It is not the PC crowd being pissed off about something you say or do that worries me. It is their ability to influence an organization or person who has direct control over whether or not you stay employed at a certain company or otherwise fuck with your life or livelihood. That is what pisses me off.
If someone got a person fired for something said that otherwise wouldn't bother anyone, that person had better start looking over their shoulder for retribution (preferably physical retribution such as teeth knocked out by a hard right hook).
There's truly no tough guy like an Internet Tough Guy.
Because life is generally a long series of tests. You come to college to learn what you're going to have to know on demand for what is supposed to be your entire life.
Unless you choose to spend it sitting exams as a hobby, then life is nothing like a long series of tests. And most people will not spend their adult working life having to answer on demand questions about what they learned at college.
And the cuts may just be starting: one activist investor (SpringOwl) says the total number of employees should be closer to 3,000 for a company with its revenue.
Why would anyone think there's a constant proper relationship between revenue and the number of employees across all businesses? I mean, let's just skip right over that employees are paid different amounts, businesses take different amount of human effort to create the wealth, the market will support different prices for different services, and the business will have a different amounts necessary to pay their vendors and capital requirements.
Suppose I have a farm business. One year I decide to spin-off the part of the company that picks the tomatoes. The previous company suddenly has much more revenue per employee. Should it go out and hire more people? The tomato picking company has little revenue per employee. Should the tomato picking company fire a bunch of people. Of course not.
It is just barely possible that the professional investors involved have factored in these considerations and not just made up a number by sticking a wet finger in the air.
Yahoo was a 'portal' business more than ever a search engine. More of a curated portal than a general purpose place to find anything and everything on the 'net.
And the string of acquisitions by Mayer, handing out hundreds of millions to buy companies of questionable value from her friends, former Googlers, brings home the self-referential self-dealing of big business execs.
I find it hard to believe that she was simply given the company cheque book and told to buy anything she fancied with no reference to anyone else at all.
And if she wasn't, it's stupid to blame her alone for making questionable purchases. Surely companies the size of Yahoo have investment committees, audit committees, due diligence committees, and so on?
Mayer has a bunch of money due solely to incredibly good luck and timing. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with her abilities (obviously), education, or any of that. She was in the right place at the right time.
This applies to most really rich people, and certainly to anyone born with well off parents who could give them a good start in life.
The idea that anyone can pull themselves from poverty to billionaire by sheer talent and hard work is just a fairy tale designed, like religion before it, to stop people realising the truth of the system they are in.
The term "the British Isles" definitely includes Ireland, and it's a geographical rather than political term. The British Isles include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are also not part of the United Kingdom.
This stuff is quite confusing even if you're English. Er, British.
There's only one speed which is safe for adequately careless kids. 0. Anecdote. Two weeks ago I was driving home. There were a lot of cars on the side of the roads and my neighborhood has a lot of kids so though the speed limit is 25, I was doing somewhere between 10 and 15. And then right out in front of me shoots a kid out of the driveway in a gokart, he hits the road spins out and stops right in front of my car. Barely stopped in time, and had I been 1 second sooner, that kid would have been run over. He rights himself and tears off in his gokart doing about 20 mph down the street. I'm lucky I was 1 second later because no amount of careful driving would avoid an incident like that because with people with effed up views of driving like yourself, had it gone to court you'd have probably found me at fault.
There will always be accidents. That doesn't mean you can't reduce their number and severity.
As a pedestrian, I hate zebra crossings. It is hard to tell if a driver has seen you and is going to stop.
I also hate them as a driver, as it's amazing the number of people who sort of hang around them with no clear indication of whether they want to cross the road or not.
They're better than nothing, but if you want cars to stop for pedestrians, put up a pelican crossing (with actual red, amber and green lights). Obviously it's a financial issue.
You think you're getting jack shit if a fucking TAXI hits you? They have laws for that. They bought them decades ago. Good luck.
Yes, the really expensive insurance that actual taxi drivers have to pay for to legally carry passengers is clearly just another part of the government/taxi company conspiracy.
I got rid of my car to work a 7 minute walk from my office in a downtown area.
Oh wow, if only everyone else was clever enough to think of that we could get rid of all the cars in the world! I hope someone's nominated you for the Nobel Economics Prize or whatever.
The only way in which Uber drivers are not taxi drivers is the legalistic one that they don't have actual taximeters in their cars. This is strictly true, but pathetic as an argument.
Whether you define them as operating "carriages for hire" or "limousines" or "small private buses" or any other combination of words that excludes "taxi", Uber drivers are basically using cars to move people from A to B for a fee.
Except uber decreases your chance for customers if you actually do that... Hence, they aren't really free to do what they want.
