But is it worth the extra effort? Something I've noticed many people ignore is the cost to standardization these kinds of "security" upgrades place. When training a junior/new/contract IT person all these little gotchas need to be mentioned and will slow down workflows regardless. Pile on enough of these tweaks and the infrastructure starts to become less manageable.
IQ discussion has always seemed to me a little like talking about how much money you make with other people. The solid numbers as a mark of "who is better or worse than you" can be uncomfortable. Taken to a statistical level things become even more awkward, not something easy to discuss with most people.
I understand your point of view, but these are different levels of trust. You can audit the javascript they are sending you and (potentially) notice it is a ruse. If they are reading your email after you send it to their server though you have no way of knowing.
How is this a Walmart problem though? This is a totally natural result of free-market competition. When two competing pizza restaurants can no longer squeeze a lower price by reducing quality or working staff harder, they move the production offshore to countries with lower costs (usually looks like slavery). If we want to stop this natural phenomenon we would need new trade agreements to provide a financial incentive to keep the production within USA.
I'm not a fan of Walmart but this is not at all a fair criticism of their business practices.
Human society's categorization of Capitalism as "natural" is probably the reason most responsible for keeping us back from a better world. When you do that, greed is no longer considered a vice but a virtue.
Are you implying that communism is the way forward? I think a lot of murdered people would like to have a word with you, but that wasn't real communism right?
If not, please explain your "way forward" that solves the problems that capitalism doesn't while still retaining the same incentives that appeal to basic human psychology. I'm sincerely interested.
This is an unnecessary strawman. Additionally, any political/economic system is going to have its fair share of blood on its hands. Capitalism included.
I think the person you replied to was opting for evaluating these and other systems in a different light. Judging by your extreme overreaction, I think you missed this important point.
Edit to add: Also, as feedback, the degree of sincerity you claim to have of your interest is undermined by the rest of your response. It would not surprise me if no one took the risk to have a more productive conversation, so please do not take silence as validation.
It's not a monopoly though, this is simply the inevitable conclusion to any price competition: suppliers will be pressed to cut costs in ways that lose American jobs. Having a minimum wage means other countries can undercut our labor and pass some of the savings on to the retailers, who then compete more efficiently vs those who do not put pressure on suppliers. There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Walmart, this one is not one of those.
"forced to live there" is exactly the same manipulative language being used shamelessly here. You should really consider avoiding such use as it detracts from your argument.
On the other foot, should we be "forced" to accept people from corrupt nations? What is the test of character we give these incoming people to prevent the same "corruption-tolerant" people from ruining our own system of government?
"forced to live there" is exactly the same manipulative language being used shamelessly here. You should really consider avoiding such use as it detracts from your argument.
Fair enough. What would be another way to say that a person is denied living in any country other than the one of their origin?
The natural result of having borders? If you think people should be able to live wherever they want then where do you draw the line? Can I come live in your house and sleep in your bed whenever I want?
Did you just compare countries with houses ? Do people still use this tired argument ? The line is pretty obvious, it's called property of usage, you can't be denied what you actually need to live a decent life as defined by your society, but arbitrary borders based on the arbitrary, random fact that someone was born at a random place in earth is one of the worst criteria we can use
Instead of grasping on semantics of his language, why don't you try understanding the meaning? At the end of the day what you propose limits human freedom for a greater collective "good". Good luck with that.
One man's freedom is another man's slavery. If having private property and, by extension, state borders is an infringement on freedom then I think we have larger ideals to collide than this small one we started with.
I've noticed this as well. The number of people in tech who very clearly have no interest outside of their paycheck is disheartening. Can they do they job? Usually. Will they ever update their skills or keep up with the general direction of the industry? Almost never.
I've been rejected from a job before (where I knew someone working there) and was told they had to go with a "diversity hire" since they lost their only female engineer earlier that year. The comments implying I have it easy just because of my gender and skin color are ridiculous and only serve to further divide, not to mention incredibly insulting to the groups mentioned.
Tokyo is what I would consider modern and is miles ahead of most of the big cities I have lived in or visited. Just having public transport that respects their customers (unlike the TTC in Toronto) is already a big improvement.
The Toronto Subway has changed collectors - 7 of whom, in 2016 earned more than $100K.
I'm not making a political statement - just indicating that public transit in Toronto can't move without the unions - and unless you want to pay through the teeth - and keep jobs around where they don't need to be ... no future.
In Frankfurt, most stations have no staff, it's mostly the 'honour system'.
There are some 'token machines' in Toronto but it's archaic in 2017 to be paying people to 'make change'.
I'm fine with 'employing them' but surely there is something more productive they could do.
The one competitive advantage I see them having (and they don't usually even do that well) is giving directions. If the city has to shut down for a few days to kill the unions I am all for it. Multiple delays getting from point a to point b and dead aircon for an entire summer is inexcusable after you've seen how well a city transit system can be run.
If it takes Google scanning my Google ID and filling out a CAPTCHA to get on the subway to achieve this then so be it, the current system embarrasses me when I have foreign friends visit.
Some systems are so backwards they will never be fixed, they will be disrupted. But don't discount the power of unions.
You could have, in Google Village Toronto - literally the coolest and most advanced transit system in the world - and the TTC Change Collectors could still be there.
It takes a mayor or Premier who is basically willing to burn a ton of political capital to take them on - and it never happens.
Current Premier Wynne is bribing the unions for votes.
It's a problem with populism - and one of the ugly/secret reasons that public transit is not expanded in more places: bureaucracy, complexity, unions, cabals, systems-in-place.
I don't like Google, but yes, let's hope they can disrupt public transit.
