341 karma · joined February 19, 2016
Animals eat other animals. We're animals, so we do that, too.
If anything, religions largely promote treating animals properly, because they're some form of gods' creatures.
It sounds like those people should also get vaccinated, rather than not requiring anyone to be vaccinated.
Similarly, if the people paying the people in charge of designing a product perceive a similar product's design to be the best, then they will pay those people to copy it.
This can be seen in any product (cars, smartphones, food - the list goes on).
From time to time there are designs that don't look like others, and those may or may not be met with approval. If they're liked, those designs (or aspects of them) get blended with the standard.
The author of the article I linked paints the anecdote you've cited as Gladwell's "research". I had thought it was more exhaustive than that.
Given these are the types of jobs these men are leaving, and assuming these are the types of jobs still available, it's these jobs.
The market is hot because jobs are available. It's not hot because good jobs are available.
This isn't entirely due to branding. Pepsi is preferred during sip tests but Coke is preferred when drinking a whole can[0].
[0]https://www.wideopeneats.com/difference-coke-pepsi/ *This article does refer to the branding "New coke" and "Coca Cola Classic", but the branding was to ensure adoption for an actual change to the drink they had already made.
Of course it would have a huge impact - you're radically changing the diets of a majority of the population of the planet.
Correct - the same goes for "Linked to drugs" and "squarely caused by drugs".
> that alone shows sugar to be far safer
Sugar is safer than cocaine, but that does not make it safe. I shouldn't have said the only difference - sorry.
> But never mind, let's look at, oh, the lethal dose (LD50) info
This is too narrowly focused - the LD50 only refers to the immediate effects of a substance, not the long lasting effects. I'd argue that long lasting effects are more dangerous as they're less apparent.
> Plus there is copious sugar in your bloodstream without which you'd be in hypoglycemic shock leading to death.
Yes, our bodies need sugar and create it from the food we eat. I was talking about the food we call sugar ("Sugar is the generic name for sweet-tasting, soluble carbohydrates, many of which are used in food.)
I should use "added sugar" or "refined sugar".
Companies abuse (misuse) their power over consumers. Consumers are abused by companies through marketing.
I wholly agree with my sibling commenter that it is cruel for companies to market to us with the intent of separating us from our money.
Selling a product is passive. Advertising that product is active. A company selling a product is not abuse. However, stores serve as advertisements for the products they sell. I would say that such stores - and the salespeople within them - are abusive.
> my kids only activate ads accidentally and then have to come to me to figure out how to get out of the trap that the ad has led them into, since closing the ad can be tricky.
Advertising aside, would you agree imposing a difficult to navigate user interface is abusive? I would.
Good point. I guess helpings kids to learn to think objectively in general is the key to helping them think objectively about the things we shield them from when they're young.
This helps me understand. You've convinced me of your approach - thank you. :)
I believe you're teaching your children to be children instead of teaching them to be people. You're creating an advertisement free bubble for them to live in - once they're living on their own, they'll lack experience dealing with exposure to advertisement.
You see benefit in the teaching opportunities in the times your kids are exposed. I'd argue you would have more teaching opportunities if they were exposed more often. The sooner they see it's a part of every day life, the sooner they'll be equipped to handle it on their own.
That said, maybe this is hypocritical. I stop my daughter from doing things I know will harm her (using knives, seeing scary things), maybe I'm just not being cautious enough about what I shield her from.
Advertising exists to get consumers to spend their money on a product they don't need (or a particular brand of a product they do need).
The argument is that if they're inspiring you to give them your money for something you don't need (in most cases, tricking you into thinking you do need it) that's abuse.
The physical dependence is the same, and there are 4 times as many deaths that can be linked to sugar as drugs per year in the US.
The only difference is that heroin is illegal and costs a lot more than candy.
The angst they save their family still exists - they'll keep it to themselves. Even without sharing, that's bound to have some social implications.
Without fail, whenever I approach one of those intersections on a green light where the pedestrian signal has changed to a flashing hand, at least one car slows down.
I have seen people stop at a green light where the pedestrian signal is a solid hand (meaning the light will change to yellow soon).
Acting in an unexpected way is a recipe for an accident.
- The law/lawmakers and the public have differing views on what should be illegal
- The police are incentivized to find crimes, and the public is aware of this
To violate one's moral code should surely be worth more than 200k, if they're already taken care of financially.
LoL has 141 champions. Still significantly higher than Dota's 116.
A common note I hear when people discuss open AI playing dota is that it uses pre-made matchups, which reduces the number of matchups considerably.
Would it be that difficult to have the AI play the picking stage? Compared to the complexity of the decisions you have to make during the game, the picks are straightforward - especially if you have performance data on matchups.
The number of practice games the AI would have to play to learn to handle all the heroes goes up drastically, but that's only a matter of time.
I have a different perspective on this:
Countries want people to have children - it's good for the country. However, people expect companies to support people's lifestyles (in exchange for work). With local companies, it makes sense for the company to want to support the people working there - they at least have a stake. Large companies are often global entities. As a result, they may have no stake in the people in certain countries - or even any countries.
Shouldn't be the country's people (through paid taxes) and government (through support programs) support the lifestyles of the people?
Rather than passively supporting Amazon because it's the most convenient or cheapest option, investigate why they might be able to offer their service at a rate other companies in their space can't.
I don't believe it's right to assume or enforce that companies disclose all of their business practices to their customers. Those practices should be audited by a regulatory body to assess whether they're humane or ethical.
> I have a lot of confidence that many of Amazon's labor practices would be banned if they were put up for a straight-up national referendum.
On this, I'm sure you're right. Which leads me to an interesting question:
Assuming: 1) There are companies engaging in activity the majority of their potential customers would find immoral 2) One of these companies is able to provide a superior product or service at a reduced rate to their competitors 3) Information about these immoral practices is available to those customers (though they have to seek it out)
Why do people still support the company? Shouldn't people suspect something is fishy with that company's offering?
My assumption to begin with is that consumers were turning a blind eye in order to keep using the service. That may not be the case.
Maybe it's that they don't have the time or capacity to evaluate this for themselves (especially for the number of businesses we all depend on daily). Maybe it's a tragedy of the commons.
How can we fix this?