Article 13 strengthens copyright laws and infringes upon Fair Use. I am perfectly fine with removing Safe Harbor from platforms that choose to stringently police content in a way that far exceeds the legal standard, I am not okay with an outright denouncement of freedom of information. It's a question of scope, not principle.
Cheers and merry Christmas! I'm already stoned ofc because I've had about a week long vacation from work.It's sad that the Internet is getting smaller, not bigger. This is why I support upstarts like stream dot me, we need to support the alternatives. But alas, as I already mentioned, I fully intend to be a drunk fool tonight, so I must depart while I am still coherent.
The problem, though, is exactly that; jobs that are typically associated with entry-level positions have a high supply of applicants with a relatively low demand. As @Xzi mentions later, this creates a revolving-door scenerio in which the employer can effectively say "we can rotate out a bunch of low-skill high schoolers and train them for less money than what you'd want us to pay you. Why should we do that?" Sure, they'd be losing efficiency (even "low skill" jobs have a bunch of skill associated with them that can only be learned with experience), but as you've mentioned in a lot of different discussions, most employers will go with the best cost/benefit solution for the short term.
There is no perfect anything. No perfect free market, no perfect regulation, and it’s about making sacrifices and choosing one that produces superior results.
If it makes things any better Amazon is lobbying to raise the federal minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour. But then comes the question why are they lobbying?
I'd imagine because they think that'll attract more workers while also improving the economy. A stronger economy means more people using amazon to buy stuff. I hear their working conditions aren't great in warehouses, and a higher minimum wage might keep them from complaining about the poor work conditions? Just completely guessing.
Amazon used a $15/hour wage as an excuse to remove other benefits such as healthcare coverage and bonuses. They also used the positive PR from this to take focus off their extremely poor working conditions. I imagine other corporations will see this as an opportunity to engage in similar shitty practices, but I suppose it is still a net positive if big employers like Wal-Mart and fast food are eventually forced into a living wage. Those people almost never had health coverage or other benefits to begin with, and their working conditions were already shitty.
I’m thinking more along the lines that their competition can’t afford it. So they are eliminating competition.
That's probably what they're thinking, yes. But assuming Amazon is the current highest-grossing retailer in the nation (and I'm inclined to say they are, although I'd need to look at a stat sheet), it makes sense for them to be among the first to pay a company-wide living wage, while giving other businesses a chance to breathe, build up a bit of revenue, and then follow the lead shortly after
Way to miss my point entirely. Not knowing about how gravity works doesn't make it less real. Being wrong about what's moral or immoral is not "a different morality", it's being in the wrong. My whole point is that morality is not "ideals" or "beliefs", it's more akin to "facts" and "knowledge" - and you keep talking as if I'm saying the opposite.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Religion, religion, religion, I did not once said religion is the source of morality. I said GOD is. The world He created just operates on set rules. You wouldn't accuse physicists of proclaiming their "opinion" about how exactly gravity works and call it their community's "arbitrary decision" to teach it.
The word "better" has no meaning if morality is subjective, that's the point. We can say "the higher the temperature, the more water evaporates" or something, because temperature is not a matter of opinion or majority vote. But we can't say "the nicer the temperature, the more water evaporates".
Physical reason = we care about each other.
Way to miss my point entirely. Not knowing about how gravity works doesn't make it less real. Being wrong about what's moral or immoral is not "a different morality", it's being in the wrong. My whole point is that morality is not "ideals" or "beliefs", it's more akin to "facts" and "knowledge" - and you keep talking as if I'm saying the opposite.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Religion, religion, religion, I did not once said religion is the source of morality. I said GOD is. The world He created just operates on set rules. You wouldn't accuse physicists of proclaiming their "opinion" about how exactly gravity works and call it their community's "arbitrary decision" to teach it.
The word "better" has no meaning if morality is subjective, that's the point. We can say "the higher the temperature, the more water evaporates" or something, because temperature is not a matter of opinion or majority vote. But we can't say "the nicer the temperature, the more water evaporates".
Treating each other well, sure, let's go with that. I'm gonna say "treating each other well" involves forbidding abortion, aka murder of helpless children, preventing it at all costs. But a person on the political left will jump in and say "treating each other well" involves giving all women free access to abortion, because they should be able to have unprotected, irresponsible sex all they want and not suffer the natural, obvious consequences of their actions. Would you look at that, we both agree on treating each other better, how well we would get along.
If a higher entity told you something was wrong, and its opinion is what made it wrong, it's not ethically wrong in any logical way. It's wrong only because you'd be disobeying the higher entity's desires. Which is the absolute worst way to construct an ethical system. "do it because I said so" is a poor reason to do anything. "do it because I know better than you" hints they are also logically thinking it out, meaning morality is not based on their will, but because it is helpful or meaningful in some way we could suss out. Which means...we don't need a god to arrive at morality, we just have to think it through
Physical reason = we care about each other.
Let me unpack what you said. We care about each other therefore we treat each other well therefore we don't need objective morality to treat each other well.
Except objective morality is the source of "we care about each other". We are moral therefore we care about each other therefore we treat each other well therefore we think we don't need objective morality to treat each other well.
That's like saying we don't need to actually like a video game because we keep playing it and we have a good time doing so. And since we're having a good time, we don't need to even like the game, just need to keep playing. Playing is the source of the fun, clearly, not some "liking", get real.
Yes, that is the weirdest analogy I've ever made.
Realistically speaking, you can't honestly have one without the other (unless, for instance, you're a spiritualist that rejects the current direction your base religion is heading, which I wouldn't blame you for). If I asked you how a human was to go about following morality in a way that couldn't possibly anger God, you would likely respond with something along the lines of following the teachings of the Bible. Problem is, that's a book that was written by humans, and is the global basis for the Christian religion. That is to say, the morality taught by the Bible, which is supposedly objective, is something that only applies directly to Christians (and Christian literalists/Pharisees, at that). Adding to that, the Christian God is the same god that Jews and Muslims worship, and yet I've seen many faithful Christians call members of those religions immoral, God-hating pigs. If God's morality was objective, would it not be consistent for all of his followers, no matter how they worship? And what of the other various gods that other cultures worship?
That's... a really bad analogy, because you're arguing basically the opposite of what your point is. Enjoyment of a game is subjective; look at all the praise and high ratings Zelda: Breath of the Wild received, then look at GBAtemp's review of it, for instance. If you wanted to argue that morality is to caring for each other as enjoyment is to playing video games, and morality is objective, you'd be implying that everyone would enjoy playing a game equally, regardless of actual interest in it and how much they say they like it
Xdqwerty
Psionic Roshambo
@
Psionic Roshambo:
@
Psionic Roshambo:
like a 250 dollar kit back when DDR4 was Intel only