splistud

A perfect demonstration of bias in action

As a rancher in Texas, I have more problems with Cougars than wolves. Neither or an issue really. Wild pigs and coyotes are a problem and must be managed. Water and air quality (much improved since I was a child 40 years ago) and the depredations of apex predators (moronic politicians guided by ignorant electorate) are the real killers.

That said, there are places in N America where the reintroduction of wolves can be an issue if the numbers introduced are too zealous (too many for their natural food source).

Considering the volume, why not start with software?

Pay people, don't try to fit some other benefit on all employees

No. It's not wrong at all. THIS is the obstacle to free expression.

If you want to police actions according to societal laws, that is moral. Policing speech you don't like IS fascist.

"Anyone with a sincere desire for good govt advocates for less outsourcing, less privatization."

"Just know the opponents of democratic civil society will always highjack, subvert, project, argue in bad faith."

The only bad faith displayed here is yours.

Then why the guild-drama act?

Why are users supposed to exercise skepticism about anything the core team says, without any information from the other side so that we may judge for ourselves where our skepticism is warranted?

Are you saying this is the monetization of virtue signaling?

That could be it. But there's of course no way to know what the source of her neurosis is with no further information.

Team rituals that trigger a productivity phase have no usefulness. Team communication has no value. Team leader having a chance to quickly gauge progress is not helpful at all.

Agree. And frankly, anyone that meets half those negative standards is nowhere near competent.

Whether or not you're serious, and forgetting the salaciousness of your satire, there's the point about how completely irrelevant it is as an analogy to what is in question

There is very little interest in any large capex projects of any type, in any location, on the part of banks. They're buying US paper instead. To be expected, given the high inflation rate.

Content? Seems like a good advantage to have for a tutorial website.

Because eliminating vice is not a proper role for government? Because choosing among the vices to tax is..I don't know, bad? I prefer legislators having to balance asking for new initiatives with having to pay for them with universal taxes. But hey, let's just take from smokers and billionaires rather than actually have to make the case for our next government boondoogle.

'We' have been talking in first principles about this and other constitutional touchstones for generations. 'We' don't agree with you in sufficient numbers to allow you alter our concept of free speech.

I agree with your point completely. The 'misinformation' is unimportant. What is important is restricting access. You correctly note that, where legal, any of those groups were allowed to hand out nonsense printed on cheap pulp. Today? Not so much.

To extend this somewhat, not only does paid and quasi-paid political speech(paying operatives/algorithms rather than a newspaper) not face the same accountability re content on Facebook (for example), Facebook does not face the same accountability for providing equal access to it's platform for all political points-of-view.

Were 'anonymously analyzing your data' either true, or the complete extent of the exchange, then you might have a point

It is more predatory than simple business lending leading to making enough revenue to justify more private lending leading to forming a small public company. The only reason there is so much VC money in this industry is because there is little revenue in selling user data or eyeballs at small scale.

It's not out of the box thinking. The problem is that you want to throw one of the values out of the calculation box. You want billionaires to provide capital because there is 'no other way to get a startup going (paraphrasing)' but you don't want to assign a value to that (as in, the workers are what is creating the value).

If, as you mistakenly assert, capital is scarce, then providing capital is a value. You can't have it both ways.

And what is also important is that there is no reason to remove the choice from parents

The best part is that those who believe that extraction leases are rife with 'corporation giveaways' don't see that carbon offsets will be just as fraudulent.

If they are paying the taxes rather than a citizen, then no, they are not net tax payers.

If that were productive they would (and have) already done so.

Steve said yes and Eddy will take it from here is not 'a deal' yet

As a shareholder of Netflix, I was directly harmed. I am most assuredly a common person.

Believing that a corp you do business with does things illegally doesn't relieve you from some duty to report it (especially if you become involved). Very likely, providing evidence relieved them from being prosecuted.

I'd like to see that. I'd be more interested to see the ethical case for working for any startup that is based on user's being the product, or takes VC money so that it can destroy existing businesses through predatory pricing. Fact is, the sub-industry this forum relates to is a breeding ground for ethically-challenged business plans.