Well then, it wouldn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to say "NEW CONSOLES HERE!!!!! GET YER NEW CONSOLES!!!!!!" and have them prominently displayed when the only people who are getting them have already decided to purchase one... now, would it?
Except I don't think it was an issue of them being jerks. I had been there a few days before to replace an item, and they couldn't have been more helpful. The same guy was there and he was very nice, still, but wouldn't even let me pre-preorder.
Next Generation is reporting that Gamestop has declined to take preorders for the Wii and PS3, on the grounds that they don't know how many units will be available at launch.
For those who missed that:
1) They're not taking pre-orders 2) because they don't know how many units will be available at launch 3) probably because Nintendo has difficulty making an estimate 4) because they don't know how many people they can count on to buy 5) because they aren't accepting pre-orders, which would tell them how many they can count on to buy.
The iPod is practically on the cusp (if not already) of being one of those universal words that is synonymous with "portable music player"
Really? This is suspect. The iPod has a very distinctive appearance, and a certain aura about it. I can't imagine someone calling their dull black Sony mp3 player an "iPod" without being corrected. Honest question: have people really been using "iPod" this way?
Which company makes the DS ? Which makes the GP2X ? Do you really think the company making the GP2X has as much marketing money as Nintendo ?
WAHHHHHHHH!!!! MOMMY!!!!! It's not FAIR!!!!! We can't sell a product because THEY have more money than we do!!!
Do you really think any business starts, or becomes huge, relying on only the money contributed by its founders? They can issue what people with a clue call "bonds". They can sell "shares". There's a whole body of knowledge on how to raise money for a venture. It's called "finance". If they really have a superior product, they can do what everyone else does and raise the capital to market it.
What makes you believe the people making the GP2X trivialize the importance of marketing ?
The fact that I (except a few times in passing), and most people, hadn't heard of it, while I, and most people, have heard of the DS. (Before you whine again, the difference can't be accounted for merely by release date difference. Any significant marketing effort should have penetrated by this time.)
How come "open source community" came into this discussion, are you actually believing "GP2X = open source community" ?
I didn't say GP2X = open source community. What I said (or rather, implied) was that the GP2X is an instance of an open source product trying to gain market share with consumers.
You also believe that the community is not reaching to people and bringing the products to them ?
Um... yeah. I haven't seen a commercial for a Linux-based PC. I haven't seen a marketing campaign to introduce to indifferent mouth breaters the advantages of a Linux-based OS. I haven't seen seminars for laymen explaining to them how to convert. I *have*, however, seen Linux distro forums tell newbies, "SHUT UP!!! You're getting our help for FREE!!!! You have NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN if something goes wrong. If you can't figure it out it, you can just go to hell." (What they *should* be saying to newbies is "oh, you want to try out a Linux-based OS? Great! Now, would you prefer the facial option, or that I swallow?")
FYI the open source community understands pretty well what prevents home users access to "Linux-based OS's or FireFox, or OpenOffice" (like preventing any OS to be preinstalled on new computers), and no, that's not because they're not trying, that's all because of one company.
No, that's you whining again. Informing people of a product is real work. Making it so they can use it off the shelf is real work. Getting retailers to stock it is real work. Microsoft does that. Linux companies don't (for home users). Getting a Linux-based PC for your home is a geek's odyssey, not something the average consumer wants to handle. Microsoft does not have control over EVERY possible distribution channel. Get a manufacturer to install it, and sell it direct to home users like Gateway or People's PC did.
Nintendo is not behaving like this evil company at all, but GP2X just doesn't have the money, the features, the price, the quality, and the brand of Nintendo handheld.
Uh...huh. Because Nintendo has always had those things. Someone GAVE them brand recognition. Someone THREW free money at them. Someone IMPLEMENTED free features for them. Someone MADE it high quality for them. Someone TOOK THE RISK of the large scale production necessary to get the price down for them.
The makers of the GP2X are free do everything Nintendo did, but they don't. They -- if you consider yourself an informed advocate of their position -- prefer to just bitch about how unfair life is.
The open source community thinks that if they make the software just a li'l better, or if Microsoft botches another release just one more time, everyone will flock to Linux. But they won't. They're lazy. The software is fine. The marketing isn't. But your treatment of those willing to tell them the truth is duly noted.
The EyeToy is nice but I never viewed it as being good for more than about 15 minutes of fun.
