While I mostly agree I think this one is more about older people in government simply not understanding tech and data in the age of IoT. I know they do have some small understanding because I have recently read up on SOX, HIPAA and Graham Leach Baily act which all have to do with protecting data and securing IT in some way. What they mostly boil down to is, write stuff down, make sure consumers know it, and protect your computers, and then we will make another group of qualified people who oversee the enforcement usually under the FTC or FCC and make more recommendations.
Yes, and we only need to look at the banking and investment sector to see how well this sort of thing actually works. These are all employment bills, written by the consulting companies who are going to be the ones to take the call from the Fortune 1000 companies that have to implement the regulations, and precious little of what happens in all of this activity actually accomplishes the stated reasons for the law.
BTW, that was literally the joke Dave made. That progress on LGBTQ rights was so fast that they can still use their white privilage against people who look like Dave if they are both white and LGBTQ+. Meanwhile people who marched with MLK jr had to march again in 2020 after Geroge Floyd's murder and in the 90s after Rodney King and again recently due to voting rights and racist redistricting laws.
Dave's mistake was he didnt take into account people who were part of both minority groups and face opression on two counts.
I agree with your points but his particular joke was about transphobia vs racism. That trans and gay people can turn on their white privilage in a second to attack black people, including using cops to attack black people, knowing cops are trained to fear black people and use excessive force against them.
Of course he isnt taking into account people who are both black and trans but in only this one case, you need to actually understand the joke first.
All that said, Netflix is also wrong because as employees of Netflix the people will be linked to this content weather they like it or not and it doesnt matter what content you are talking about weather its The Bodyguard(Islamophobic), Dave Chapelle(Transphobia), Squid Game(anti capatilist or anti communist depending on whi you ask) or probably the worst, Cuties(GOP and Qanon has diluted this word, but pedophilia). If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved.
Overall this is a complex issue with multiple layers and I say this all as a hardcore leftist.
> If you are an employee and this is original content, your name is forever linked to it and so you should be able to have a say in it. If it was purchased content, maybe you could say you weren't involved.
Like working for a tobacco company, your name and reputation will be tarnished by that association. The solution is obvious: don't work for that company.
Or maybe Netflix will start to implement solutions like those used by the pornography industry; hire sys admins, programmers etc under a shell company that doesn't share the name of the main business. So rather than putting "Software Developer at Pornhub.com" on your resume, you can put tell people you worked for "MindGeek".
I think we really need to limit how many one can own. Start taxing very very very heavily for anything beyond a second home for individuals and and anything beyond another number based on statistics for a company. Also add attitional tax for every two months a property is owned but no one is living in it or using it for business. This should cut down on hording and incentivize companies and people to get rid of any property that is just lying there waiting for prices to go up.
Land tax is horrid. A person should be able to live off the land if they choose, self sufficiently. This is impossible when the government demands yearly cash payment just for having your own place to farm.
A person who removes land from the common good should have to do something productive with it, give it back to the common good, or simply pay a fee to the commons for having kept it from productive use. A person absolutely should not be able to keep several blocks of downtown Manhattan off the market so they can run a private farm for themselves.
In practical terms, anywhere a person would want to do such a thing, the land would be cheap enough that LVT wouldn't really matter anyway.
They do pay a fee to the commons for removing it; it's called sales tax. They are also doing something productive with it, by living on it and using it.
If we are to keep trespassing laws, there must be ways to own land permanently and without further cost. There must be a way for man to survive without participating in government enforced labour. All land is owned by some entity; he can't live in the woods owned by the government or someone else; even after buying land and being entirely self sufficient, he cannot simply live, but must pay the government in their currency which he can only get through participating in the labor economy. There is literally no legal way to live freely by your own means. This is a form of slavery that the ancients would find absolutely intolerable.
Increase the price of land or the sales tax, limit the ownership a single person can have, levy inheritance tax, but an indefinite land tax is inhumane.
Huh... who does enforce trespassing laws? I'm 99% sure that's the state, and for good reason. Are you supposing that the unlanded should pay for the protection of the landed's assets, but that the landed doesn't need to?
