If the standard told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?
The standard is idiotic. Which part of "user agent" don't they understand?
166 karma · joined February 10, 2020
The standard is idiotic. Which part of "user agent" don't they understand?
This is unacceptable, IMHO. I was trying to use a site with misconfigured HSTS the other day, and it wouldn't let me. No override, no nothing. That's just offensive. If it gives me a warning, fine. But when it outright tells you, "no I know better than you and I'm going to be smug about it," then this has gone too far.
Browsers are "user-agents," meaning they act on behalf of the user. If they do not do this, they are not browsers anymore.
Thank you for your reply. I think it might be best to agree to disagree, yes. Your characterization is accurate - if women are to be homemakers, a divorcee does indeed lack a place in this world. This is unfortunate, but I believe the alternatives to be worse.
I think your point about the feminists is entirely valid. Unfortunately, that's how it is in politics. You're either for or against something. You're either in support of homemakers, in which case it's in your best interests to argue that it ought to be the only option, or you're in opposition to them, in which case you ought to argue it should be illegal, and that no woman would make the choice of her own volition.
In the abstract sense, maybe. But it still isn't a good look. If I call the support and hear someone from India, my first impression is that they outsourced it to the lowest bidder. If I call the support and hear someone from Germany, my first impression is that it's a German living in America for whatever reason.
You may not like it, but that's how it is. You can either make your customers happy or be politically correct. "Indian tech support" has the reputation it does for a reason, and it's foolish to tarnish your brand with it.
>Because in the US that is literally what the Americans with Disabilities Act requires: https://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/Accommodations.htm
Right, but what's the business case here? If it's only "the potential fines exceed the potential gain," it seems like there are much easier ways to go at it. For example, screening out disabled people early in the hiring process.
Deaf people could work with some accommodation, but why bother? For leadership roles, "using email/chat whenever possible" is clearly not ideal. You'll get a worse result and/or pay more for an equally good result.
The proper solution to labour law isn't to favorize the concerned groups, but to come up with more opaque hiring procedures so as to render them toothless.
Divorces are regrettable. The fact that they carry with them financial consequences is not. That is, after all, what people are entering into – "Till death do us part". They should be as unpleasant as possible without being legally impossible, so that they are used only as a last resort. This will put the onus on the counterparties to do their due diligence before entering into the predicate marriages, a clear and present benefit to society.
>The amount of hours worked by a homemaker has stayed steady at 60 hours per week for about 300 years while we have increasingly created household technology to make the job easier. Meanwhile, the demands on her have crept up to keep her working that many hours.
At the same time, the birth rates have been going down, now standing at sub-replacement rates in many countries. With the present development, it seems like both trends will continue. It seems like a more reasonable idea then to try and encourage women to be homemakers.
It seems like the efficiency remains about the same - being a homemaker supposedly requires less work now, but women also have less kids. Some stuff seems like it should be more efficient, but the human aspects will never be possible to automate.
Or, I mean, you can, and people do - many parents let the iPad raise their kids. But it's not a good thing.
>Historically, when jobs are male dominated, they pay well and have good benefits. If they become female dominated, the pay drops [...]
>[..] men tend to have better credentials that are more career enhancing.
>[..] businesses founded by men tend to be much more financially successful than those founded by women.
All of this is reasonable. I could put forth some alternate explanations (men have higher testosterone -> can take better decisions under pressure -> better businessmen), but it doesn't matter. Men bringing home the bacon and women taking care of the household is a perfectly normal and healthy state of affairs.
>Adult men (married with kids) typically choose colleges that serve their career goals and move the family there.
What adults attend colleges?
>Women were routinely prescribed Valium for depression when, arguably, they should have been told to get a divorce, but trying to establish an adequate income after being a homemaker for years can be a very hard row to hoe.
Yes, that is the nature of these things. Even if they do divorce, they're an old woman with pre-existing children. Of course it would be hard to return to their carefree 20s. This is why, like everyone else, they should plan ahead.
If a man makes a bad decision going into college, studying something that turns out to be a poor fit, then he will face an uphill climb trying to find a new career and an employer willing to accept him despite of his past. This is just the accepted state of affairs, and it's why we place such emphasis on making sure kids make the right choices the first time around.
It's regrettable, but the alternative - an existence of weak, short-term connections, where any relationship or career is entered or exited on a whim - is not much better.
>I soaked up a whole lot of such stats over the years. While dismissive replies are par for the course on HN, it remains rather aggravating to have decades of reading up on the subject dismissed so casually and by a new account that was about two minutes old when you left the comment.
I do not object to the fact that there are patterns pushing women into staying home, I object to the claim that this is regrettable. To me, women working is a sign of financial desperation, whereas for men it is a natural part of life and something from which meaning is derived.
You see this with the successful businesswomen - becoming a businesswoman completely destroys their ability to have a family, forcing them into a sterile and anti-natural lifestyle. Whereas, even the top male CEOs generally enjoy healthy family lives, if a bit challenged owing to their long hours.
The answer isn't to make it easier for women to work, it's to realize that division of labour is an inherently good thing.
"And if so, we must infer that all things are produced more plentifully and easily and of a better quality when one man does one thing which is natural to him and does it at the right time, and leaves other things." –Socrates
If you have a thick accent, then that can obviously cause some problems, and likewise for being deaf.
The only thing this will result in is that companies become more ambiguous; instead of telling people they were rejected because of their accent, they'll just not get back to the duds after interviewing them.
Many people in careers find it deeply soul-crushing. I sincerely doubt a homemaker would have the same feelings, even thought they might consider it regrettable for other reasons.
>Eligibility Interviewers, Government Programs
Huh.