unpopular42

5 ms·

1.
by unpopular42 3y ago
> they created $900 in value No. The company had created this value. If it was just the employee, I invite the employee to try quitting and creating this value without the company. It is bound to fail. The rest is invalidated by this fau
2.
by unpopular42 3y ago
> how hard every company fights This only shows that companies believe that unions are harmful for them. Which I support, as usually unions are bad for both companies and workers > from the amount workers were underpaid No, workers ar
3.
by unpopular42 3y ago
> the evidence that they are extremely beneficial to workers Could you please cite the evidence? > While the CEO owns a couple private jets and the company initiates another billion dollar stock buyback Unlike the union leader, the CE
4.
by unpopular42 3y ago
See the thread below: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=unpopular42#37543571 And just to be clear, climate regulations are not the same as pollution laws
5.
by unpopular42 3y ago
The article wants to convince you in something and naturally the visuals are adjusted to help that goal. Have a look at the raw data if you like. So far, as much as I can see, the current climate models do not predict absolutely anything in
6.
by unpopular42 3y ago
> So we should just hope this all away? No, absolutely not! > But where that starts is legislation. No, absolutely not! Where it starts is invention and invention is currently severely hindered by regulation, alarmism and skewed incen
7.
by unpopular42 3y ago
Imagine regulatory asphyxiation disappears. Imagine energy tech gets its own Moore's law. Imagine cheap abundant energy, say 10 orders of magnitude from now in a few decades. Heating up or cooling down the planet at will doesn't s
8.
by unpopular42 3y ago
Because the current climate spending is extremely inefficient and stupid. For example, if we put all this effort into making more energy, e.g. making nuclear actually work, we could soon make the climate do what we want, not the other way a
9.
by unpopular42 3y ago
It was record high the whole year. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2023/09/asina_S_iqr_...
10.
by unpopular42 3y ago
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It's not like you have more than one
11.
by unpopular42 3y ago
Did we also panic in 2014 that was above average by a similar margin? I just can't remember
12.
by unpopular42 3y ago
> are you really asking me to explain why skin color is part of a demographic No, I didn't ask that.
13.
by unpopular42 3y ago
Now you are just lying and calling names. I'll try one more time before I give up. The original author wrote the word "white", not me. There are many ways to segment a population - that's demographics. Having "white
14.
by unpopular42 3y ago
You don't know that. "White" can mean either, but it didn't matter because both interpretations are equally bad. See for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people Replace race with skin c
15.
by unpopular42 3y ago
Please explain how skin color is relevant in the interview context and why it was specifically mentioned in the original post. Please explain how skin color is different from race for the purpose of this discussion.
16.
by unpopular42 3y ago
She didn't complain about the panel members being exclusively educated people (which does affect how you think). But she did complain that they are all white (which doesn't). So yeah, go ahead, dig in.
17.
by unpopular42 3y ago
> exactly how unbiased is it when every person I interviewed with was exactly my demographic? (White, female, American/western European) Please could someone explain how is this, claiming that someone's race and ethnicity defin
18.
by unpopular42 3y ago
No way! A political index that doesn't actually reflect the reality, has that ever happened?
19.
by unpopular42 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenching_tool
20.
by unpopular42 3y ago
Note: 'can kill' >= 'has killed', you have only shown the latter.
21.
by unpopular42 3y ago
Enforcement isn't lacking, it's just done counter-productively. About 20% of US prison population is already for drug offences, and of course it doesn't help anything. There is absolutely no reason to believe that other regul
22.
by unpopular42 3y ago
I'm not sure what's your point. But the direct answer is, it's a very similar number of people, not even an order of magnitude difference.
23.
by unpopular42 3y ago
> The leading causes Did you just make my point? Drugs are already very regulated. > Maybe there is a need for regulation? Probably not.
24.
by unpopular42 3y ago
You are presenting it like "certification" is some kind of guarantee. The reality is that it isn't. Industrial accidents happen all the time and it remains to be proven that certifications and regulations actually improve any
25.
by unpopular42 3y ago
So? A shovel can kill people.
26.
by unpopular42 3y ago
Why people start to cry for regulation whenever they see something new these days? Hasn't been the case before, something has shifted in people's minds in the last 10 years or so
27.
by unpopular42 3y ago
What forced tracking? If you're going to visit the URL, there is no extra tracking that can be provided by the QR or the shortener. Same if you aren't going to visit it
28.
by unpopular42 3y ago
Solved by an insanely stupid pop-up on every website on the internet. No thanks, I prefer the old way.
29.
by unpopular42 3y ago
There was a time when we weren't scared of cookies
30.
by unpopular42 3y ago
It's not about whether or not your privacy is respected, it's about the cost of compliance

More ›