with Manning in the US, thus establishing a nexus and US jurisdiction over his actions. It's a tenuous link but could be what is used to bring hm to trial or at least get extradition. What happens afterwards is up to the courts.
I doubt Trump would even consider a pardon. This isn't about Hillary but Manning, and I doubt his supporters, or more importantly the Trump Network, also known as Fox News, would look kindly on what would be spun as a pardon for someone who helped leak military secrets, and thus supported treason. Trump, if anything, is very careful not to piss off his core supporters or Fox News.
Never rented a thing from there, as we were blessed with some great independent video stores in the area.
I know someone who owned a mom and pop store. Porn is what kept them in business, as the profits from it were high enough to cover their costs and make a living. They carried the regular stuff as well but would not have made a go of it without the adult movies.
Did a lot of Laserdisc rentals as well.
local locations. He kept it stocked with good stuff.
We also had a place with a great LD collection, almost the whole back catalogue at one point.
When they offered a cheap DVD by mail plan where you could also turn in the DVDs at the store and exchange them for a free rental. I could get a 3 or 4 movies a week that way; and my spend at the local store was $0.
17 million voted to the EU and in the second vote (which we've already had, something the petitioners dishonestly ignore) 25 million voted for political parties that had 'leave the EU' in their party manifesto.
So forgive me if I ignore the constant stream of selfish stupid people demanding that we ignore the democratic wishes of the UK population. Perhaps instead they should focus on removing the hundreds of MPs doing their best to overturn that democracy.
Quite. Let Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK and remain in the EU as their population wants and let the UK become the United Kingdom of England and Wales. Put the hard Border at UK Scotland and France. Solves the NI backstop issue as NI would now be an independent country in the EU.
The state which prides itself on getting big government out people lives until the people need the power of big government to kill competition.
Let me explain: Big government doing something I don’t like or stopping me from doing something: Big government bad; doing something that benefits me or stops someone else from doing something I disapprove of: Big government good
Apple can either be the gateway to ios or it can be the music provider. But being both is anticompetitive.
I disagree. They are not the only choice for music, nor the largest. They also aren't the largest smartphone OS either. If they controlled the the entire distribution market, perhaps; but they don't and Spotify has choices besides Apple. To use your reasoning Spotify is anticompetitive because it controls the gateway (its app and what goes on it) and is also the music provider.
If apples service can compete with a 1.3 multiplier then ok. But not ok without.
It certainly can. Of the $10 subscription fee, iTune's P&L gets $7 and The App Store's gets $3. Apple corporate gets to combine the two and thus Apple, Inc. gets $10.
Spotify's investors would not be likely to agree to abandoning the iphone.
I agree, and there are ways for Spotify to provide its service on an iPhone without requiring an app. Access to Apple's user base is clearly desirable given its size and demographics. For me, the broader question is " Should a company be required to give free or low costs access to a user base that exists because of their product?" If the answer is yes, the follow-on is "Should they be required to compensate the all of the product suppliers equally?" This would mean services such as Spotify and Apple Music would have to allow anyone to place music on it and compensate the artist for every time it is streamed. I am sure Spotify would disagree with the idea that they should treat all artists the same and allow unfettered access to their user base to all comers and compensate them as well.
What ever happened to the concept of restricting businesses due to unfair competition? At one time TV networks could not sell products. Surely it works the same for the owner of the whole marketplace?
Spotify can chose not to be on the iPhone, or chose to stream via the web and still let you get access. if you look at Spotify, they are a music marketplace; so should they be required to accept any music and pay the same to the artists across the board for every listen?
On my iPhone, 90% of scam calls say "Scam Likely". The false positive rate seems to be 0% (No legitimate call has been falsely flag as a scam).
If Apple can detect these calls, why can't the FCC require the telcos to block them? They have at least as much info about the calls as Apple does.
Unfortunately, my experience is different. A number of legitimate solicitations from local charities I support get marked as Scam Likely. It’s the carrier, BTW, not Apple id’ing the calls.
Cohen's Optical exists in NY and surrounding area -- they do exam + glasses for $100 and have a decent range of frames for that price.
