+1. In order for this to be punishable in the US, they would have had to have known this press release was fake before publishing it which would be a much different story.
The headline should be updated to say they were fined by France.
Have you tried purchasing health care before? It's not inexpensive. There's no way we could guarantee food, health care, and housing for everybody with no work requirement. Only a really stupid person would believe this could work.
Money is an artificial construct used by humans to facilitate trading their labor amongst each other in order to get what they need to survive.
Arguments about how expensive things are make no sense if we restructure our society where money is only half the equation. The labor required to provide food, health, and housing is incredibly small compared to the overall economy.
People want to be useful, and people want more than just a place to live and food to eat.
The real danger would be in creating a system that stifles the free market side of the economy and leaves people stuck in basic assistance hell with no way of working to improve their lives. Worrying about the costs of providing basic assistance to all is actually the least important bit.
Companies that buy advertising at games pay a pretty penny for it. Fans who buy tickets to games have paid to watch the game, not to advertise their cause. If fans want to advertise at games, they can pay the advertising rate.
Yes we must respect our corporate overlords, by their good graces we sit in their stadiums. It would be disrespectful to treat this private space like a public forum in any way. Even if the stadium WAS partially built using public funds...
+1. I gave up reading halfway through after he complained about sexism for the tenth time without giving a single example. It seems like the author just wants to complain and doesn't really know anything about what makes a company successful. Not worth reading at all.
This guy is pretty far left (to the point that he banned meat in his offices). I doubt conservatives and libertarians are going to be bending over backwards to defend him.
There have been multiple articles defending Elizabeth Holmes, and her personal politics are just as liberal.
It's not about defending the person, it's about defending this vague entrepreneurial ideal of the renegade founder, the Jobsian inability to accept the status quo.
If it turns out this was all an elaborate way to demonstrate the follies and flaws of capitalism, and he takes all his cash and puts it into founding some left-wing movement etc etc then sure maybe then I'll believe he's left wing.
But having a set of [very publicly expressed] personal beliefs that correlate strongly with left-wing positions covers a hefty chunk of the élite (hello various conservation topics, vegetarianism, etc etc). He has, now (and more than likely from now onwards, as will his family), awesome personal wealth and the attendant power that buys, he will get nice things written about him.
Leftists are very against this sort of exploitative and unethical behavior. In fact, socialists push for employee ownership (and thus decision-making power) of corporations, precisely so that some schmo at the top can't strip the company and leave (and so people are paid in proportion to the value of their labor).
The comment you're replying to is suggesting a way to prevent a PR crisis like this, not a way to escape an ongoing crisis.
It's hard to deny that there would be a much smaller PR issue here if the player had been prevented from voicing any opinion on Hong Kong in the first place.
Almost all studies about vegetarianism are born of an agenda to promote vegetarianism.
To a meat eater, studying the effects of eating an all vegetable diet is the same as studying the effects of walking backwards everywhere you go: it's not something we'd ever consider doing so we see no value in studying the effects of doing it. Furthermore, meat eaters do not care if other people don't want to eat meat. As such, most of the people conducting studies about vegetarianism are people who think eating meat is immoral. Their motivation to conduct the study is to stop other people from eating meat.
> What blocks you from even considering the option?
Human biology, perhaps? After all, haven't we evolved over thousands of years to be omnivores?
> It's a little strange to see a comment so boastful of a lack of intellectual curiosity on HN.
In other words, according to you, people who aren't interested in being vegetarian lack intellectual curiosity. It's a little strange to see a comment so boastful of intellectual intolerance on HN...
I know plenty of vegetarians and a few vegans. While vegetarians do relative okay especially if they eat eggs, the vegans are forever talking about supplements and are fatigued and look like 60 by the time they are in their 40s.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Those are anecdotes and it sounds like you're biased.
There are plenty of athletes on a vegan diet. Sure we take B12, but plenty of omnivores are deficient as well. The only reason you get more of that is because it's supplemented to livestock.
My blood tests came back absolutely stellar and I eat whatever I want most days. When it comes to sports, I can easily compete with my omnivore friends.
Just describing what I see. I don't disagree that there may be a few people who do fine with it, in general, it is a huge overhead to make sure you are getting enough as a vegan. As a omnivore you can grab that steak and go.
One example is that news organizations will often choose not to report on crimes when they're committed by racial group A even when they report on the same crimes when committed by racial group B.
Highlighting or minimizing demographic information of victims and assailants in crimes is a huge way news organizations insert their biases while still reporting factually accurate information.
The headline should be updated to say they were fined by France.