31835843

> For me it’s just the fact I cannot state any opinion at all because of the controversy it might cause.

Years ago I would have rolled my eyes at this comment. As someone who is liberal and runs in liberal circles, it seems ludicrous to me that any sane person would get called out for anything not overtly racist or mean spirited.

Then one time I asked in a group chat — with people I thought were my friends — about where I could read about trans kids getting hormone blockers, because I wasn’t really sure about giving kids (who generally don’t know what they want) the kinds of drugs that alter their bodies.

The rebuke I got was swift and severe. For reference… I’m a mid-30s gay man who lives in the Bay Area, and I wasn’t even expressing an opinion.

Yeah; I’m out.

There is no hiring process that is perfect. Plus, people burn out, organizations shift focus, etc. People who shouldn’t have been hired in the first place make it in, and people whose skills no longer match the job hang on.

I mean, isn’t that always the case though? That lots of people don’t belong there? It’s just the law of large numbers + the ever shifting lives of people.

This seems so sensible to me that I’m curious why the hell it wouldn’t work.

And this is only true in a markets that are easy to enter. Starting an insurance company isn’t easy.

Why are profit margins only 5%? Could be many reasons, including collusion. Insurance companies have teams of lawyers whose job it is to navigate existing regulation, lobby for new ones and to push for ones that hurt competition.

Given how shady and complex the entire industry is, we don’t really have a reason to believe that 5% is an accurate number.

This would be true if there were a reasonable amount of market understanding by customers and the friction to switching were low. Neither are the case. Most of the time, it takes a qualifying life event or open enrollment (once a year) to switch. And then, understanding the trade offs between plans, which are difficult to understand on a good day, is another barrier.

People who work at FAANG calibre companies are professionals, perfectly capable of finding new positions that suit their skills and level of commitment. I think it’s infantilizing to take the CEO’s comments and imply that those employees are being mistreated.

If your question was intended to claim that the Article you quoted gives The Supreme Court ‘the final say on legal interpretation,’ I’m interested to know which words in that Article you believe gives that say.

The Constitution doesn’t say any of that.

The Supreme Court can just ignore its own precedents, so this doesn’t really help.

Tolerance and diversity are not absolute.

I wouldn’t consider those “American values,” except in the sense that those companies are trying to protect their interests by having a platform that appeals to a wide variety of people.

Which, come to think of it, is itself a distinct value: compromise of free expression for money.

You have a good point here.