I don't think shareholders really demand anything, most of the time. So much of the market is just passive 401k buckets.
This feels like a pathology of board/C-suite culture, something that they feel like they "have to" do, rather than actual angry letters from Joe Shareholder in Des Moines demanding more user data farming.
At least in the case of United, we did see shareholders write angry letters when they temporarily became slightly less aggressive denying customers coverage. If that's the level of care for matters of life and death, why wouldn't it generalize to surveillance?
A good faith person who was also informed would be aware that this is basically a criticism of Romney-era neocon policies, and that agenda is no longer the animating force of the GOP (and was soundly defeated despite the wishes of the great and the good of the party establishment). In the far-right circles I frequent, the sentiment is, basically, "Triple, quadruple, quintuple the national debt, and crash the economy, if that's what it takes to halt immigration and have a country again, rather than an economic zone."
It was not free-market sentiment that propelled Trump to the WH.
Great point. I don't know that I'd say people want a crash, but that they are ambivalent to a crash as long as legal and illegal immigration are stopped and rolled back.
>But the only way to get these people visas was to post the jobs publicly and hide them as much as possible. They did this by the hundreds, and it wasn't really a cost saving measure - if you are trying to get anybody in particular from Microsoft or Amazon and they are already here on a Visa, you have to go through the process all over again to sponsor them.
The spirit of the law is that this should not be your intent---that your intent should be to fill the job requirements, not to hire a particular person.
unironically I think this is the next frontier. If "other players" constitute part of the experience, how do you create/attract/curate a "quality" playerbase?
Totally agree, what I observed with the shift to matchmaking was the removal of communities and shared sportsmanship (and moderation). Replaced by matchmaking, game providers are constantly chasing the technological challenge of removing bad actors from the pool. But we are already very good at that as a species, if they gave us control of making communities within online services again we'd solve that problem for them right away.
You see it with things like Counter-strike and private servers. Sim racing and leagues/discord servers etc.
Create karma system that follows you from game to game, tied to government ID, and if you’re not a good gamer, people just won’t play with you and you’re shunned.
No, this is insane. I will make a thousand people uncomfortable on group dates if that's what it takes to have an actual country.
Are people hurt? Are things unfair? Would it be kinder and more humane if we could see each others' souls, and trust prevailed? Absolutely.
But we can not. And there is an asymmetry to civilization---it is easier to destroy than to build. This makes division and exclusion (other names: protection, safeguarding, immune system, comment moderation, firewalls, safe sex) practical and essential. Do you want your startup's bank account "united and standing together" with some other startup's bank account? Division allows good things to remain good.
None of this is to say all gatekeepers are honest, all standards are fair, or that injustice doesn't exist. Everything is a work in progress. But if the worst you have to complain about is an inconsequential misunderstanding on a group date, count yourself lucky.
The more I think about it the more incoherent it seems. We don’t know what the person’s immigration status is, we don’t know if they have a passport, but if they did the bouncer/bartender only cares about your birth date, not your visa. Is the author asking for the abolition of all border controls? That’s something different from patriotism.
Before 1920 there were no passports or standardization of border controls but there were also no international human rights. If your state wanted to do you in they could just do it and not face any consequences. “Genocide”, “War Crimes”, and “Crimes Against Humanity” were all introduced in the next 30 years. Any formalization of your rights requires that the state “see like a state” and document your existence. In a lot of places, like China, there are restrictions on internal migration because a rapidly industrializing country faces challenging problems in development.
Today there was a great podcast episode about the origin of human rights as we know it.
It seemed to me that you were attributing the lower life expectancy due to US' diversity compared to many wealthy nations. My point was: Canada is similarly diverse and yet its life expectancy is higher.
No, I was saying the diversity of American society means that aggregate measures won't tell us much. If Canada is similarly diverse (that seems contested, but accepting it for argument's sake) then aggregate measures there also won't tell us much.