It's even cheaper to order directly from China, and I doubt that US Customs really gives a fuck about ordering Rx glasses without a prescription when they have bigger fish to fry...
AFAIK, Glasses are not a regulated item, the way drugs are, that requires a prescription to buy. A prescription is needed because the manufacturer has to know the specs for the end product. You can even buy vision correcting glasses OTC, as reading glasses.
Help me out here. IANAL, so I don't really know for sure. But she was pardoned. That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition related to her Wikileaks actions, but she is immune. I don't think it would matter if new information came out. So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?
She had her sentence commuted, she did not receive a pardon. She can be compelled to testify and could possibly plead the fifth depending on why she claims a fifth amendment right.
"This is an amazing achievement in American history," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said from the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "These are all capabilities that are leading to a day where we are launching American astronauts on American rockets from American soil."
So "leading" back to May 5, 1961, then? I had no idea NASA now has the capability to travel back in time 60 years.
My parents let me stay up to watch Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon, and I sent money earned from my first real job to help keep Viking's data gathering operation going after funding ran out. And I was actually in the room at the AAAS conference in Toronto in January 1981, when the pictures from Voyager 1's November flyby of Saturn, showing the braided rings, were released. So I'm old enough to remember what an incredible space program America had, and to understand what world-changing scientific and technological advances it produced.
All I can do now is shake my head. I feel genuine grief over what it has become of the United States since the bean counters and warmongers took over.
NASA has had a pretty robust unmanned program that used US technology to send stuff into space. the problem with manned flight, IMHO, was everything was based on the idea that Shuttle would be a reusable, fast turnaround, space transport system (STS), when it failed to live up to the grandiose expectations there was no real follow-on launch vehicle in the works. NASA had a few Shuttle v2 ideas but none of them came to fruition. Part of the problem may have been wanting to continue the idea of a reusable craft so the idea of designing and building single launch boosters and capsules was out of the picture. We could have, perhaps, used a Titan IIIc variant to launch astronauts into Earth orbit and dock with ISS, using a new crew capsule design. That would have been an extension of the old Gemini design, and followed the Russian's approach of using an existing, proven vehicle for launches. I think Shuttle, as it turned out, set the US back quite a number of years when it came to manned launches. That's not to say Shuttle wasn't a success, just that we put too much hope into it being something it turned out not to be; after all early on NASA was contemplating a launch a week.
So nice for Microsoft to think of themselves first, to the exclusion of anyone else.
They are a for profit company, what do you expect?
Embrace, extend, extinguish is still their DNA. If they really wanted to make headway, they'd make Skype an API and spawn lots of products made from its bones, so as to curtail advances from Google, FB, and other international social media competition.
The question is "what is in it for them?" if they did such a thing? They'd handle a lot more calls for free and give other companies potentially a lot of data on calling patterns that they get to keep right now.
There are MBAs in Redmond that truly don't understand how to make dough in FOSS, understand how to bring markets to their fore through transformative yet open infrastructure.
More to the point, why should they care about FOSS except how it benefits them? They're making a lot of money as is, and using FOSS when it is useful, so why bother chase a market where they have to share everything and try to compete on services when they already are successful selling what they have?
not actually ascribing to the culture of the communities of FOSS.
Let's face it. Most folks don't care about FOSS' culture or community. They simply want to sue something that helps them get something done; and are not buying into some sort of movement.
Don't worry too much about changing the minds of specific individuals. Instead, think about the drift of ideas between generations (the old definition of "memes" pre-2000). That is where the difference is made. You can't e.g. convince someone not to be racist, but you can change the statistical likelyhood of their kids being racist.
It is interesting. If this is a common pattern (and I think it is), that means Facebook is the best place for an education campaign. This is a democracy with free speech (more or less) and we're not meant to solve problems of ignorance through government force or corporate censorship, but by winning in the marketplace of ideas.
Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right. The budget needed to drown Facebook in pro-Vax truth is tiny by government standards, especially if Facebook decides to give some free "air time" to the cause.
That' a nice idea but there is a body of research that shows exposing people to counter arguments, however factual, just hardens their viewpoint rather than changing it.
My mom, God rest her, was an anti-vaxxer and a nurse. A well trained Research Nurse for Pete's sake. This isn't anything new.