I introduced my mom (59 at time of introduction to game) to Kinetic for the PS2 (which uses the Eyetoy). It's a program that takes you through a fitness routine. You can match your positions to those of a character on the screen for stretching, and then you do fitness-related games, like reaching for a blue spot while avoiding a bouncing red ball. Ever since, she spends 60+ minutes on it per day, 3-6 days a week, and enjoys it very much and says he has more energy and less pain in her knees. So, some people get a lot of value out of it.
The Wii does, of course, have a lot of potential, and I'm very excited about what it will have to offer. I'm hoping for a game where you holster a Wiimote to each arm and leg, and then it guides you through a dance. It would be able to detect and command a lot more than DDR: twirls, arm rolls, claps, kicks, etc. in addition to steps. If no one makes it, I'd be glad to program it and give it (at least part of it) away, if only I could get an SDK. (Cost not a problem, Nintendo's restrictions are.)
Because people aren't aware of this or don't want to jump through the hoops, whereas they already have a DS. Don't trivialize the importance of marketing, i.e., letting people know your product actually exists. How many consumers have a DS? How many have a GP2X? How many have heard of the DS? The GP2X?
When the open source community understands the importance of actually *reaching* people, and bringing the products *to* them, they will have a better understanding of why so few home users use Linux-based OS's or FireFox, or OpenOffice.
Why doesn't some console maker make it possible to play online for free, but then on top of that sell a separate pay-service that is policed? Then if parents want something with inappropriate behavior dealth with, or something like that, they can pay for it? (Presumably that could be integrated with the existing parental control features.)
Who wants to "compete" with YouTube's "business model"?
Damn you, YouTube! I can lose money through a free video service *much* faster than you can! I can have an even sketchier idea of how to recover costs! I can make it easier for people to block ads!
Is it ethical to make your posts appear with that ridiculous font that's harder on my eyes?
Re:Alternative approach for ethical coders
on
EU Patent Wars to Resume
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And if a company fires you for publishing your ideas in this way, well, it's not really the company that you wanted to work for in the first place.
Undermining your employer's patents is the kind of thing you're going to want to do anonymously in the first place. They're not stupid, and someone who does this to them is going to have a hard time finding employment if they know about it.
Since you're "liberating" the patent "technology" (and I use that term loosely), if you have to put a name behind it for legal reasons (for example, if linuxg4mer6969 doesn't count as an prior user of what's described in the patent), then give the reconstructed code to someone else to claim credit for it.
I don't see the problem. If a company doesn't want to bother with unions, then they should hire people who have no desire to form alliances with other people.
No, if they don't want to bother with unions, they should not hire people from unions or require that they sign yellow-dog contracts as a condition of hiring. They shouldn't generalize that to some bizarre "opposition to forming alliances", as sloppy thinkers would be tempted to do.
Something that you're not stating: Companies form alliances to further their ends all the time, even using the government as a very big stick.
Right. I didn't say that. I didn't also explain Ricardian comparative advantage, Say's Law, or Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk's third cause of originary interest. I only have so much time and space in a post. If something's not important for the point I'm making, I probably won't mention it. It doesn't mean I haven't thought about it. It doesn't means you're telling me anything I don't already know. It doesn't mean it contradicts what I said. It definitely doesn't mean you're smarter than me -- you're not.
It seems fair that individual workers should have the right to form alliances as well. And if those alliances play hardball, I don't really see why people such as yourself should cry foul. Using the government as a weapon is the sort of hardball that companies play, but you don't see me spilling whine on the floor.
Then you missed the point. Whatever is *right* or *wrong*, the point I was making was about long-term interests of workers. Maybe turnabout is fair play, and maybe it's not. But would fucking over your customer generally enhance the price you can charge for the input you provide, over the long term? You have no trouble understanding why it wouldn't work for the asshat grocery store. Why can't you understand the same thing about unions? They could mandate all the goodies they want -- they can't make businesses choose to locate there, they can't make investors send money there.
>So, it turns out you actually agree with the "cheap labor conservative" position.
Careful now. I'm usually a total asshole, but I'm feeling generous today,
Look at your sig, total asshole. How can I expect that you've given any serious thought to this issue whatsoever? You honestly think the conservative position is "you benefit from a minimum wage, and we won't raise it any higher, because we like cheap labor". Those who don't know their opponents' arguments don't truly understand their own.
I expect you to understand that we have two different underlying moral systems which are self-consistent internally,...
