It pisses me off that Amazon doesn't support chromecast, but is it really their responsibility just because google wants them to implement their feature that they do?
Yeah and its a complete pain in the ass. It's funny these people can't do their jobs but they are masters of using HR departments to shield them from their own incompetence.
In my experience managers are utterly horrible at giving early feedback to people who are not performing, and working with them to improve. It is I suppose part of human nature. People think it is awkward to deal with so they avoid it.
You have to consider that for society it is very wasteful to have people live off welfare schemes rather than working. Even if you are not a high performance worker, it is better for society that you are working than staying unemployed.
No amount of feedback can turn a lemon. Also, its not the role of corporations to play makework and pretend they are contributing. So someone gets fired and takes a job more befitting of their abilities... that's not welfare that's just life.
Or are they using reasonable leverage to protect themselves from employers who fail at their jobs (good management, training, obtaining and allocating resources, etc.) or who fire good employees for bad reasons (whistleblowers, scapegoats, to protect the job of the person you're sleeping with, etc.).
Its the marginal utility of money. I'm about to pick numbers out of a hat for demonstration. If it takes 18k to live at a bare minimum each for everyone, then the guy making minimum wage and pulling home 20k a year and the guy pulling home 100k a year have a completely different calculus. That 2k surplus for the minimum wage worker could easily be killed by a single week of illness just between medical bills and not working. The guy bringing home 100k a year can survives problems that are magnitudes more expensive. This gets more egregious as income inequality scales. Its not like billionaires who are earning millions of times more than a janitor can eat millions of more burgers or need millions of more houses
I understand the marginal utility argument. That argument assumes there is any moral right to steal from one person and give to another in the first place. I disagree there is. This is an analogy NOT a comparison... but its like saying its ok take the heart of an old person to give to a child because they would get more use out of it. Yes, that's true, but its a non starter due to the deprivation of the rights of the old person.
The Austin fingerprint law was a voter initiative passed by Austin citizens. The state of Texas overturned it by vote of elected representatives from across the state. I think the latter is much more a "state intervention".
It's interesting to precisely consider what "a voter initiative passed by Austin citizens" translates to. And to clarify the fingerprint law was not what was actually passed. That law was passed unilaterally by the city council --- whom a cynic might suggest was driven by what we'll call "lobbying", rather than necessity. The vote was a result of ride sharing services collecting the necessary tens of thousands of signatures that required the City Council to either soften the rules or bring the matter to public vote. The council chose to spend the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars necessary to keep the ordinance intact and hold an impromptu election.
These [1] are the results of that election. Austin has a population of 950,000 residents with a voting age population of about 741,000 [2]. In total about 5% of the resident population voted to maintain the fingerprinting law and 4% to soften it. A 1% margin on a voter turnout of less than 12%.
I fully appreciate that that is a 'democratic republic in action.' I'm certain you can understand one might find it distasteful, just as one can easily understand your distaste for state level 'democratic republic in action.' I'm certain our systems made all the sense in the world hundreds of years ago. But these sort of things do not feel right today when we live in a country with counties that now have greater population than the entire country did when these laws and systems were developed.
How many men take offense to hiring quotas but keep their mouths shut so they don't end up like Damore? You just set up an environment where how someone feels is more important than logic/reason/truth and that is never a good position to be in.
Every day the "pro-diversity" (in the sense of preferentially hiring practices) don't abstain... they tell you a viewpoint and force you to adopt it even when you disagree. The fact people keep their mouth shuts shouldn't be a surprise. That doesn't make the pro crowd any less controversial. It's just they don't get fired for their controversial opinions.
Are we really at the point in society if someone asks a coworker out on a date its sexual harassment? I imagine the answer to that is whether she said yes or not. Rule #1 ... be attractive.
I'm surprised that we are still at a point in society where people legitimately don't understand the difference between workplace-appropriate behaviour, and harassment.
But, to spell the difference out:
Once is asking. Twice is harassment. Propositioning a report is a fireable offense.
>I'm surprised that we are still at a point in society where people legitimately don't understand the difference between workplace-appropriate behaviour, and harassment.
I'm not, especially when it comes to tech which is full of young 20-somethings, some of whom may be brilliant when it comes to programming and mathematics, but dumb when it comes to social cues and social interactions. A lot of this stuff gets figured out with experience.
>Once is asking. Twice is harassment. Propositioning a report is a fireable offense.
Sure. Sounds like a good general rule that may be too permissive in some cases, and too punishing in other.
Yes. Of course. Generally people are good and decent. And this case doesn't contradict this since we're talking about 20 fired employees out of 12,000.
And I didn't only refer to 'dudes'. I referred to 20-somethings. Women can be dumbasses too.
I don't think it is correct to use words dumbass and unethical as synonyms. They are not.
I defended dudes here, because they were treated as normally unethical or normally dumbass. Since women were not implied to be less capable, there was no need to defend then.
The irony of choosing Dubai because of America's supposed intolerance.. hope you don't want not only women, gays, non-married couples, or all the other BS a muslim state enforces.
