derevaunseraun

> At best, their parents may have some ability to either enroll them in a private school or move.

Situations like this have happened before and there are ways that kids can be bused/driven to different public schools. If the parents don't care or want to see their kid suffer then they're horrible people

Okay? You wanna explain or just be a dickhead?

> In most countries, they simply conscripted them. There was no "convincing"

But who conscripted them and dragged them off to war? Was it the politicians who decided to go to war? The "convincing" isn't necessary once it's reached critical mass

> And all this in the 70s.

It was just as bad before this

With WWI, how did the european powers manage to convince their civilians to go die in the trenches fighting a meaningless war? Or Vietnam in the US

The saying "if everyone jumped off the bridge..." is funny, because people will say it and forget what it means the moment everyone around them starts jumping off the bridge

> And I state that free healthcare and handouts make people more dependant on the government, since governments can always provide some reason for decreasing the handouts or healthcare provided for various reasons. For example, perhaps at some point a government might decide to withheld free healthcare for civilians that refuse vaccination. Civilians at the bottom of the food chain would then feel more pressured in taking some vaccination in order to keep access to free healthcare of government handouts.

This sounds right, but the same issue of refusing services is just as valid (if not more valid) for private businesses. It would be a harder argument with respect to public healthcare because the first amendment is binding with respect to the government and not private companies. Said private companies and insurance companies can (and likely do) charge more because of things like vaccination.

The problem is not a matter of private vs public healthcare but of punishing violation of the first amendment and enforcing legislation that protects religious minorities from discrimination, especially on insurance companies.

The private sector is more unregulated than the public sector with regard to things like religious freedom. Corporate HR departments can get away with more coercion and subterfuge than the government, hence the current situation in the US where employers control freedom of speech and other things more thoroughly than the government ever could. It's far easier to exert power through the corporations than it is through the government

Not all social media is bad. Bad social media is bad

This article has just enough ambiguity for the author to be seen as either an insufferable dickhead or a decent person in a bad situation

If he's complaining because his employees haven't memorized some niche part of documentation by heart and - gasp - need to look something up, then he's the former

But if he's complaining because employees don't understand basic fundamentals like scope, then he's entirely in the right

Actually edit:

> I started with offering my help. Can't solve a problem? Come get me. I will come over, sit on your chair, and finish your task. You'll sit next to me and memorize the way the work should be done.

I don't like this, It seems like bad management with subtle insecurity. imo it would be better to show the employee how to go about solving the problem themselves so that they can do it and feel confident in their own abilities, as opposed to just doing it for them

> Privacy is not something that can be controlled at the individual level when you're up against billion dollar budgets.

But the billion dollar budgets are spread across an incredibly broad scale and have to handle a ridiculous amount of data. Certain patterns scale very well for the companies, e.g. using google chrome while logged into the google account

If we just avoid the big players and use a bunch of different, unaffiliated services, it makes mass surveillance more expensive and less likely to yield a strong ROI

Defeatism just gives these companies a better ROI with respect to surveillance, and it also makes us more susceptible to pushes to erode privacy, like the current one to replace passwords with biometric data

> For example, intentionally visit websites (manually or automated) that you don't believe it. This will trip up their algorithm. How are they supposed to know what you actually think or believe in?

Imo the claim "We can suggest what you should do next, what you care about. Imagine: We know where you are, we know what you like." is just a sales pitch to the data industry in disguise.

They know what we do, but it isn't possible to know what we think without making a bunch of assumptions

> Every advocate of Progress I've read or spoken to sees it as managing and extracting value from other people - and not establishing a basic stability from which others can be free to actualize and thrive. Even basic income is really about putting the managers of such a scheme at the centre of it, and it's to the point where even the very word 'free' is triggering. I'd argue that belief in Progress is not a benevolent, charitable, or altruistic sentiment.

A lot of people talk about progress in this way, but it's really just their own aggression expressed in ideological form

But I do think that progress is an actual thing: just look at what the printing press accomplished, and what the internet is in the process of accomplishing. I think that making more information accessible at a lower cost is the core of progress. Who knows where this will take us, but it's made certain things possible that were not possible before. Life expectancies are also longer than they've been. But this kind of progress isn't a moral imperative like the political kind. It's just something that happens as a result of production

this video is a work of art