Do they really do that? Or is it the customers who decide to select the Uber driver with the highest star ratings and the most reviews?
By that logic, Amazon book authors who publish on Amazon must be employees of Amazon, and 3rd party developers who publish on Google Play must be employees of Google, since both companies will give higher visibility to their highest rated and most prolific writers/developers (assuming all the other search criteria given by customers are equal).
The freedom to not earn any money is a pretty meaningless sort of freedom.
It's like saying that pure laissez faire capitalism gives me the freedom to do whatever I want, including staying at home and starving to death. Wow.
Be happy for the consumers — we got cheaper rides, that are also much easier to hail.
And no doubt the cost of sweeping chimneys rose once they outlawed using five year olds. And cotton's probably dearer than if slaves were still used as labour.
Government is the wrong answer, the correct answer is to use or to create an alternative.
Some of us believe in having functioning defence, legal and law enforcement systems, for example. Whether they're organised by a coalition of democratically elected socialist workers communes or a fascist industrial-military junta, they still require some form of government.
Like communism, libertarianism only really works in small groups and is hard to scale up to a country with tens or hundreds of millions of people.
Uber are gaining unfair competitive advantage by ignoring the law. It's just the same as how Microsoft acquired their near monopoly over PC operating systems in the 1990s and 2000s. It was the opposite of free market competition.
Slashdot Mirror
In Germany when refugees made sexual comments to women on the street, it was called sexual assault. They are just words, toughen up.
Except where it was actual sexual touching/assault, yeah.
Even if someone pinches your bottom, your life is not profoundly changed, you had an unpleasant experience for about 2 seconds.
As a guy, if someone grabbed your balls you'd just laugh it off? Even if it was your boss at work?
being accused of being a *itch
and i actually one Halloween day had a nice discussion on the merits of Brooms for the purpose of Flying.
Why would you censor the 'w' in "witch"?
Oh, I assumed they meant "bitch" and I couldn't work out what the fuck it had to do with Harry Potter.
It is not the PC crowd being pissed off about something you say or do that worries me. It is their ability to influence an organization or person who has direct control over whether or not you stay employed at a certain company or otherwise fuck with your life or livelihood. That is what pisses me off.
If someone got a person fired for something said that otherwise wouldn't bother anyone, that person had better start looking over their shoulder for retribution (preferably physical retribution such as teeth knocked out by a hard right hook).
There's truly no tough guy like an Internet Tough Guy.
Because life is generally a long series of tests. You come to college to learn what you're going to have to know on demand for what is supposed to be your entire life.
Unless you choose to spend it sitting exams as a hobby, then life is nothing like a long series of tests. And most people will not spend their adult working life having to answer on demand questions about what they learned at college.
Why would anyone think there's a constant proper relationship between revenue and the number of employees across all businesses? I mean, let's just skip right over that employees are paid different amounts, businesses take different amount of human effort to create the wealth, the market will support different prices for different services, and the business will have a different amounts necessary to pay their vendors and capital requirements.
Suppose I have a farm business. One year I decide to spin-off the part of the company that picks the tomatoes. The previous company suddenly has much more revenue per employee. Should it go out and hire more people? The tomato picking company has little revenue per employee. Should the tomato picking company fire a bunch of people. Of course not.
It is just barely possible that the professional investors involved have factored in these considerations and not just made up a number by sticking a wet finger in the air.
Yahoo was a 'portal' business more than ever a search engine. More of a curated portal than a general purpose place to find anything and everything on the 'net.
Yahoo used to be the cool kids version of AOL.
And the string of acquisitions by Mayer, handing out hundreds of millions to buy companies of questionable value from her friends, former Googlers, brings home the self-referential self-dealing of big business execs.
I find it hard to believe that she was simply given the company cheque book and told to buy anything she fancied with no reference to anyone else at all.
And if she wasn't, it's stupid to blame her alone for making questionable purchases. Surely companies the size of Yahoo have investment committees, audit committees, due diligence committees, and so on?
Mayer has a bunch of money due solely to incredibly good luck and timing. Nothing more. It has nothing to do with her abilities (obviously), education, or any of that. She was in the right place at the right time.
This applies to most really rich people, and certainly to anyone born with well off parents who could give them a good start in life.
The idea that anyone can pull themselves from poverty to billionaire by sheer talent and hard work is just a fairy tale designed, like religion before it, to stop people realising the truth of the system they are in.
Release "all information" to the public? What about war plans, nuclear launch codes, the names of police informants, and encryption keys?
Plus the passwords to the government's online banking accounts.
For example, the Martian Ambassador to France has diplomatic immunity in France, but not in Australia.
I appear to have missed a rather important news story recently.
