I understood from the article that workers remain working for the coop (possibly in different companies) until they retire, and then, the coop provides them with pensions; so they continue to receive value after retirement.
What if they pass away? I assume their shares are sold immediately and the money paid out to their estate.
Now suppose that all the work they did was in the R&D phase (and fundamental to the project) but the final product had not been released at the time of death of the contributor — so the profits had not been realized — thus the payout on those shares would be a small fraction of their true valuation.
Imagine if a novelist died just after submitting their final draft to their editor but prior to the book’s publication. Forcing the estate to sell off the book before it had a chance to hit the shelves — and become a bestseller — would be an outrage, yet the rigid nature of worker co-ops (cessation of work forces the sale of shares) guarantees this.
Where’s the cooperative in your example? Either you are a freelance author who has a contract with a publishing cooperative. In this case you have a contract with that cooperative and during the negotation process both sides decide together what happens in case of death before publication. Or you are an author inside a publishing cooperative, so you own part of that cooperative and decide together with the other authors, publishers etc. what will happen, if somebody dies before the publication of their book. In both cases the author is part of the decision of what should happen in case of an early death.
The example way above was NVIDIA. Suppose the person who passed away was one of the founding researchers at the NVIDIA worker coop. They developed most of the key technologies that go into a graphics card, but they died during the later stages of production ramp up, before the first GPUs are able to hit the market.
The issue is that the deceased researcher's contribution to the project may be so central and foundational that they may be entitled to a large plurality (or even majority) stake, but forcing the other worker-owners to buy out that stake to pay the estate would bankrupt the coop at this critical pre-production stage. Since only active workers are allowed to maintain ownership, allowing the estate to retain those shares and later receive dividends on future profits is off the table. This issue seems to tie everyone's hands and sound the death knell for the coop.
The novelist case was meant to show an extreme non-coop situation. I don't see any compelling reason for writers of books to join coops, since the writing of the book is the only hard part these days (and countless ways to self-publish exist).
I recommend reading more about existing cooperatives. They offer way better packages to their employees than manager-owned companies. This can also include life insurances, health insurances, child care etc. And since everyone working and owning a company, where the profits might come in at a later stage, you can be sure, that these people working towards that goal, will make sure that they have the security they require. Why wouldn’t they? It’s their job and their company. They have everything required to set up the necessary legal work.
The case with the novelist is also easy to answer. Publishers do more than just printing books. They also do marketing, host events, send authors to interviews etc. All of that work becomes smaller if you share it with others. Plus being new to the industry, you can get the help from experienced writers. Cooperating with other people has loads of advantages. I could go on for hours. Also nobody is forced to join cooperatives. Every novelist can decide to remain a freelancer. It’s basically a cooperative with a single worker. A lot of cooperatives are founded by groups of freelancers by the way, because already having a business mindset, having experienced the freedom of owning your own business and wanting to stay in control when collaborating with others, makes cooperatives the obvious choice.
You are always more free, have more options and are treated better when you own the result of your work.
We solved some of this by having a "src" folder with subfolders: "functions", "triggers" and "views". Then a update-src.sql script that drops all of those and recreates them from source files. This way we can track history with git and ensure a database has the latest version of them by running the script and tests (using pgtap and pg_prove).
+1 make it per user
This decision works against zulip long term, now we have to think before inviting/adding users to our server.
Third rug pulled from under us in a year: zerotier, rport and now zulip.
Karma police
Arrest this girl
Her Hitler hairdo
Is making me feel ill
And we have crashed her party
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
This is what you'll get
When you mess with us
Yours is a short question to make, but it requires a very long answer, not fit for a comment box. The negative consequences of prostitution are deeply personal because the effects of sex on the participants go deeper and last longer than the effects of the act of copulation. If you want a good argument against prostitution one route could be to understand the link between sexual expression and: intimacy, self esteem, love, relationships...
You are probably right, but what is the alternative? banning prostitution is to me a very bad idea, it won't end it, it will just force the women to work illegally without the protections of the state.
I've been a customer of several sex workers in many countries and most of them are actually OK with their job and lifestyle (I've asked several). In many places it's the best/only opportunity they have to earn good money and be independent. They find it better to sell their bodies for 1 hour tops with rules and regulations to several men than to have to marry and stay with one man that hits them and makes their life miserable
Another thing I've found by experience is that most women see prostitution as a temporal thing to make some money and then quit. I'd love to see research on the topic but from my experience it's a job that they do for months, maybe 1 year at maximum, but do enough money to quit and do something else.
I think overall legal prostitution is way better than black market prostitution. No-prostitution just won't ever happen no matter what, isn't it the oldest of jobs?
The most basic question of all when banning private transactions between consenting third-parties is that why you are more qualified to judge the trade-offs of the trade than the participants, as the participants know their own values best, and hold their own best interest in mind (while you might be incentivized to benefit yourself in some way, e.g., boss others around, virtue signal, etc).
There are lots of jobs that cost the workers something precious. Banning them is likely to hurt the workers, not help them. To help the workers, opportunities for learning marketable skills must be presented, and productive job positions created.
>If you want a good argument against prostitution one route could be to understand the link between sexual expression and: intimacy, self esteem, love, relationships...
yes, but many actions have those links. this is the basis for the war on drugs that is just now ending in my country.
The argument isn't "does it affect people", but "does it CONSISTENTLY affect enough people negatively that it needs to be outlawed/extremely restricted?" Many of the argument I read against prostituion would be solved by... making it legal and having legal protections of workers. Or at least decriminalizing it for workers so they aren't punished for reporting abuse.
The argument for is pretty compelling: consenting adults have the moral right to sexual privacy, and other adults do not have any moral rights to pry or interfere.
The argument against must be at least as clear and compelling, not "well, it's complicated..."
You know, technology doesn't just materialize spontaneously, it is made with a human purpose and that purpose (with all the subjectivity of everyone that participates in creating and fostering the technology) is imbued in those inanimate objects. When you use technology it guides you in its intended use according to its purpose, when you open a door by its handle, when you put your headphones on.
Phones and youtube specifically are made to make money by gaining and keeping one's attention. They achieve it with tactics that trigger addiction. Some people become addicts, some not so much, but if you have a human brain you will feel the pull to abuse them.
In the case of phones and youtube the "mythical they" are the ones who profit from them and don't care about the effects of their tactics on the users. Maybe it is not warfare but it sure is asymmetric.