I saw it coming a mile away. I've seen it a hundred times before: the whole, "hey man, we're the same really, we... just have different viewpoints! We both want what's best for the world!" spiel. I'm not impressed. Let me look at what you're claiming here:
I expect you to understand that we have two different underlying moral systems which are self-consistent internally,
No, I do not expect that you have a self-consistent moral system. When you put in your sig a statement in which you claim your intellectual opponents want people to be near starving so they'll have to accept a too-low minimum wage, that is ironclad proof you do not give your own worldview the kind of scrutiny that would cull the contradictions. So, I can't accept this.
I expect you to understand that our respective moral systems give a foundation to the specific arguments we make here. I expect you to argue your points from your moral system. I expect you to understand the arguments that I make are made from within my moral system.
Actually, I expect you to be able to distinguish between arguments of "is" and arguments of "should". Well, expected. You clearly can't. The question was about the practical effects of union/grocery store asshattery, not about its rightness.
Yes, you and I agree -- you're making my exact point. It's not hypocrisy to say, "I'm a pacifist except when violence is necessary". It's just:
a) a non-standard definition of pacifism
b) The military scientist who wants to use the GNU-non-military'd code thinks the exact same thing; he just has a different conception of what's "necessary". Now how morally superior do you feel to him? ("you" referring to an anti-war individual making the statement above in quotation marks)
Perhaps. But there are more possibilities. For example, if you're locked in the room of a prison, with just you and a rat, and no vegetation. Would a vegan still not eat the rat? (Ignore "ew" factor for a moment.) That's an absurd case of course, but whether your are a "pacifist" or "vegan" depends not merely on what you *actually* do, but what you *would* do. Looking just at what I *have* done, I've been a "pacifist" for the last probably 5 years, because I never actually used violence. However, I stood ready to if necessary, so I wasn't really a pacifist. And had I not been willing to, and people knew this, I'd have a lot less stuff since people would take it with impunity.
So, it's ridiculously dishonest (for anyone -- not attributing this to you) to say, "well, I just don't see a lot of people trying to take my stuff, so I don't see the need to use violence." First of all, they don't take your stuff *because* they expect you to violently defend it or authorize another's use of violence in defense of it. And second, if in other circumstances you would use violence, then you do "see the need to use violence".
I believe his point was that veganism, like preference for non-violence, must yield to the practical:
-It's great to avoid violence, but not at the cost of your own death.
-It's great to avoid eating meat, but if that's your only alternative, you shouldn't let yourself or your kid die to support such an idea.
If you allow exceptions to veganism for necessity, you should allow the same exceptions to whatever "pacifism" you want to simultaneously endorse.
(on a side note, most "pacifists" in the sense of "no violence at all" aren't. That would imply they can make no defense action except to run away even if someone tries to take all food they are about to eat.)
Hey, I'm not claiming to have the one that's true here. I'm just saying, there are religions that say "there's some ghost behind the scenes pulling levers to control everything, whom we can't observe in any way except through unscientific signs", and there are religions that say, "as a factual, testable matter, the earth and all life was literally constructed in six days". His is the latter.
I've read some of his stuff, and he actually seems very intelligent and capable of logical reasoning. You just, well, kinda have to get past his hatred of Jews, refusal to recognize Israel, fascist ideology, Holocaust denial, and slavish adherence to a pretty obviously false religion. (I think most of those are just to maintain his support from Iranians.)
That's true, but it's not nearly as malicious as you make it sound. Employers have choices: they can pay to eliminate the hazard, and then have to pay less to get workers to take the less risky job, or they can not eliminate the hazard, and have to pay more to get people to take the more risky job. Economists call this a "compensating differential". It's seen in the difference in pay between regular window washers and high-rise window washers, for example. It can also be negative in jobs that people enjoy doing (i.e., they make less than those of comparable skill and experience because the job is fun, like astronauts).
There is always going to be some level of safety below which people will say, "forget it, it's not worth it, I'd rather just take the cash than make myself 1 in a million less likely to die". For example, would you take a 20% pay cut to halve your risk of death on the job?
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdotters vetted this before
The deal is that, if you cede ground to an asshat, you are an asshat. "For evil to succeed, it is only necessary that..."
Well then, it wouldn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to say "NEW CONSOLES HERE!!!!! GET YER NEW CONSOLES!!!!!!" and have them prominently displayed when the only people who are getting them have already decided to purchase one ... now, would it?
