Gormo

54 ms·

931.
by Gormo 2y ago
Can you explain what you mean? How are vendors selling services to an organization also "vendees" within the same capacity?
932.
by Gormo 2y ago
What does "access information at a molecular level" even mean? Information isn't made out of molecules.
933.
by Gormo 2y ago
If the shares can't be sold, there's no market for them, hence no market price.
934.
by Gormo 2y ago
I'm confused about that figure, since not having any savings to fall back on seems to me to be the definition of living paycheck-to-paycheck. How is that not 100%? The argument you're making seems tautological, and doesn't
935.
by Gormo 2y ago
What do you get out of "owning" shares that you can't sell and that have no market price? Why would someone want this instead of just being paid cash for services rendered by someone else who's bearing all the risk?
936.
by Gormo 2y ago
If employees can't sell their shares on an open market, do they really own them? What does it mean for them to own the company if they can't trade their ownership stake for money, if that's what they want?
937.
by Gormo 2y ago
Can you elaborate on how shareholders having a say in governance relates to worker compensation? Why shouldn't shareholders have control over governance?
938.
by Gormo 2y ago
No, I don't think that's right at all. I don't think anyone is "collectively recognizing" anything, and the reason why bicycle helmets made of cardboard and nails are not being sold is because people -- as individu
939.
by Gormo 2y ago
At the end of the day, an employee is just a special class of vendor -- scrape away all of the normative cruft that gets injected into these discussions, and you have a fee-for-service relationship between a customer and a supplier. And lot
940.
by Gormo 2y ago
> Businesses are activities undertaken by people but they are also legal entities which have no need to abide by ethical or moral standards, shielding the underlying people from liabilities incurred by such entity. People can't do t
941.
by Gormo 2y ago
> Sorry, I don't agree. Owners are less important. They don't need to be there for most businesses to continue to operate just fine. I'm afraid that this is not true. Owners are not just the ones who enable the business t
942.
by Gormo 2y ago
I can't imagine how it would be possible to do it any other way for a flash storage device. A mechanical hard drive could at least theoretically have a physical lock attached to the drive head which prevents it from approaching the pla
943.
by Gormo 2y ago
>No, because that falls under the fallacy that every market is a perfect market, where none is. No, it doesn't. We live in a stochastic world, not a deterministic one, and nothing perfectly fits any speculative model. There are al
944.
by Gormo 2y ago
> Customers are paramount, owners are less important, workers are what make the business move. No, no one is more important or less important than anyone else. Every role has to be played order for anyone to benefit. Someone has to bea
945.
by Gormo 2y ago
>2. A business-first, citizens-second approach to society. This is meaningless. Businesses are activities undertaken by people. Everything resolves back to the people -- the same aggregation of the same individual people in all cases.
946.
by Gormo 2y ago
> It would be nice to have a legal framework for companies to increase employee ownership, but be able to do it incrementally with no requirement to go straight to 100%. Or ever. But this framework exists, and is used by a huge number of
947.
by Gormo 2y ago
Not always, no, but as the general case, they are. At the end of the day, people need to be willing to pay a business in exchange for its goods and services, and if they don't feel like they are obtaining net positive value from the t
948.
by Gormo 2y ago
And the measure of how well you are making a great product, creating something that would otherwise not exist, or improve some other product or process is how much your customers are willing to pay you for what you are doing. If you are cr
949.
by Gormo 2y ago
That might be what their proponents intend them to be for, but the extent to which they actually achieve their goals -- especially goals at odds with the manifest intentions of the actual market participants, including workers themselves
950.
by Gormo 2y ago
You are making normative arguments, but the question is wholly empirical -- the metrics being applied here are the ones that actually measure the success and viability of firms, not metrics selected to fit the observer's emotional atta
951.
by Gormo 2y ago
Richard Feynman was complaining about exactly this phenomenon fifty years ago: https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html
952.
by Gormo 2y ago
I'm not sure I'm following. We have had multiple line endings (based on combinations of two particular characters) in common use, without consolidating to a common standard, for decades -- why would introducing a third character
953.
by Gormo 2y ago
Lots of totally different and distinguishable words are one consonant sound away from each other.
954.
by Gormo 2y ago
I'm not sure that's necessarily wise, since the underlying takeaway is that it's fine to attempt to change the meaning or rendering of pre-existing symbols as long as you get away with it. The threat of having the change you
955.
by Gormo 2y ago
It's a potential deterrent to future attempts to change the meaning/rendering of existing characters.
956.
by Gormo 2y ago
No, I don't think that applies here. Languages evolve and new terminology enters the lexicon all of the time, but that absolutely does not retrospectively change the rendering of pre-existing expressions of language.
957.
by Gormo 2y ago
> Unfortunately unfruitful. Fortunately unfruitful, since if it had gained adoption, there'd be a mix of three different line endings (and combinations thereof) in widespread use, instead of two.
958.
by Gormo 2y ago
> I suspect this also has its roots in the European legal tendency to presume guilt and the accused having to prove their innocence This scandal took place in the UK, though, not in a European civil code jurisdiction. The concept of &qu
959.
by Gormo 2y ago
I don't think it's fair to apply that to Poland. Jews were well integrated into Polish society for most of its history during the Commonwealth era. Poland-Lithuania was a very pluralistic state with explicit protection in law fo
960.
by Gormo 2y ago
> Nor does the US have an official curriculum. The US (i.e. the federal government) has no legal authority over education at all -- schools are run at the state level, and individual states often do have standard curricula.

More ›