s73ver_

10 ms·

31.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"But it's better than no job at all." If that's all you have to defend it with, then you have nothing to defend. People expect better of Amazon, as they should. The company turned the owner into the richest man on the pl
32.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Why? I would think that the idea of the company pushing its tax burden onto its employees is the one that should be under scrutiny.
33.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Nothing was ever preventing Apple from bringing back that cash but greed. While it's good that they're finally going to pay some taxes this one time, no one should be ecstatic about this. They're just going to keep doing the
34.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Both. Unless you are trying to insinuate that having protection against obvious scams is a bad and selfish thing.
35.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
When someone says, "Man, that place is great; I wish I could work there," and you respond with, and I quote from your original post, "Start your own, run it like you want it to be run," that is a kneejerk response. And y
36.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"Also arguing that we all agreed to the rules there in would mean that if slavery were legal it would be ok, becase we all agreed to it" No. That's a poor argument that, in this case, falsely equivocates slavery with financia
37.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Nope. I want to engineer stuff, not be sales or HR.
38.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
You were downvoted because, quite frankly, your post, and this response, quite frankly, came off with the attitude of "If you don't start your own company, you're an idiot." That, combined with the kneejerk response of &
39.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Just because you personally weren't consulted on those regulations doesn't mean that they weren't come to by people who were democratically elected. And you agreed to abide by the laws of a jurisdiction by living there. Other
40.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I fail to see the need for such "experimentation" considering that this has all happened before, and those lessons were learned. That, and generally those who advocate that something should "take a hit" are usually not t
41.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"If anyone could identify early-stage companies with a 75-100% chance of being profitable, wouldn't we see an investor niche that supports this?" We can't do that for the current style of VC investing. Why would we need
42.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
And this, dear reader, is why nobody likes MBAs. They ruin everything they touch.
43.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Because, to be perfectly honest, most of us don't want to start our own companies. I know for me, personally, that there's a whole lot of extra stuff that comes with running a company, stuff that I have absolutely zero interest in
44.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
No, it very much doesn’t. If they’re willing to skirt laws for that, what makes you think they won’t skirt you?
45.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
The exact same thing is said of sports stadiums, WalMart stores, and was said of the steel industry back in the day. Companies have shown they’re perfectly willing to leave as soon as those breaks expire, or they get a better deal elsewhere
46.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
So it’s ok that Amazon just passes their tax burden onto their employees?
47.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
This is a nihilistic false equivalence that fails to consider what the actual positions are.
48.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
If your plate and your bank account are full enough, does it matter?
49.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I cannot believe that, especially with that line in their TOS. Saying, "They're only saying that to skirt the law!" doesn't make things any better.
50.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
And you know that, in reality, it's not guaranteed, right?
51.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
You know they state in their TOS that they're under no obligation to do so, right?
52.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Buffet I'll give you, but Bezos clearly is not in this to help anyone out. One only has to look at the negotiations with the guild at the Washington Post to see that.
53.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
There is when that lining comes at the expense of the people that you're supposed to be helping.
54.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
Wanting to continue to see a provider that you know and trust is an "edge case" now? We truly live in the darkest timeline.
55.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
And yet, it was groundbreaking when it was signed into law. People received refund checks after it went into effect.
56.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I've said this in every thread about these scummy companies, but it is entirely unconscionable that not only are we not allowed to constantly look at and correct the data about us that they have, we are forced to pay for it if we want
57.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
It'd be nice if they mentioned how much the position pays.
58.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
"Would you be okay with the back door existing if it were used under such a court-ordered scenario?" No, because it would not stay that way. The problem is, that backdoor would get out, and all of the bad guys would know how to us
59.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
If you feel you can shift the narrative, more power to you. I just think it would be incredibly difficult to change the conversation to that.
60.
by s73ver_ 9y ago
I absolutely would say it would, especially where there's a very good chance that the home and work addresses are part of that list, and the idea that someone would use a database like that to spy on an ex and harass and/or assaul

More ›