I guess they want to be cockteases.
Except I don't think it was an issue of them being jerks. I had been there a few days before to replace an item, and they couldn't have been more helpful. The same guy was there and he was very nice, still, but wouldn't even let me pre-preorder.
Two weeks ago I asked them if they would do exactly this for me (have a pre-preorder list and call me when it's available) and they wouldn't :-(
Next Generation is reporting that Gamestop has declined to take preorders for the Wii and PS3, on the grounds that they don't know how many units will be available at launch.
For those who missed that:
1) They're not taking pre-orders
2) because they don't know how many units will be available at launch
3) probably because Nintendo has difficulty making an estimate
4) because they don't know how many people they can count on to buy
5) because they aren't accepting pre-orders, which would tell them how many they can count on to buy.
The iPod is practically on the cusp (if not already) of being one of those universal words that is synonymous with "portable music player"
Really? This is suspect. The iPod has a very distinctive appearance, and a certain aura about it. I can't imagine someone calling their dull black Sony mp3 player an "iPod" without being corrected. Honest question: have people really been using "iPod" this way?
These are only a few of the reasons actually.
They're by far the most significant ones.
Which company makes the DS ? Which makes the GP2X ? Do you really think the company making the GP2X has as much marketing money as Nintendo ?
WAHHHHHHHH!!!! MOMMY!!!!! It's not FAIR!!!!! We can't sell a product because THEY have more money than we do!!!
Do you really think any business starts, or becomes huge, relying on only the money contributed by its founders? They can issue what people with a clue call "bonds". They can sell "shares". There's a whole body of knowledge on how to raise money for a venture. It's called "finance". If they really have a superior product, they can do what everyone else does and raise the capital to market it.
What makes you believe the people making the GP2X trivialize the importance of marketing ?
The fact that I (except a few times in passing), and most people, hadn't heard of it, while I, and most people, have heard of the DS. (Before you whine again, the difference can't be accounted for merely by release date difference. Any significant marketing effort should have penetrated by this time.)
How come "open source community" came into this discussion, are you actually believing "GP2X = open source community" ?
I didn't say GP2X = open source community. What I said (or rather, implied) was that the GP2X is an instance of an open source product trying to gain market share with consumers.
You also believe that the community is not reaching to people and bringing the products to them ?
Um... yeah. I haven't seen a commercial for a Linux-based PC. I haven't seen a marketing campaign to introduce to indifferent mouth breaters the advantages of a Linux-based OS. I haven't seen seminars for laymen explaining to them how to convert. I *have*, however, seen Linux distro forums tell newbies, "SHUT UP!!! You're getting our help for FREE!!!! You have NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN if something goes wrong. If you can't figure it out it, you can just go to hell." (What they *should* be saying to newbies is "oh, you want to try out a Linux-based OS? Great! Now, would you prefer the facial option, or that I swallow?")
FYI the open source community understands pretty well what prevents home users access to "Linux-based OS's or FireFox, or OpenOffice" (like preventing any OS to be preinstalled on new computers), and no, that's not because they're not trying, that's all because of one company.
No, that's you whining again. Informing people of a product is real work. Making it so they can use it off the shelf is real work. Getting retailers to stock it is real work. Microsoft does that. Linux companies don't (for home users). Getting a Linux-based PC for your home is a geek's odyssey, not something the average consumer wants to handle. Microsoft does not have control over EVERY possible distribution channel. Get a manufacturer to install it, and sell it direct to home users like Gateway or People's PC did.
Nintendo is not behaving like this evil company at all, but GP2X just doesn't have the money, the features, the price, the quality, and the brand of Nintendo handheld.
Uh...huh. Because Nintendo has always had those things. Someone GAVE them brand recognition. Someone THREW free money at them. Someone IMPLEMENTED free features for them. Someone MADE it high quality for them. Someone TOOK THE RISK of the large scale production necessary to get the price down for them.
The makers of the GP2X are free do everything Nintendo did, but they don't. They -- if you consider yourself an informed advocate of their position -- prefer to just bitch about how unfair life is.
The open source community thinks that if they make the software just a li'l better, or if Microsoft botches another release just one more time, everyone will flock to Linux. But they won't. They're lazy. The software is fine. The marketing isn't. But your treatment of those willing to tell them the truth is duly noted.
The EyeToy is nice but I never viewed it as being good for more than about 15 minutes of fun.
