HN user

SenoraRaton

43 karma
Posts0
Comments21
View on HN
No posts found.

But somehow having a freeloader at the top that siphons off profits is totally fine? I would much rather have someone that I quite literally worked with, and the rest of the staff interacted with freeloading, than some franchisee owner who literally does nothing for the business. Not only would it be much easier to identify, it would be easier to socially address, or remove this person. I couldn't fire my project mates in school, in this scenario you could.

Does it? If the rest of the community doesn't want you there, seems pretty cut and dry. There are no "managers" at Valve, yet they fire people all the time. You would simply receive your pay, and whatever your portion of the dividends owed to you up until your date of firing.

One thing that I never understood was, if an employees wages are tied to the success of the company, would that not incentivize better work ethic as a whole? That is how it works in the start-up world. You get equity, you have literally invested in the company, and you know that your work should (in theory) directly benefit you financially.

Instead we end up in a system where the employee/employer relationship is inherently antagonistic. If you work at McDonalds, in is 100% in your interest to do the absolute bare minimum possible to not be fired, and in your employers interest to pay you as little as legally possible. This costs more overhead and resources from managers, and dealing with angry customers, and food loss/waste, which could largely be avoided if the employees were invested in the success of the workplace.

You don't actually spend 100,000s of hours memorizing openings. You study the basic opening principles and key variants, but for the most part it comes very naturally. You play 100,000s of hours of chess, and EVERY chess game has an opening.

Sure, here is an example of these "testimonies", and how their stories changed:

After: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7599941/Whistleblow...

Before: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-everyone-was-s...

If you looked at the second link I provided about Nayirah and Desert Storm, you would realize that my concerns about Amnesty and testimonies are inextricably linked. They "corroborated" her testimony. Bear in mind this was in the early 90's, not 1960.

Watch the testimony, and then read the video description. Its all public record.

https://youtu.be/LmfVs3WaE9Y

The facts of the matter are that there HAVE been radical Islamic terrorist attacks in Xinjiang. The Chinese are dealing with the nature of this problem. The extent to which "atrocities" are occurring is constantly stated, yet somehow the numbers are always inflated, stories are changing, none of it adds up.

More sources and references:

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ehrd6y/cmv_th...

If you want a REAL deep dive:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d0lynghlCnR6Hs57pypEEhlh...

Here is a video from April of this year in Xinjiang, one of the terrorist attacks is included in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oKvulTU8oU&bpctr=1597232967

Amnesty international has a troubled history. https://www.mintpressnews.com/amnesty-international-troublin...

Luis Kutner was a co-founder of Amnesty international, and Kutner would go on to form the “Friends of the FBI” group, an organization “formed to combat criticism of the Federal Bureau of Investigations,” according to the New York Times, after its covert campaign to disrupt leftists movements — COINTELPRO — was revealed. He also went on to operate in a number of theaters that saw heavy involvement from the CIA — including work Kutner did to undermine Congolese Prime Minister and staunch anti-imperialist Patrice Lumumba — and represented the Dalai Lama, who was provided $1.7 million a year by the CIA in the 1960s.

If you want more recent events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony

They were the ones that "corroborated" her testimony.

If it weren't so tragic, it would almost be comical, its like they have manufactured consent before, and know what they are doing...

China pulled an entire nation of 1 billion people out of poverty, industrialized and become a global force in less than a century. As is typical with propaganda, you must demonize the enemy as an all knowing specter read to pounce, and at the same time pretend they are a toothless tiger that has so many failing they could never be considered successful.

The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”

http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-...

I question the validity of the accusations i Xinjiang. If you can provide me evidence of wrongdoing, I will be more than glad to read and investigate it. China is dealing with radical Islamists in the best way they feel they can.

I never said that China was "ok", I simply pointed out the hypocrisy that is always present when we demonize a foreign nation, for political ends.

Except there ARE two sides. Capital controlled means of production, and worker owned means of production. These two systems are diametrically opposed to each other. This just comes across as enlightened centrism. I am vehemently opposed to the economic system of capitalism, and I think that it stands in opposition to the very concept of democracy. How am I supposed to see the capitalist as "the same side"?

Arch aur has never let me down.... Linux package managers in general. Curated content, secondary and tertiary content of varying levels of risk. Most high risk activities hidden behind a knowledge gap, yet still available. It is a superior system to directly downloading binaries from random websites, if not only having a single access point increases security.

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”