pyronik

It pisses me off that Amazon doesn't support chromecast, but is it really their responsibility just because google wants them to implement their feature that they do?

I understand the marginal utility argument. That argument assumes there is any moral right to steal from one person and give to another in the first place. I disagree there is. This is an analogy NOT a comparison... but its like saying its ok take the heart of an old person to give to a child because they would get more use out of it. Yes, that's true, but its a non starter due to the deprivation of the rights of the old person.

No amount of feedback can turn a lemon. Also, its not the role of corporations to play makework and pretend they are contributing. So someone gets fired and takes a job more befitting of their abilities... that's not welfare that's just life.

Yeah and its a complete pain in the ass. It's funny these people can't do their jobs but they are masters of using HR departments to shield them from their own incompetence.

Yes it does get annoying hearing them bitch about how the rich aren't paying enough when they contribute nothing though.

People presumably benefit from those directly in old age, should we count how much people spend in groceries too?

Who's being forced to use uber/lyft? Ironic that you believe state intervention into markets as being the "will of the consumer".

How many men take offense to hiring quotas but keep their mouths shut so they don't end up like Damore? You just set up an environment where how someone feels is more important than logic/reason/truth and that is never a good position to be in.

Every day the "pro-diversity" (in the sense of preferentially hiring practices) don't abstain... they tell you a viewpoint and force you to adopt it even when you disagree. The fact people keep their mouth shuts shouldn't be a surprise. That doesn't make the pro crowd any less controversial. It's just they don't get fired for their controversial opinions.

Google helps push big government power and their ability to unilaterally interfere in markets. The fact it was used against them is poetic.

Are we really at the point in society if someone asks a coworker out on a date its sexual harassment? I imagine the answer to that is whether she said yes or not. Rule #1 ... be attractive.

The irony of choosing Dubai because of America's supposed intolerance.. hope you don't want not only women, gays, non-married couples, or all the other BS a muslim state enforces.

By that logic, women can never know if there is sexism because they don't have all that mythical privilege to compare it to. I'd love to see one time ... one time.. there be a focus on the disparity between men and women in waste services, janitorial services, etc. We accept they don't prefer those jobs but suddenly in tech (since it became sexy) its now a problem?

> waged a legal campaign against the voting rights act, drafted various pieces of legislation aimed at disenfranchising minorities and college students

Showing your ID isn't waging a war against voting rights, its straight up common sense like we have to do for every other thing in society. Many people find it surprising around the world that we don't check IDs.

You say this like the left doesn't have its own in the NYT, CNN, ABC, NBC, Huff, Salon, etc... that's much more of an bubbled echo chamber. At least on the right they get bombarded with MSM daily... they just know its straight up corrupt.

Every day its looking more and more like Brexit leave was a good decision.

>Stop that. Stop that shit right now.

Why are you trying to shut down debate? It's a good point. I want my tax dollars to be maximized and not used to somehow enforce your idea of racial justice.

Maybe so, but when its not worth it to you to pick up off the ground more than what other people make... I think its close enough to not quibble.

Sometimes I think programmers and theologians have a lot in common. Both have dogmas and articles of faith which are backed by internally consistent logic. Now to the comments to hear the Catholics and Protestants debate!

The only reason taxi license (and most other licenses in general) exist so that one group of people can monopolize a business without worry of competition. And with that you get smelly rude taxi drivers.... who drive away if they don't like your destination and are crazy drivers. If uber is guilty of "flouting regulations", that makes me like them even more.

As progressives actively attack the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and totally blown out the 10th.

Is anyone disputing that the purchasing power of one group/person is being increased at the expense of another against their will. This generally meets the accepted definition of stealing.

I lean towards "tough shit" for all welfare. It's theft pure and simple.