I introduced my mom (59 at time of introduction to game) to Kinetic for the PS2 (which uses the Eyetoy). It's a program that takes you through a fitness routine. You can match your positions to those of a character on the screen for stretching, and then you do fitness-related games, like reaching for a blue spot while avoiding a bouncing red ball. Ever since, she spends 60+ minutes on it per day, 3-6 days a week, and enjoys it very much and says he has more energy and less pain in her knees. So, some people get a lot of value out of it.
The Wii does, of course, have a lot of potential, and I'm very excited about what it will have to offer. I'm hoping for a game where you holster a Wiimote to each arm and leg, and then it guides you through a dance. It would be able to detect and command a lot more than DDR: twirls, arm rolls, claps, kicks, etc. in addition to steps. If no one makes it, I'd be glad to program it and give it (at least part of it) away, if only I could get an SDK. (Cost not a problem, Nintendo's restrictions are.)
Because people aren't aware of this or don't want to jump through the hoops, whereas they already have a DS. Don't trivialize the importance of marketing, i.e., letting people know your product actually exists. How many consumers have a DS? How many have a GP2X? How many have heard of the DS? The GP2X?
When the open source community understands the importance of actually *reaching* people, and bringing the products *to* them, they will have a better understanding of why so few home users use Linux-based OS's or FireFox, or OpenOffice.
Right, but when Nintendo did it, it wasn't evil. That's the difference.
Okay, that's an alright face-saving move. Well played. But still, ultimately, a waste of my time.
Why doesn't some console maker make it possible to play online for free, but then on top of that sell a separate pay-service that is policed? Then if parents want something with inappropriate behavior dealth with, or something like that, they can pay for it? (Presumably that could be integrated with the existing parental control features.)
Yes, good point, the PS3 has a huge advantage in cost.
Who wants to "compete" with YouTube's "business model"?
Damn you, YouTube! I can lose money through a free video service *much* faster than you can! I can have an even sketchier idea of how to recover costs! I can make it easier for people to block ads!
Exactly what I expected of you. Have fun with your self-consistent morality. But maybe in the future, leave the thinking to someone more capable.
Is it ethical to make your posts appear with that ridiculous font that's harder on my eyes?
And if a company fires you for publishing your ideas in this way, well, it's not really the company that you wanted to work for in the first place.
Undermining your employer's patents is the kind of thing you're going to want to do anonymously in the first place. They're not stupid, and someone who does this to them is going to have a hard time finding employment if they know about it.
Since you're "liberating" the patent "technology" (and I use that term loosely), if you have to put a name behind it for legal reasons (for example, if linuxg4mer6969 doesn't count as an prior user of what's described in the patent), then give the reconstructed code to someone else to claim credit for it.
I don't see the problem. If a company doesn't want to bother with unions, then they should hire people who have no desire to form alliances with other people.
... just have different viewpoints! We both want what's best for the world!" spiel. I'm not impressed. Let me look at what you're claiming here:
No, if they don't want to bother with unions, they should not hire people from unions or require that they sign yellow-dog contracts as a condition of hiring. They shouldn't generalize that to some bizarre "opposition to forming alliances", as sloppy thinkers would be tempted to do.
Something that you're not stating: Companies form alliances to further their ends all the time, even using the government as a very big stick.
Right. I didn't say that. I didn't also explain Ricardian comparative advantage, Say's Law, or Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk's third cause of originary interest. I only have so much time and space in a post. If something's not important for the point I'm making, I probably won't mention it. It doesn't mean I haven't thought about it. It doesn't means you're telling me anything I don't already know. It doesn't mean it contradicts what I said. It definitely doesn't mean you're smarter than me -- you're not.
It seems fair that individual workers should have the right to form alliances as well. And if those alliances play hardball, I don't really see why people such as yourself should cry foul. Using the government as a weapon is the sort of hardball that companies play, but you don't see me spilling whine on the floor.
Then you missed the point. Whatever is *right* or *wrong*, the point I was making was about long-term interests of workers. Maybe turnabout is fair play, and maybe it's not. But would fucking over your customer generally enhance the price you can charge for the input you provide, over the long term? You have no trouble understanding why it wouldn't work for the asshat grocery store. Why can't you understand the same thing about unions? They could mandate all the goodies they want -- they can't make businesses choose to locate there, they can't make investors send money there.
>So, it turns out you actually agree with the "cheap labor conservative" position.
