minitel

> The end does not justify the means. So what good is a society built on prejudice, harassment, and corruption?

Spoken like someone who was raised in a culture where airing grievances led to getting what you wanted most of the time.

I mean, it's not illogical. There's a reason why the activist archetype is so respected in our society. It gets results!

But the outlook that fuels activists to push things things until they win: "I'd rather burn everything to the ground than not get what I want" is also an incredibly short sighted and selfish way to look at things.

This is the human condition I guess. We take things for granted. Like the stability we've grown up in, so much that we're willing to sacrifice our inheritance [a stable and mostly fair society] chasing windmills.

Luckily we've amassed so much wealth and institutional inertia that I think it'll be a while before it all comes tumbling down.

They probably, rightly, assumed that certain personality types gravitate toward programming work. They also probably felt that their manner and choice in clothing style helped to convey their personality type. For example, in their minds a programmer might choose to dress more like the girl in "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" or interact socially in a way that's either more intense (excitable nerd stereotype) or more withdrawn (shy nerd stereotype) than is the norm.

I know that despite my gender people will change their expectations about my career based on how I dress. When I had an undercut and wore around hoodies more often people were much more likely to assume I was technical. Now that I've gotten a little older and my fashion sense has become more conservative people tend to assume I'm a manager or in some other sort of administrative/people oriented role.

It doesn't take much experience in the world to notice that personality type, fashion sense, and career choice are correlated with one another.

It takes a lot of experience on the other hand to learn that you are supposed to ignore such things for the sake of politeness.

It says it right in the article.

> Currently, Amazon is one of the leading contenders for an up to $10 billion contract to build a private cloud for the Department of Defense.

Amazon aims to partner with the DoD, that makes them quasi governmental.

Logged out of any Google account from a work IP address (not used for much personal searching) and I get the same result.

Info cards are not influenced by your account's history as far as I know. They are purely programmed by a combination of bots and hand tweaked responses. The hand tweaked responses come from a combination of user complaints/requests and internal pushes by engineers.

Wait what? Are you claiming that corporations deign for some countries to become dumping grounds? I'm not sure what you mean here. The article hints at the fact that while standards of living increase for some, they decrease for others... Which is essentially the complaint that anti-globalization activists have. It's not a rising tide but a race to the bottom.

Most corporations (I can't think of any counter examples, but maybe someone here will find one) are all on board with abolishing borders. It makes the most sense from the POV of a capitalistic institution since it drives down wages and increases efficiency much more than strong national borders and "nationalism" would. (Wouldn't your local tech giant like an unlimited supply of work visas to pass out like candy?)

It seems to me that open borders and pro-globalization activists are mostly playing right into the wildest dreams of corporate robber barons. Who prefer the "race to the bottom" WRT labor costs that is "globalism."

Every "side" has their own morality. And believes that they are good and the other "side" is evil. This is just a fact of life.

It is very noble to attempt to adjudicate based on impartial rules rather than picking one of the many possible moralities and enforcing it with an iron fist.

Despite not being a fan of Facebook as a product, I'm impressed that they've been principled enough to not go the route of petite totalitarians like Twitter.

I think the point is that they pander to both sides of any argument to increase the divide and lessen the chances of society making a sane compromise. Much more effective than just spewing insanity and hyperbole.

Extreme progressives would destabilize the country by setting up structural racism and sexism in order to achieve "equity", dissolving borders, gutting the police, and over taxing companies.

Extreme rightists would destabilize the country by repealing too much of the social safety net, closing down the country to immigrants, militarizing the police, and letting companies behave anti-socially with no repercussions.

Our enemies are smart to try to push us into embracing extreme policies. Either way they win. Because when our institutions start to fail we won't be able to project power anymore. It will draw us off of the world stage to some extent.

I left Kentucky for California in my early 20's. I've been making > 100k per year since then and living as cheaply as possible to hold on to it despite the cost of rent. Most of my friends back home make 20-30k a year.

The tradeoff is that quality of life is terrible. The cities are full of petty bug people. And COL makes living standards precarious for all but the wealthy and the extremely poor (government programs). The precariousness also inhibits the formation of stable IRL (as opposed to chat group based) friend groups.

That said, after half a decade of this I've saved enough money to go back home and use stocks, real estate, and side hustles to put down roots with a decent quality of life.

Sometimes I feel like Odysseus on Ogygia. It's easy to be trapped in one of these hubs so long that you miss out on the chance to exit young-adulthood gracefully. (Very sad the number of friends I have who decided to start a family too late and couldn't quite make it work out).