I'd like to figure out why the anti-vaxxer crowd believes this crap. Not the ones selling books and movies, those guys are in it for the money. I mean the rank and file. They're not just stupid. Heck, a lot of them have college degrees. If anything that's what we need to research, how do you get so many people to believe something so wrong?
I wish I knew as well. It's not, IMHO, a function of education but fear and guilt that drives the anti-vaxers and gets people caught up in it. I knew and educated couple whose daughter was autistic. They blamed in on vaccines since she was diagnosed right after she was vaccinated. Trying to explain that correlation does not imply causation and that autism symptoms tend to be first noticed around the age kids get vaccinated was useless; all it did was cement their belief they were right. I would guess they did not want to believe they rolled the genetic dice and lost; they also believed their daughter would be cured if only the school system did what they wanted. I understand their anguish what I found bad was the mom would hand out anti-vax pamphlets to parents of young kids she saw at the bus stop "So they would not have the same thing happen to them." She did not like it when someone points out she is full of shit.
Wanting to believe something else was at fault, and not nature, is a powerful force. Add in the guilt form thinking you did something to harm your child is also a powerful motivator to strike back at the cause of the problem, even if it is not really the cause. Then you have celebrities that push your opinion and thus reenforce it; because by God if they are celebrities they have to be right and everyone knows the common man or women is smarter than some pointy headed intellectual.that has no common sense and is spending too much time in an ivory tower to see what is really happening.
Sometimes education can be a detriment, as you see patterns that aren't there because you are used to seeing patterns and drawing conclusions; and may have a world view where a giant vaccine conspiracy by big pharma makes sense. I've also run into plenty of highly educated idiots as well.
Well, hopefully that is a trend. In my experience the staff simply do change jobs and the response of employers hasn't been to give raises to counteract it but instead to come up with reasons churn is good, results in more diverse skillsets, culls the herd, etc, etc.
What you are describing is how it ideally would work but I've never heard someone claiming it is how it actually does work before.
No worries. Based on my experience, that only occurs in industries or areas where replacing staff is expensive; for example in an engineering company where an employee is finally productive after a year or two and losing him or her is expensive; thus it is better to raise their pay than replace them. I would guess it is a small subset of companies that do that; either because they can hire new staff cheaper or management is clueless. I know of several airlines who deliberately suppress wage growth so flight attendants leave after a while because it is easier to hire and train new ones than pay higher salaries plus it ensures cabin crew are always young and attractive. They want cabin crew who are looking for a short term gig that lets them travel have fun but want to eventually move on to something else.
In the last 15 years I've seen it happen once at a very young company.
Fair enough. I've seen at a number of companies, mostly larger ones where they staff could easily change jobs (engineering, technical, etc) if they felt they were not fairly compensated.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama let Chelsea Manning off so he/she has nothing to lose or gain to help any one.
With trump it may of been death by firing squad
Actually she does. Since she would be a witness and not a defendent shew can be compelled to testify concerning events, although she could plead the fifth in regards to specific criminal activities she may have engaged in. Since she was not pardoned she may be able to invoke the fifth more readily; since a pardon would have prevented further prosecution for wjhat she did, depending on its scope.
I think Starz' "social compliance security team" did their job so that Twitters' "patent and ethics supervisory team" did their job and Torrentleak got burned wrongly because of the short sightedness of both. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity - the old adage which is even more true today.
What was the downside for Starz? Twitter is more likely to take down the tweets (the path of least resistance) than fight the request; if the request is not valid they can leave fighting it up to the person who tweeted it. Most are unlikely to do that and Twitter saves time and money. Sure, a request is a legal document and Starz could be accused of making a false statement; but I have no doubt a decent lawyer colod argue it was made in a good faith belief the tweet violated Starz copyright. Is torrentfreak going to pay to litigate where copyright's boundaries are and argue against Starz? I doubt it. So in the end Starz wins.
As for the Streisand effect, I doubt much od Starz audience cares about DCNA takedown requests and just wants to see their shows.
This is not exactly socialism. When fundamental forces like supply and demand can interact to properly price goods and services markets work most efficiently. This could easily be capitalism when you think about it.
