partial_accumen

The ability to call out BS or contradictory requirements in a job posting.

A US prison guard, if they were to help a prisoner escape, would themselves be hunted down as a criminal.

It does happen in municipal or state jails/prisons, and the jailers that helped are captured and charged. Here’s one example

You could accomplish what you’re trying by putting the GPU in a second computer. Further, most UPSes have a data interface, so that you could have the GPU computer plugged into the UPS too, but receive the signal when power is out, so it can save its work and shutdown quickly preserving power in the UPS batteries. The only concern there would be the max current output of the UPS in the event of a power outage being able to power both computers for a short time.

PT Crusier was the first car (non exotic) I ever saw sold new with a “dealer markup” above MSRP. Curious, I sat in the back seat and it felt like I was sitting on a bag of sawdust.

“can’t afford” as in your business will cease to exist in the short term if you don’t lay this person off who helped facilitate the busesses’s survival to this point,

More this.

or because net profits will be too flat or underperforming for your liking?

“Liking” is a loaded term, but there’s a middle between these two states, as well. If the business is generating less revenue from this worker’s labor than it costs to pay the worker, then the business is losing money. This is absolutely fine in the short term if business is cyclical and expected to turn around. However, doing this too long with no end in sight, drains resources from the company. What this eventually can translate into is that the other workers that are earning profit for the company are essentially subsidizing this under performing worker in perpetuity. This means profit that should go to raises or other benefits for the other workers are instead going to keep this under performing worker employed. Again, short term with expected turnaround, very acceptable. Long term with no end in sight is where the problem is.

How many of us have received little to no raises when a business struggles? This may be because money that would have gone to your raise may have gone to keep someone else employed that isn’t producing.

If you don’t give raises to high and middle performing workers, they rightfully leave to businesses that will. The business suffers, and its another wound to a slow death of the business. If this goes on, the business ends and everyone loses their jobs regardless of how high a performing worker they were or how much they contributed.

These are a few of the ugly choices that have to be made in business that sometimes get labeled as “its just business”.

Hurting others for profit in the name of business shouldn’t be a defense, it should be considered an admission of guilt and come with consequences.

“Hurting others” as in poring toxic waste in residents drinking water or “hurting others” as in laying off a worker that you can’t afford to employ?

It’s going to replace gas ICE vehicles, not EVs. EVs have their place in cities and short transport but they’re not efficient enough to work for large machinery or long hauls.

If your argument against EV for long haul and large machinery is “inefficiency” then I’m not sure how you’re arriving that Hydrogen is efficient. Gaseous hydrogen is very low density, way WAY lower than petroleum. I’ll agree that battery technology today isn’t the best fit for long haul either. However battery technology keeps getting better. Today’s prices are for battery are getting cheaper, lifetime of battery is increasing, and charging times are decreasing.

Hydrogen storage/density has essentially been stagnant for decades. Where is the massive increase needed to support Hydrogen in long haul? Where is the nationwide refueling infrastructure needed for long haul? Hydrogen refueling stations are fewer today in the USA then even just a year ago.

So… they knew the value of their own time and didn’t overwork when they didn’t have to?

This worked the other way NOT in favor of the workers. Sat down at your desk at 7:03am even though you’re not customer facing at all? Expect to be called into a conference room with your boss and your bosses boss about your attendance.

Do you work in IT and need to work off-hours to perform work requiring downtime until 2am? You better be at your desk at 7am on the dot or you’re going to get written up.

Have a doctors appointment at 3pm for an hour? You have to take vacation time for that.

There was this really odd notion that if you weren’t sitting in your chair typing, you weren’t working and would get questioned by bosses.

Most office workers could probably learn from that mindset.

Office workers would learn (or be reminded) about how hellish it was to work a minimum wage job with zero flexibility.