Careful now. I'm usually a total asshole, but I'm feeling generous today,
Look at your sig, total asshole. How can I expect that you've given any serious thought to this issue whatsoever? You honestly think the conservative position is "you benefit from a minimum wage, and we won't raise it any higher, because we like cheap labor". Those who don't know their opponents' arguments don't truly understand their own.
I expect you to understand that we have two different underlying moral systems which are self-consistent internally,...
I saw it coming a mile away. I've seen it a hundred times before: the whole, "hey man, we're the same really, we
I expect you to understand that we have two different underlying moral systems which are self-consistent internally,
No, I do not expect that you have a self-consistent moral system. When you put in your sig a statement in which you claim your intellectual opponents want people to be near starving so they'll have to accept a too-low minimum wage, that is ironclad proof you do not give your own worldview the kind of scrutiny that would cull the contradictions. So, I can't accept this.
I expect you to understand that our respective moral systems give a foundation to the specific arguments we make here. I expect you to argue your points from your moral system. I expect you to understand the arguments that I make are made from within my moral system.
Actually, I expect you to be able to distinguish between arguments of "is" and arguments of "should". Well, expected. You clearly can't. The question was about the practical effects of union/grocery store asshattery, not about its rightness.
I expect
Yes, you and I agree -- you're making my exact point. It's not hypocrisy to say, "I'm a pacifist except when violence is necessary". It's just:
a) a non-standard definition of pacifism
b) The military scientist who wants to use the GNU-non-military'd code thinks the exact same thing; he just has a different conception of what's "necessary". Now how morally superior do you feel to him? ("you" referring to an anti-war individual making the statement above in quotation marks)
Perhaps. But there are more possibilities. For example, if you're locked in the room of a prison, with just you and a rat, and no vegetation. Would a vegan still not eat the rat? (Ignore "ew" factor for a moment.) That's an absurd case of course, but whether your are a "pacifist" or "vegan" depends not merely on what you *actually* do, but what you *would* do. Looking just at what I *have* done, I've been a "pacifist" for the last probably 5 years, because I never actually used violence. However, I stood ready to if necessary, so I wasn't really a pacifist. And had I not been willing to, and people knew this, I'd have a lot less stuff since people would take it with impunity.
So, it's ridiculously dishonest (for anyone -- not attributing this to you) to say, "well, I just don't see a lot of people trying to take my stuff, so I don't see the need to use violence." First of all, they don't take your stuff *because* they expect you to violently defend it or authorize another's use of violence in defense of it. And second, if in other circumstances you would use violence, then you do "see the need to use violence".
What has starvation got to do with veganism?
I believe his point was that veganism, like preference for non-violence, must yield to the practical:
-It's great to avoid violence, but not at the cost of your own death.
-It's great to avoid eating meat, but if that's your only alternative, you shouldn't let yourself or your kid die to support such an idea.
If you allow exceptions to veganism for necessity, you should allow the same exceptions to whatever "pacifism" you want to simultaneously endorse.
(on a side note, most "pacifists" in the sense of "no violence at all" aren't. That would imply they can make no defense action except to run away even if someone tries to take all food they are about to eat.)
As opposed to all the other, true religions?
Hey, I'm not claiming to have the one that's true here. I'm just saying, there are religions that say "there's some ghost behind the scenes pulling levers to control everything, whom we can't observe in any way except through unscientific signs", and there are religions that say, "as a factual, testable matter, the earth and all life was literally constructed in six days". His is the latter.
I've read some of his stuff, and he actually seems very intelligent and capable of logical reasoning. You just, well, kinda have to get past his hatred of Jews, refusal to recognize Israel, fascist ideology, Holocaust denial, and slavish adherence to a pretty obviously false religion. (I think most of those are just to maintain his support from Iranians.)
That's true, but it's not nearly as malicious as you make it sound. Employers have choices: they can pay to eliminate the hazard, and then have to pay less to get workers to take the less risky job, or they can not eliminate the hazard, and have to pay more to get people to take the more risky job. Economists call this a "compensating differential". It's seen in the difference in pay between regular window washers and high-rise window washers, for example. It can also be negative in jobs that people enjoy doing (i.e., they make less than those of comparable skill and experience because the job is fun, like astronauts).
There is always going to be some level of safety below which people will say, "forget it, it's not worth it, I'd rather just take the cash than make myself 1 in a million less likely to die". For example, would you take a 20% pay cut to halve your risk of death on the job?