Exactly, A union, in many ways, is simply another supplier of goods. If the supply exceeds demand then they will have to price less, if it doesn't they can price higher.
libertarian with anarchist.
You're being redundant. The problem is the purists who refuse to face reality discredit the entire concept.
And there was great rejoicing in Washington and much sadness elsewhere
1) Assange is not a US citizen, and is not subject to US laws.
2) Assange does not have a security clearance. He has never promised to keep US secrets. And there is no expectation that he keep US secrets.
3) MSM publishes classified leaks all time. Do you think the MSM has some special rights?
4) Is Assange "pretending" to be a journalist? Has he called himself that? What exactly makes somebody a real journalist?
True. IANAL, but a more plausible charge would be a conspiracy charge based on his actions with Manning. His emails, any phone conversation, chats, etc. would most probably have gone through US servers as well as had direct contacts with Manning in the US, thus establishing a nexus and US jurisdiction over his actions. It's a tenuous link but could be what is used to bring hm to trial or at least get extradition. What happens afterwards is up to the courts.
I doubt Trump would even consider a pardon. This isn't about Hillary but Manning, and I doubt his supporters, or more importantly the Trump Network, also known as Fox News, would look kindly on what would be spun as a pardon for someone who helped leak military secrets, and thus supported treason. Trump, if anything, is very careful not to piss off his core supporters or Fox News.
Never rented a thing from there, as we were blessed with some great independent video stores in the area.
I know someone who owned a mom and pop store. Porn is what kept them in business, as the profits from it were high enough to cover their costs and make a living. They carried the regular stuff as well but would not have made a go of it without the adult movies.
Did a lot of Laserdisc rentals as well.
local locations. He kept it stocked with good stuff.
We also had a place with a great LD collection, almost the whole back catalogue at one point.
When they offered a cheap DVD by mail plan where you could also turn in the DVDs at the store and exchange them for a free rental. I could get a 3 or 4 movies a week that way; and my spend at the local store was $0.
Isn't a vacuum, by definition, void of all matter and at zero pressure? Or do a large majority of scientests beleave otherwise?
17 million voted to the EU and in the second vote (which we've already had, something the petitioners dishonestly ignore) 25 million voted for political parties that had 'leave the EU' in their party manifesto.
So forgive me if I ignore the constant stream of selfish stupid people demanding that we ignore the democratic wishes of the UK population. Perhaps instead they should focus on removing the hundreds of MPs doing their best to overturn that democracy.
Quite. Let Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK and remain in the EU as their population wants and let the UK become the United Kingdom of England and Wales. Put the hard Border at UK Scotland and France. Solves the NI backstop issue as NI would now be an independent country in the EU.
we Thank for their buying all new systems due to this change.
The state which prides itself on getting big government out people lives until the people need the power of big government to kill competition.
Let me explain: Big government doing something I don’t like or stopping me from doing something: Big government bad; doing something that benefits me or stops someone else from doing something I disapprove of: Big government good
Not really.
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Apple can either be the gateway to ios or it can be the music provider. But being both is anticompetitive.
I disagree. They are not the only choice for music, nor the largest. They also aren't the largest smartphone OS either. If they controlled the the entire distribution market, perhaps; but they don't and Spotify has choices besides Apple. To use your reasoning Spotify is anticompetitive because it controls the gateway (its app and what goes on it) and is also the music provider.
If apples service can compete with a 1.3 multiplier then ok. But not ok without.
It certainly can. Of the $10 subscription fee, iTune's P&L gets $7 and The App Store's gets $3. Apple corporate gets to combine the two and thus Apple, Inc. gets $10.
Spotify's investors would not be likely to agree to abandoning the iphone.
I agree, and there are ways for Spotify to provide its service on an iPhone without requiring an app. Access to Apple's user base is clearly desirable given its size and demographics. For me, the broader question is " Should a company be required to give free or low costs access to a user base that exists because of their product?" If the answer is yes, the follow-on is "Should they be required to compensate the all of the product suppliers equally?" This would mean services such as Spotify and Apple Music would have to allow anyone to place music on it and compensate the artist for every time it is streamed. I am sure Spotify would disagree with the idea that they should treat all artists the same and allow unfettered access to their user base to all comers and compensate them as well.