I worked at one company that was 7am-5pm for corporate office work. The company grew from a small retail parts company decades ago, but never changed the mindset. So even the office work was treated like shift work. Office workers wouldn’t even check email before 7am. Many times just hanging out in the cafeteria until 7 on the dot when they had to be at their desks. Further as soon as 5pm hit exactly, all the office workers would drop what they were doing and walk out to the parking lot with all of the other blue collar shift workers.

This resulted in things like Purchase Orders getting delayed by a day because it arrived at the approver at 5:01pm and the approver was gone. There was nearly no weekend office work, which caused its own problems.

It was such a strange place to work.

While thats an awesome pile of storage, I weep for your electricity bill.

Degrowth

From your source:

"For world economic equality to be achieved with the currently available resources, proponents say rich countries would have to reduce their standard of living through degrowth. "

Can I ask what measures you’ve taken in your life to reduce your standard of living to match the degrowth goal?

No wonder the degrowth movement exists. It’s because of this bullshit that we harm everything around us.

Economists and those that made political theory have been looking for better alternatives since the formation of civilization.

What is your suggestion for a better system?

Short answer: Inflation encourages spending, because if you don’t spend it, it will be worth less in the days, weeks, years ahead as inflation eats away at the value. If your money is worth more by saving (deflation), then you wait to spend because the thing you want to buy will be cheaper tomorrow, and cheaper yet the next day. If people stopped spending the economy grinds to a halt. Everyone loses their jobs.

I really wanted to like DDG, but its results returned are so horribly unusable, I had to give up.

I’m usually searching for something obscure, but add in general terms for general refinement. DDG will ignore my obscure term (the thing I’m actually looking for) and give me pages of results of the general terms. Using special operators doesn’t help. Whereas Google will give me at least a few relevant results using the same search terms.

For me it’s more important to future proof our species then feeding some capitalist hedgefund dollars.

So you’re making a philosophical argument instead of a pragmatic one? Until those in power agree with your mission statement of “future proof our species”, any desired actions toward that aim are moot.

More expensive shipping forces less shipping. Which might re-establish local industries. Europe made much of its stuff before. Now it’s moved to cheap countries in the east. Norway sends fish to china for processing, it gets sent back and sold in Norway. This is insane to me.

While our current system has lots of downsides, it allows for nearly everyone to have more than they did before (yes it is disproportionately distributed). Additionally, the large global interconnected system is the strongest check against war in history. Trade helps prevent total global war.

If Archimedes was god, could he create a world so large that any lever and fulcrum on which to place it would be impossible to move?

I’m not who you’re replying to, and I certainly haven’t downvoted you. I don’t downvote people for having a different opinion. Downvotes are for posts that actively poison conversation or where posters are treating others poorly.

However, your cited problem and suggested solution appear to be lacking in larger understandings of geopolitics and global commerce.

This is an opportunity to bruteforce the shipping companies to bring their wealth home.

My guess is this would be a “penny-wise but pound foolish” or “stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime” approach. The main group “losing out” on tax benefits by allowing this loophole are nation states (or groups of nation states) and are well aware of it. As such, its likely that they make even more money from other steps in this chain toward the GDP or other measures that they’re interested in. So while they could force the shipping companies to flag ships for defense, doing so would me less overall money for the nation states providing a safe and predictable environment for international commerce (safe for commerce).

Do you get where I’m going with this or would you like more detail?

So, I stop in Lynchburg, Tennessee and work for a day at the Jack Daniels Distillery.

Were I the employer I wouldn’t want to take someone I’ve done zero background checks on and put them in contact with my product and production facilities. The liability to my distillery and my customers is too large.

Also, I’d have to have one of my employees babysit you because you likely don’t know how to do the work to the company standards. You’re also doing this because you want to learn the whiskey making process so you’d be asking all kinds of questions to employees trying to get their job done.

I can absolutely see and understand the upside for you, but there isn’t an upside to the employer to match this situation.

Isn’t this the premise behind Taskrabbit?