rubbingalcohol
Joined 14 years ago
Joined 14 years ago
Would you have no problem buying ivory, since it's the poacher who acted immorally, and you as the end consumer have no responsibility as to how it was supplied?
I don't throw this word around lightly, but what we are enabling in the Congo is evil, and all so we can drive expensive electric cars and pretend like we're making the world better. It's pathetic.
I guess to simplify:
Shitty manager ===> Employees leave
Employees leave =/=> Shitty manager
> Happy people don't leave jobs they love.
Debatable, but worth noting that some people are never happy.
My question then is WHY? If they allow granular control over some location collection settings, but not others, and the only way to disable background collection is to turn location off entirely, then doesn't this defeat the purpose of offering granular control at all? What possible reason could there be for having it set up this way?
In my ideal scenario, Maps would have location access when open or navigating but nothing else.
I've worked at several big tech companies and they all abused H1B's. The immigrant workers were paid a lot less than citizens. It pissed me off because the immigrant workers were treated like crap and also I would imagine it puts downward pressure on my own salary.
I worked at a company that gave referral bonuses to employees for new hires. It went like this: $2,000 for a white. $3,000 for a black or Asian. $5,000 for an Indian. HMMM.
There's little incentive for an individual to report anything. You've seen how "whistleblowers" get treated. Up against a big company with a legal department, chances are good that they know how to put up chaff, redirect, deny and obfuscate their abusive practices. Why stick your neck out when it's a systemic problem?