matz1

50 ms·

481.
by matz1 6y ago
No, The decrease of death rate is because more testing done on more people. The more you test, the larger the number of asymptomatic/mild symptom case you have, thus decrease the death rate.
482.
by matz1 6y ago
The difference is the death doesn't cause chaos or total economy collapse. Pretty much life is still normal for most people over there, so that is win for me.
483.
by matz1 6y ago
>How is that a win? They don't have lockdown
484.
by matz1 6y ago
US have lockdown though
485.
by matz1 6y ago
11th worst mortality without lockdown? that is a win for me.
486.
by matz1 6y ago
There is of course trade off for having family as well as being single. One of the trade off of having family may involve lower chance to be promoted. Those who choose to have family can't expect to have the cake and eat it too.
487.
by matz1 6y ago
If I'm the employee I too would fully expect company to do this kind of thing. Meanwhile As employee I would try to do the same but in the opposite: to extract as much as possible (money/knowledge/whatever) from the company w
488.
by matz1 6y ago
>but there is literally no need to do so at the expense of both employees and the company's public image Thats depends, if the goal is maximal profitability and the cost/risk doing that is minimal then they should do it.
489.
by matz1 6y ago
>You aren't required by corporate ethics to be maximally unethical especially when it contravenes the law agree, I don't expect corporate to be maximally unethical, rather I expect them to be maximally profitable. >Being per
490.
by matz1 6y ago
Not saying to disregard ethics. >you try to skimp on paying your employees, they will find ways to return the favor. That would be included in the cost/risk part. If the cost/risk of skimp on paying your employees < benefit
491.
by matz1 6y ago
Not saying to disregard risk. Of course the cost vs benefit analysis have to be done.
492.
by matz1 6y ago
If they won, yes. >By this measure they might as well try not paying their employees at all and letting that go to court too If they can figure out the way to do that, they should.
493.
by matz1 6y ago
Disagree, as Apple, it is in their best interest to fight this. For apple, employee are expenses, reducing expense and increasing profit is what a company should do.
494.
by matz1 6y ago
Privacy or no privacy, there are always be someone who is trying to hurt someone.
495.
by matz1 6y ago
>I don't see why you can't sing quietly in a chorus with masks Its possible but it sucks. Sure it risky, anything has risk. I accept that I can be infected or infecting other people. I never stop eat in a restaurant all these t
496.
by matz1 6y ago
> that will never happen That will never happen if there is no effort to make it happen. > 100% of our population is virtuous Yes that is impossible, I never made or require that assumption.
497.
by matz1 6y ago
Ok how about instead of Bitcoin, we compare it with CSCO ? It was bubble back then and the value never recover.
498.
by matz1 6y ago
That assumption might not always true.
499.
by matz1 6y ago
Lebron exploiting someone desire for entertainment, bella exploiting someone loneliness. Its no different.
500.
by matz1 6y ago
UBI is not meant to directly solve medical bills and housing. medical bills is supposed to be solved by universal health care. housing is another issue that can be solved one way by relaxing zoning ordinances for the purpose of increasing t
501.
by matz1 6y ago
The solution for the credit card problem would be hard but there are plenty of situation where the solution is not that inconceivable. One way that it may work is if there is way you can trace any transaction good enough so that you can&#x2
502.
by matz1 6y ago
>Privacy is about ensuring no one has your data who shouldn't Yes and that is because that someone can use it to harm you and you'll suffer. Ensuring no one has your data who shouldn't is only one way but not the only way
503.
by matz1 6y ago
So privacy matters because the information can be used against you. That is reasonable but hiding information is not the only the way to fix the issue. Knife can be used to harm people, sure you can fix it by banning/destroying knife b
504.
by matz1 6y ago
I understand that. The point still remain, why wear if it only minimally prevent from infecting others.
505.
by matz1 6y ago
because wearing mask can be uncomfortable, why wear if the benefit is only minimal
506.
by matz1 6y ago
>Seems a bit selfish don't you think? So you want to ruin image search results experience for some people so that you can keep your job? That also selfish don't you think ? Selfish goes both way.
507.
by matz1 6y ago
Morality is subjective, maybe its wrong to you but may not wrong for me.
508.
by matz1 6y ago
I'm not defeatist. I'm not defending less privacy for the sake of less privacy. In the end the goal is to not suffer. Whether its done through less privacy or more privacy doesn't really matter. >Only if citizens let gover
509.
by matz1 6y ago
>You're welcome to let all of your private information out for everyone to see if that's what you believe I don't necessarily want to, I'm just being realistic and pragmatic. >But people like me who do not want to
510.
by matz1 6y ago
Information want to be free. Sooner or latter the information will leak. Especially as technology getting more advance, its getting easier and easier to do surveillance, soon everyone can do that. The sooner we adapt with the life where all

More ›