lolsal

53 ms·

541.
by lolsal 9y ago
> 1) that assumes gun ownership has any bearing on someone's freedom. I'd say that's very much disputed. You can dispute it, but you'd still be wrong. > 2) a gun offering easier impulsive suicide strikes me as a go
542.
by lolsal 9y ago
The US is not perfect, for sure! But don't let sensationalism in the media shape your perception of everything outside of Britain.
543.
by lolsal 9y ago
My opinion: I don't have a perfect knowledge of the law. I'm also oversimplifying. Bear with me. Back when the second amendment was created, it was entirely reasonable that citizens could arm themselves and realistically overthrow
544.
by lolsal 9y ago
Because suicides don't violate anyone else's freedoms and accidents are accidents.
545.
by lolsal 9y ago
I struggled for a long time with where I would draw the line here - I don't think it's reasonable for civilians to own nukes or other crazy weapons of warfare. I saw a suggestion that sat really well with me - civilians should be
546.
by lolsal 9y ago
Is this statistic different other statistics about homicides and other forms of death? - domestic violence that results in homicide - homicides in prison - automobile related deaths - drug overdoses - suicides I think most people would agre
547.
by lolsal 9y ago
> That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. 'Epidemic' is usually used to refer to the rate of spread of something. This sort of hyperbole is exactly why it&
548.
by lolsal 9y ago
> Some don't, it's biological that's all. That really sounds like we're hand-waving away what is happening. The biology might be an effect, not a cause.
549.
by lolsal 9y ago
> Facebook are war criminals. There's nothing more to it. It is entirely unnecessary to jump to extremes like that. There are gradients and nuances here.
550.
by lolsal 9y ago
You can analyze things to death, but sometimes those factors truly aren't relevant.
551.
by lolsal 9y ago
Doing the shitty work is hard and unpredictable. I wouldn't be very likely to want to hire per-hour contractors to fix bugs.
552.
by lolsal 9y ago
You probably should just hire the best person for the job and ignore their race, ethnicity, sex, socio-economic background.
553.
by lolsal 9y ago
> That’s only because there’s no light on her until the end. Yes, quiet true. > The car hardware should have seen her. If it doesn’t work in the dark it shouldn’t be on the road imho. I tend to agree. I think unfortunately this video
554.
by lolsal 9y ago
I knew the woman was coming up in the video and I didn't see her until it would have been too late. The driver definitely seemed distracted by a device of some kind.
555.
by lolsal 9y ago
Some companies have more than 10 employees.
556.
by lolsal 9y ago
> Companies invest in the tools that they use to ensure continued development and support. I'm not a fan of this. If I release an open source library, I am under no obligation to continue development or support it. I'd happily
557.
by lolsal 9y ago
You did not address why unions are a universal good.
558.
by lolsal 9y ago
> Unions (or similar labor organizations) are not only a universal good Can you explain why this is universally true? It seems that the behavior of companies reacting negatively to unions is a counterpoint to this.
559.
by lolsal 9y ago
A company firing people who are trying to unionize seems to be saying that the value that the company gets for the cost of paying the employees will go down. It seems unions or unionizing might have better luck if it was able to position it
560.
by lolsal 9y ago
> 1) Workers in IT departments are less likely to get bonuses. Sincere question - why should they? Are they denied bonuses that they are contractually obligated due to their compensation package? > 2) They are often asked to put in lo
561.
by lolsal 9y ago
> We're in a world where one is forced to take employment in order to try to survive. That's very true. You must do something if you want to survive. Your chances of surviving probably go up if anyone else values that thing t
562.
by lolsal 9y ago
It's not inevitable . It's just likely . If we're talking about a supply chain of "2" (banana example), it's not very likely. If we're talking about a supply chain with hundreds or thousands of actors (f
563.
by lolsal 9y ago
> You're wilfully ignoring the substance of the comment you're replying to which makes me think you're acting in bad faith. I'm not. > There is an argument to be made that the US' economic system is fair. I my
564.
by lolsal 9y ago
It's not illegal to know where police are, even if it may be illegal to operate a radar detector.
565.
by lolsal 9y ago
Because value is not added equally along the chain.
566.
by lolsal 9y ago
> 1. Every link is NOT compensated fairly. Wages have been stagnant for decades; meanwhile, the cost of everything else (especially housing) continues to rise, sometimes astronomically. $7.25 is the federal minimum wage, and it is imposs
567.
by lolsal 9y ago
Why do you think that model is ethically wrong? If every link in the chains is compensated fairly (no one is coerced) and value is added, it seems like an inevitability that one end of the chain would be magnitudes larger in compensation.
568.
by lolsal 9y ago
What legal or ethical laws does it violate to have that data available?
569.
by lolsal 9y ago
Uh, could you elaborate? This seems like a totally nonsensical statement.
570.
by lolsal 9y ago
Can you elaborate or provide a source for being required to burn your clothes after touching creosote?

More ›