I'm really not sure what this means. Yeah, the U.S. is a multicultural society, but so what? Are we supposed to focus only on the certain cultures and ignore others when we talk about health and life expectancy?
I think I've heard this argument before in the context of gun violence in the US - as in, the US wouldn't have a gun violence problem if we excluded cities like Chicago and Baltimore from gun violence research. Is this the same basic argument?
Say Canadian Whites and American Whites both have mean lifespan of 81, and Canadian Blacks and American Blacks both have a mean lifespan of 71. Using that data and the fact that the US has 3X the proportion of blacks, you could calculate how much of Canada's higher life expectancy is due to demographics. It could explain the entire difference!
Alternatively, if Canadian Whites and Blacks live proportionally longer than American Whites and Blacks respectively, you would know that demographics could not explain the difference.
I mean, okay, but what if black people live 10 years less than white people in such statistics?
That's still an abysmal thing, as the US would have something like 30% of their population getting clearly worse health and not caring or doing anything about it?
If the difference is down to demographics, surely that's really bad?
Maybe so, but touting Canada's "superiority" over the U.S. would lead to the "obvious solution" of getting rid of black people. If the difference is down to demographics, you want to know that, rather than look at people in country-sized blocs.
>Are we supposed to focus only on the certain cultures and ignore others when we talk about health and life expectancy?
If you want to get anything done, then hell yes! If life expectancy is low in Concord because of too many Doritos, but it's low in Phoenix because of a bad medical system, and it's mysteriously high in Fresno, you very much want to disaggregate. And you definitely don't want to ask "What is going so well in 'the U.S.'(Fresno)?" and then look at Concord.
It makes a lot of sense actually, a lot of this stuff comes down to what the smaller groups are doing. It's for the same reason no one cares about global gun violence statistics.
Talking about behavior patterns of US people like they're all part of a single nation stopped making sense long ago if it ever did.
It matters in discussion forums like this involving ordinary people. There are two reasons we might care about statistics and trends like this.
One, you're a public health official or maybe even just a voter trying to weigh various policy options or assess the success of what has already been done. In this case, sure, you have to care about national averages and other measures of central tendency and ways to characterize distributions.
Two, you're an individual American trying to figure out how much you should worry about an early death. In this case, national averages or even per-culture averages seemingly mean next to nothing for you. I can't speak for all Americans, but I expect to outlive the average by quite a bit.
For gun violence, it's often travelers and visitors worried they're going to get shot if they come to the US, and we're trying to tell them that whether they really need to worry heavily depends on where they're visiting. Even if they're actually visiting Chicago or Baltimore, gunshot deaths in tourist districts are damn near unheard of, and besides which, the vast majority of people ever killed by guns at all are either killed by themselves or someone who knows them. There aren't a whole lot of random stranger attacks happening anywhere.
Per Google:
"In the United States, life expectancy varies significantly by race and ethnicity, with Asian Americans generally having the highest life expectancy and American Indian/Alaska Natives (AIAN) the lowest. In 2021, life expectancy was 83.5 years for Asian Americans, 77.7 years for Hispanics, 76.4 years for Whites, and 70.8 years for Black Americans, according to KFF. AIAN populations experienced the lowest life expectancy at 65.2 years. These disparities are largely attributed to factors like socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and the disproportionate impact of certain diseases like COVID-19 on specific racial groups. "
The reply has been flagged but if they implied that the OP was being a bigoted dickhead then they were correct.
Practically every single time a comment like that is made, with exceptions so rare as to be irrelevant, the commenter is implying "Well if it weren't for the blacks and immigrants we'd be on top" which isn't true.[1]
But I couldn't be sure, so I looked into it.
The OP is a far-right (his self-description NOT mine [2]) Christian unhealthily obsessed with commenting on posts that contain an opening into which their opinions on race and/or gender may be inserted.
So, if the now-flagged comment was somehow asserting that the commenter was being a bigoted dickhead, the exact right amount of reading into was done.
reply