What ever happened to the concept of restricting businesses due to unfair competition? At one time TV networks could not sell products. Surely it works the same for the owner of the whole marketplace?
Spotify can chose not to be on the iPhone, or chose to stream via the web and still let you get access. if you look at Spotify, they are a music marketplace; so should they be required to accept any music and pay the same to the artists across the board for every listen?
On my iPhone, 90% of scam calls say "Scam Likely". The false positive rate seems to be 0% (No legitimate call has been falsely flag as a scam).
If Apple can detect these calls, why can't the FCC require the telcos to block them? They have at least as much info about the calls as Apple does.
Unfortunately, my experience is different. A number of legitimate solicitations from local charities I support get marked as Scam Likely. It’s the carrier, BTW, not Apple id’ing the calls.
Cohen's Optical exists in NY and surrounding area -- they do exam + glasses for $100 and have a decent range of frames for that price.
It's even cheaper to order directly from China, and I doubt that US Customs really gives a fuck about ordering Rx glasses without a prescription when they have bigger fish to fry...
https://hackernoon.com/how-to-...
AFAIK, Glasses are not a regulated item, the way drugs are, that requires a prescription to buy. A prescription is needed because the manufacturer has to know the specs for the end product. You can even buy vision correcting glasses OTC, as reading glasses.
Help me out here. IANAL, so I don't really know for sure. But she was pardoned. That means she can't take the fifth in any deposition related to her Wikileaks actions, but she is immune. I don't think it would matter if new information came out. So why is she refusing to talk to the Grand Jury?
She had her sentence commuted, she did not receive a pardon. She can be compelled to testify and could possibly plead the fifth depending on why she claims a fifth amendment right.
"This is an amazing achievement in American history," NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said from the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "These are all capabilities that are leading to a day where we are launching American astronauts on American rockets from American soil."
So "leading" back to May 5, 1961, then? I had no idea NASA now has the capability to travel back in time 60 years.
My parents let me stay up to watch Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon, and I sent money earned from my first real job to help keep Viking's data gathering operation going after funding ran out. And I was actually in the room at the AAAS conference in Toronto in January 1981, when the pictures from Voyager 1's November flyby of Saturn, showing the braided rings, were released. So I'm old enough to remember what an incredible space program America had, and to understand what world-changing scientific and technological advances it produced.
All I can do now is shake my head. I feel genuine grief over what it has become of the United States since the bean counters and warmongers took over.
NASA has had a pretty robust unmanned program that used US technology to send stuff into space. the problem with manned flight, IMHO, was everything was based on the idea that Shuttle would be a reusable, fast turnaround, space transport system (STS), when it failed to live up to the grandiose expectations there was no real follow-on launch vehicle in the works. NASA had a few Shuttle v2 ideas but none of them came to fruition. Part of the problem may have been wanting to continue the idea of a reusable craft so the idea of designing and building single launch boosters and capsules was out of the picture. We could have, perhaps, used a Titan IIIc variant to launch astronauts into Earth orbit and dock with ISS, using a new crew capsule design. That would have been an extension of the old Gemini design, and followed the Russian's approach of using an existing, proven vehicle for launches. I think Shuttle, as it turned out, set the US back quite a number of years when it came to manned launches. That's not to say Shuttle wasn't a success, just that we put too much hope into it being something it turned out not to be; after all early on NASA was contemplating a launch a week.
>
So nice for Microsoft to think of themselves first, to the exclusion of anyone else.
They are a for profit company, what do you expect?
Embrace, extend, extinguish is still their DNA. If they really wanted to make headway, they'd make Skype an API and spawn lots of products made from its bones, so as to curtail advances from Google, FB, and other international social media competition.
The question is "what is in it for them?" if they did such a thing? They'd handle a lot more calls for free and give other companies potentially a lot of data on calling patterns that they get to keep right now.
There are MBAs in Redmond that truly don't understand how to make dough in FOSS, understand how to bring markets to their fore through transformative yet open infrastructure.
