forgotmylogin2

If our patent system didn't exist, the drug would have never been developed in the first place.

That's a lot of businesses. The local liquor store "injects themselves" between you and Budweiser when they sell you beer. It's not inherently evil or unethical to act as a middleman, especially when you provide additional value that the original business does not.

So what? Then the restaurant doesn't have to pay a fee.

If the problem is that the delivery services are charging high fees to restaurants, then terminating the relationship with the delivery service solves that problem. If the delivery service wants to make orders like a normal customer without any discounts, that's good for the restaurants.

24% of people choosing not to get a vaccine that doesn't even exist yet is significantly different from what was alleged in the parent comment, which was:

> People think that vaccines have killed more people than they help

A lot of people would choose not get a vaccine simply because they don't like needles, not because they think the vaccine is likely to kill them.

Haves and have notes is a divide that has existed for nearly the entirety of human history. It's not usually what people are referring to when they talk about the extent of the American divide currently. It's really more in reference to the fact that republicans and democrats rarely cross the aisle to support something that the other side is supporting. In this sense, the American divide has gotten wider because it's much rarer to find a republican and democrat willing to agree on something than it was in the past.

Here's a pretty interesting visualization that better explains the idea: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/...

This makes your original complaint that they were ruining streets look even sillier. They've agreed to reverse all the damage they've done. I'm not sure how you're angry about this.

I don't even live in Europe and these policies have still caused significant harm to me. I can only imagine it's even worse for people accessing the web from Europe.

One can only hope that is the case. Otherwise, this ruling is basically a decree that journalists must give away their work for free.

No, it didn't. It worked horrible for television. Every hour of television was filled with over 15 minutes of ads. It was horrible for the consumer.

Restauranteurs opt-in to their relationship with Uber Eats. If they feel they aren't getting compensated fairly, they can opt-out.

It feels quite condescending that you think you need to protect restaurants from Uber when restaurants are already capable of dissociating from Uber. You're essentially saying restaurant owners are too dumb to know what's best for them, so you need to make decisions for them.

I'm not sure what the Uber/Lyft apps look like from the driver perspective currently, but they could theoretically be made to accept those parameters. For example, the app could show drivers a list of nearby requested rides (pickup and dropoff), have the drivers bid on each ride, and grant the ride to the driver who bids the lowest (or let the rider pick).

If ride-sharing apps switched to such a system would it then satisfy you to declare drivers contractors?

I'd expect Uber and Lyft could easily implement a system to do just that, but I'm not sure it would make the situation any better for riders or drivers. Riders would now have to wait longer to get a ride and drivers would have to be constantly typing bids into the app to try to win their next trip. It's not obvious to me that this would alter driver compensation in any meaningful way.

If they have so few options, why do you think it's a good idea to make it un-economical for them to work as taxi drivers?

Uber and Lyft are already massively unprofitable. If you require them to give drivers expensive benefits, they are either going to raise their rates or cut driver pay (probably a little of both). If they raise rates, fewer people are going to use their services, and they are going to have to cut drivers.

You're basically advocating for a fraction of their drivers to be put out of work so that Uber can give the remainder better benefits but a reduced income.

The patient presented with the exact symptoms of the virus, tested negative for other diseases that cause similar symptoms, and had two separate labs report the sample as positive for Covid. I'd say it's far more likely than not that this patient actually did have the virus. December 27th is not even a farfetched date to get the virus given that it was reportedly spreading in China in late November.

> Clearly they wanted the result as well.

Based on what? If anything, I'd say it's clear you don't want the result.

This is a ridiculous stance to take. If true, then open sourcing any form of software is morally corrupt since the government could then use it for evil.

Quite frankly, I don't think any reasonable person would consider selling software to the government to be morally corrupt unless they were reasonably confident the government would use it for evil. Right now, nobody has made a compelling-enough argument to make me believe the government will use this software for evil.

Yours is the worst of the bunch. If you have a gripe with some comment, reply to it and explain why it's wrong.

Then quit and find a job with better pay. My guess is most of them can't because they're already getting the market rate for unskilled labor.

This assumes many employers will consider him a "man of moral" for doing this. I don't think that's cut and dry.