I take it we're on good terms and it wasn't some War of the Worlds scenario at least?
I'm all for all the allies I can get and Mah faither's fowk come frae Scootlund.
An impression worthy of Dick van Dyke himself.
And some idiot in Scotland is looking up at airplanes flying over at 45,000 feet, shaking his fist shouting, "Nemo me impune lacessit!"
Translation: dinna fuck wi' me pal!
The term "the British Isles" definitely includes Ireland, and it's a geographical rather than political term. The British Isles include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are also not part of the United Kingdom.
This stuff is quite confusing even if you're English. Er, British.
Anyways, the whole thing is funny; they're offended that an airplane flew over at 45,000ft without their permission
Because of course no one in America would care if a Russian or French plane flew over mainland USA at 45,000 ft without permission.
There's only one speed which is safe for adequately careless kids. 0. Anecdote. Two weeks ago I was driving home. There were a lot of cars on the side of the roads and my neighborhood has a lot of kids so though the speed limit is 25, I was doing somewhere between 10 and 15. And then right out in front of me shoots a kid out of the driveway in a gokart, he hits the road spins out and stops right in front of my car. Barely stopped in time, and had I been 1 second sooner, that kid would have been run over. He rights himself and tears off in his gokart doing about 20 mph down the street. I'm lucky I was 1 second later because no amount of careful driving would avoid an incident like that because with people with effed up views of driving like yourself, had it gone to court you'd have probably found me at fault.
There will always be accidents. That doesn't mean you can't reduce their number and severity.
As a pedestrian, I hate zebra crossings. It is hard to tell if a driver has seen you and is going to stop.
I also hate them as a driver, as it's amazing the number of people who sort of hang around them with no clear indication of whether they want to cross the road or not.
They're better than nothing, but if you want cars to stop for pedestrians, put up a pelican crossing (with actual red, amber and green lights). Obviously it's a financial issue.
IF IT IS as bad as you say, why do so many sign up as Uber drivers? No one points a gun at their heads.
I imagine it's like the poor, naive teenagers who end up in prostitution because they've seen Pretty Woman.
You think you're getting jack shit if a fucking TAXI hits you? They have laws for that. They bought them decades ago. Good luck.
Yes, the really expensive insurance that actual taxi drivers have to pay for to legally carry passengers is clearly just another part of the government/taxi company conspiracy.
You are a fucking idiot.
I got rid of my car to work a 7 minute walk from my office in a downtown area.
Oh wow, if only everyone else was clever enough to think of that we could get rid of all the cars in the world! I hope someone's nominated you for the Nobel Economics Prize or whatever.
The only way in which Uber drivers are not taxi drivers is the legalistic one that they don't have actual taximeters in their cars. This is strictly true, but pathetic as an argument.
Whether you define them as operating "carriages for hire" or "limousines" or "small private buses" or any other combination of words that excludes "taxi", Uber drivers are basically using cars to move people from A to B for a fee.
Except uber decreases your chance for customers if you actually do that... Hence, they aren't really free to do what they want.
Do they really do that? Or is it the customers who decide to select the Uber driver with the highest star ratings and the most reviews?
By that logic, Amazon book authors who publish on Amazon must be employees of Amazon, and 3rd party developers who publish on Google Play must be employees of Google, since both companies will give higher visibility to their highest rated and most prolific writers/developers (assuming all the other search criteria given by customers are equal).
The freedom to not earn any money is a pretty meaningless sort of freedom.
It's like saying that pure laissez faire capitalism gives me the freedom to do whatever I want, including staying at home and starving to death. Wow.
Be happy for the consumers — we got cheaper rides, that are also much easier to hail.
And no doubt the cost of sweeping chimneys rose once they outlawed using five year olds. And cotton's probably dearer than if slaves were still used as labour.
Cheap consumer prices are not an absolute good.
Government is the wrong answer, the correct answer is to use or to create an alternative.
Some of us believe in having functioning defence, legal and law enforcement systems, for example. Whether they're organised by a coalition of democratically elected socialist workers communes or a fascist industrial-military junta, they still require some form of government.
Like communism, libertarianism only really works in small groups and is hard to scale up to a country with tens or hundreds of millions of people.
Competition is a wonderful thing
Fair competition is a wonderful thing.
Uber are gaining unfair competitive advantage by ignoring the law. It's just the same as how Microsoft acquired their near monopoly over PC operating systems in the 1990s and 2000s. It was the opposite of free market competition.
" then a reduction in running costs will eventually offset the initial purchase cost"
Almost impossible.
The single biggest cost in running a car is depreciation. And heavy use actually makes that worse.
Depreciation is not a cash cost like fuel.