More to the point, why should they care about FOSS except how it benefits them? They're making a lot of money as is, and using FOSS when it is useful, so why bother chase a market where they have to share everything and try to compete on services when they already are successful selling what they have?
not actually ascribing to the culture of the communities of FOSS.
Let's face it. Most folks don't care about FOSS' culture or community. They simply want to sue something that helps them get something done; and are not buying into some sort of movement.
Don't worry too much about changing the minds of specific individuals. Instead, think about the drift of ideas between generations (the old definition of "memes" pre-2000). That is where the difference is made. You can't e.g. convince someone not to be racist, but you can change the statistical likelyhood of their kids being racist.
Good points.
It is interesting. If this is a common pattern (and I think it is), that means Facebook is the best place for an education campaign. This is a democracy with free speech (more or less) and we're not meant to solve problems of ignorance through government force or corporate censorship, but by winning in the marketplace of ideas.
Actually being right is a huge advantage in convincing people that you're right. The budget needed to drown Facebook in pro-Vax truth is tiny by government standards, especially if Facebook decides to give some free "air time" to the cause.
That' a nice idea but there is a body of research that shows exposing people to counter arguments, however factual, just hardens their viewpoint rather than changing it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/sc...
https://www.scientificamerican...
They also tend to change the argument to avoid facing inconvenient facts.
https://www.scientificamerican...
My mom, God rest her, was an anti-vaxxer and a nurse. A well trained Research Nurse for Pete's sake. This isn't anything new. I'd like to figure out why the anti-vaxxer crowd believes this crap. Not the ones selling books and movies, those guys are in it for the money. I mean the rank and file. They're not just stupid. Heck, a lot of them have college degrees. If anything that's what we need to research, how do you get so many people to believe something so wrong?
I wish I knew as well. It's not, IMHO, a function of education but fear and guilt that drives the anti-vaxers and gets people caught up in it. I knew and educated couple whose daughter was autistic. They blamed in on vaccines since she was diagnosed right after she was vaccinated. Trying to explain that correlation does not imply causation and that autism symptoms tend to be first noticed around the age kids get vaccinated was useless; all it did was cement their belief they were right. I would guess they did not want to believe they rolled the genetic dice and lost; they also believed their daughter would be cured if only the school system did what they wanted. I understand their anguish what I found bad was the mom would hand out anti-vax pamphlets to parents of young kids she saw at the bus stop "So they would not have the same thing happen to them." She did not like it when someone points out she is full of shit.
Wanting to believe something else was at fault, and not nature, is a powerful force. Add in the guilt form thinking you did something to harm your child is also a powerful motivator to strike back at the cause of the problem, even if it is not really the cause. Then you have celebrities that push your opinion and thus reenforce it; because by God if they are celebrities they have to be right and everyone knows the common man or women is smarter than some pointy headed intellectual .that has no common sense and is spending too much time in an ivory tower to see what is really happening.
Sometimes education can be a detriment, as you see patterns that aren't there because you are used to seeing patterns and drawing conclusions; and may have a world view where a giant vaccine conspiracy by big pharma makes sense. I've also run into plenty of highly educated idiots as well.
Well, hopefully that is a trend. In my experience the staff simply do change jobs and the response of employers hasn't been to give raises to counteract it but instead to come up with reasons churn is good, results in more diverse skillsets, culls the herd, etc, etc.
What you are describing is how it ideally would work but I've never heard someone claiming it is how it actually does work before.
No worries. Based on my experience, that only occurs in industries or areas where replacing staff is expensive; for example in an engineering company where an employee is finally productive after a year or two and losing him or her is expensive; thus it is better to raise their pay than replace them. I would guess it is a small subset of companies that do that; either because they can hire new staff cheaper or management is clueless. I know of several airlines who deliberately suppress wage growth so flight attendants leave after a while because it is easier to hire and train new ones than pay higher salaries plus it ensures cabin crew are always young and attractive. They want cabin crew who are looking for a short term gig that lets them travel have fun but want to eventually move on to something else.
In the last 15 years I've seen it happen once at a very young company.
Fair enough. I've seen at a number of companies, mostly larger ones where they staff could easily change jobs (engineering, technical, etc) if they felt they were not fairly compensated.