The business owners I know frequently complain about how difficult it is to fire underperforming employees. Trying to ensure they're legally protected from lawsuits requires keeping the inadequate employee on payroll for months in order to collect documentation that shows the employee is not fulfilling their contract. My guess is most business owners would be loathe to hire anybody with a history of making this process even more difficult for their employer.

Merely quitting would be one thing, but when you publicly excoriate your former employer like this (including allegations of racism and sexism without evidence), you become a massive liability to future employers. Quite frankly, I would never hire this man if I were a business owner. And the fact that the leadership of a left-leaning company like Amazon also seems to disagree with him makes me think I'm probably not alone.

I would guess the chance of finding any other summer work right now, let alone another technical internship, is below 50%. The way you handle this is to take the internship and be happy it didn't get cancelled entirely.

Agreed, somebody who is willing to commit a crime to advance their fringe political views is not somebody I want anywhere near my company. I can already imagine the headaches this guy will cause if he discovers the meat in the cafes was not farmed to his liking.

It's not degrading the Tesla brand though. Tesla is the second largest automaker in the world by market cap. Toyota, the only company larger than Tesla, was founded 65 years before Tesla. What Musk (and all Tesla employees) have built so far is nothing short of astounding. To imply he's leading them to ruin with his unfiltered twitter account could not be farther from the truth.

Yup. Sadly, our politicians care more about getting re-elected than doing what's right for society.

Your focus on the virus spread while ignoring the tens of millions of people who have lost their jobs because of this is selfish and egocentric.

I do not believe there is room for an alternative viewpoint to that.

People aren't going to be able to pay their bills regardless of whether they're locked down by mandate or by choice. However, if we allow the low-risk population to continue working, they will generate tax revenue that can be used to provide for the high-risk population. From that perspective, lifting the lockdown for low-risk persons is strictly better for the high-risk population than maintaining a blanket lockdown.

+1.

Continuing a lockdown of this severity makes no sense. San Francisco has only had 22 Covid deaths. A city the size of SF would be expected to see 5x as many cancer deaths as that in a normal month [1] and 7x as many heart disease deaths [2]. Instead, we're maintaining a policy that discourages people from seeking preventative treatment for these diseases on the basis that we don't want them contracting a less deadly disease.

The lockdown has proven to be excessive. The doomsday predictions have not come to pass, and we're entering a time of year that is known to be correlated with reduced rates of viral spread (Flu infection rates are 30x higher in the winter than the summer [3]). We need to get people back to work now. Social distancing should still be maintained where feasible but a blanket lockdown will cause way more harm than good.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/cancer_202... [2] https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm [3] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/index.htm

This seems like fitting the facts to support a narrative. I don't see how having tax-payer funded healthcare would have helped us. There are numerous countries that do have tax-payer funded healthcare that are in the exact same situation as the US. The fact of the matter is there's nothing preventative that can be done for this virus, so wider access to healthcare should not be expected to change anything.

One of the biggest risks voicing any political viewpoint is that your opponents will demand you be fired from your job because of it. If you wear a mask, it becomes much more difficult for onlookers to identify you and contact your employer.

Can you explain more about why you think they would need an excuse to re-structure?

If they thought their senior engineers were getting paid too much, what was stopping them from cutting their salaries before the pandemic?

That seems pretty disingenuous given that the Great Depression was the lynchpin for World War 2 which directly resulted in the deaths of 75 million people.

"Threat" is a one of the biggest weasel words I see used by the media to influence their readers. If the subject of the article is meant to be sympathetic, the media will instead use the word "warn" which is more neutral. If the subject is meant to be a villain, they'll use "threat" since it has a connotation of violence.

This headline could have easily been written as "Amazon states it may suspend French deliveries ..." but that doesn't portray Amazon as negatively as the author wanted. Amazon is meant to be the villain in this article.

> Amazon is straight up firing these people for expressing their personal opinions.

That's not exactly uncommon in the modern world. Especially with the prevalence of social media, expressing your opinion on anything publicly could cost you your job. Same thing happened to James Damore.

If you want to remain employed, you need to be quite cautious about what you post on non-anonymous social media. In fact, I'd advise most people not to post on social media at all.