> A person who removes air from the common good should have to do something productive with it, give it back to the common good, or simply pay a fee to the commons for having kept it from productive use. A person absolutely should not be able to breathe several kilos of downtown Manhattan oxygen off the market so they can continue their private lives.
Is this meant to be a counter argument? Because yes, if air in a given area were a strictly finite resource that everyone needs for survival (like land), one person should not be able to just indefinitely own enough of it for millions of people to live on.
My team just does a weekly virtual meeting specifically for those social aspects, we could discuss anything in those meetings but it usually turns into TV, games or movies. As well as occasionally doing office appropriate games like Jackbox and Mario Kart. That might potentially help you and it helps morale and creates team bonding.
I am totally ready to read rational discussions that in no way is colored by hatered of either side or belonging to a particular religion or political beliefs or consperacy theories you have read about either side. I am also totally expecting everyone here on HN to be expert historians and masters of international relations.
This post was #1 on hacker news yesterday for a bit, flagged, and now it's been unflagged many hours later. I wonder what's going on there. I didn't have to go "read" about a 'consperacy' online for that, I just saw weird stuff happening right here on this site.
No this is colonial social conditioning. Those same white Europeans werent scoffing at Arab, Persian or Indian scholars in the Renaissance, Romans and Greeks intermarried with Egyptians and Indians, even in the midst of the Crusades Brungandians were making alliences with Siljuks against Italy and the Fatimids didnt fight the crusaders because they were allied to the Bayzentines. And the Ottomans were alloed with Britain at some times and with Germany in World War 2, Boris Johnson himself is a descendent of an Ottoman official. The Ottoman sultan even offered to help with the potato famine in Ireland but was rebuffed by the British queen for giving more than her. There IS kinship, there IS massive history but since the colonial era and probably propped by Darwin and the the Nazis, Europeans have got it into their minds that they are genetically superior and should not even fix the mess they made when they took down the Ottomans and divided the middle east in a compeletely nonsensical way. This isnt even going into the even more messy Cold War history.
Not many good games these days. I recently played through Age Of Empires 3 and 4. I just dont like stuff like Elden Ring that is popular these days due to Dark Souls or every third person game being turned into an RPG with stats and inventory and side quests.
There is the CS's famed eletism and gate keeping. Just because its not Harvard or Stanford its not relevant?
I am a CS grad myself but there is so much toxicity in the community when looking at places like HN.
And I am not saying anything about your point. Maybe you are right, I just hate that you start off with 'b-school bad' argument.
UPenn is a well regarded school. Its business school is generally regarded to be the best of the lot. Wharton professors are generally not on the receiving side of elitism. This research is simply very low quality. It maybe gratifies a certain sensibility. We all know that using our phones too much can be a problem and this research makes for a pithy form of name calling. But beyond a quick insult against a perceived threat the core thesis just makes no sense in light of the past 50 years of research on psychology and media.
My initial vitriol against academics was perhaps unnecessary. The research is clearly uninterested in the large body of serious research around this subject. It is perhaps unfair to say that low quality research is inherent to business school academics in general.
"Arab mujahdeen"? That word just proves you know nothing and arent interested in learning because a tiny fact check would tell you that you meant Afghan mujhadeen let alone knowing that off the top of your head when making your intellictually dishonest point. Another proof of you lack of knowledge is the racist anti immigrant sentiment. Pakistan and Iran accept the largest number of refugees in the world mostly from Afghanistan.
And I am guessing your hostile attitude has nothing to do with the fact that its AlJezera and not Fox News, which btw sided with Putin up until very recently, saying this.
I am not sure if you are a right wing grifter or have conditioned into one by the likes of Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson and CS grad's favourite Nazi, Jordan Peterson but I reccomend you diversify your news sources. Try Some More News, Renagade Cut, or The Damage Report for once if you cant stomach Ari Melbar, Racheal Madow, or John Oliver.
> Arab mujahdeen"? That word just proves you know nothing and arent interested in learning because a tiny fact check would tell you that you meant Afghan mujhadeen
You got me there. I suppose that makes them white, and my point invalid? Despite your lengthy reply, that is the only factual correction you offer (despite your implication otherwise, I never claimed or, I think, even implied, that only the West accepts refugees).
