You don't solve the problem by "humbling the workers".
The solution is rewarding people when a company is successful and more importantly not punishing hard workers. Right now people are under the impression that slacking and working hard will be equally rewarded, because that is the truth. Hard workers also get laid off so that CEOs can make a few extra bucks.
A grocery store I worked at tracked finances and they were available to all employees. The grocery store made $270 per worker per hour. New hires were paid less than 1/10 of the value they provided.
I can only imagine how much more exploitative tech is
I misunderstood and thought this was a google sponsored project and not an open bug bounty.
Even still, you're responding in a thread about someone who is trying to do legitimate work on this project and google is not honoring the bug bounty system.
A problem google could fix if they just assigned someone to manually review the case, it would take like 15 minutes.
I don't think this correlation implies a causation, same with alzheimer's.
I think you're incorrectly attributing to viral/bacterial infection what can more likely be explained by a difference in lifestyles. Nearly 80% of people who die from Leukemia are over the age of 65. People who die in airplane accidents are usually flying private and that is not a lifestyle all of us can afford.
I think it's more likely that doctors die of specific causes because they have more money than the average person, the knowledge to do their best to avoid heart disease and smoking (and other hazardous activities except apparently for flying private), or perhaps because they're exposed to chemicals through their work environment
"He didn't send the letter. The lawsuit was dropped."
"He didn't send the letter therefore the lawsuit was dropped."
Two very different examples. "therefore" in the second example communicates a causal effect from the independent clause that isn't present in the first example.
I'm sure one could argue that context clues could imply that same connection and therefore "therefore" is redundant but I just don't agree with the premise.
Therefore isn't empty verbiage. It's just communication, it's a conjunctive adverb. Therefore implies causation or at least some connection between clauses.
I could see arguing that starting a sentence or paragraph with "Therefore, " repeatedly in one essay is empty but tbh your teacher just sounds jaded.
Ok, so are airplane accidents transmissible as well?
> Increased mortality risk for male neurosurgeons was seen from leukemia, nervous system disease (particularly Alzheimer disease), and aircraft accidents
You implied that 1/3 of muslims would be willing to kill someone over a drawing of Muhammad.
The study doesn't say 1/3 of muslims say "it's ok to kill someone who draws images of Muhammad". It says "acts of violence". A vague and immeasurable term. Does that mean a punch? does it mean a stab? Jihad? The poll doesn't care.
> Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organisation, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offence of taking of hostages
> Is violence an appropriate response to hate speech? The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolernace Survey finds most Americans say no. More than two-thirds (68%) of Americans say it is not morally acceptable to punch a Nazi in the face. About a third (32%), however, say it is morally acceptable.
Your implication that Muslims are more accepting of political violence doesn't seem to bear out in the facts.
> Maybe you’re right and it’s repeated publication of muhammad images that deserves violence.
Thats not what I said.
> Or maybe you meant that violence against anyone who does anything may be justified (?) because of some other thing that they may be doing.
This is clearly the least charitable take one could take in response to my comment. "It's ok to punch Nazis" is not a take that usually gets this much pushback.
Edit: Actually, technically, I guess it does usually get this much push back (68%) but still the slippery slope argument is trash
> only if you're straight. if you're gay, the Palestinians will throw you off a building.
This is such a gross statement.
First of all, Palestinians are not all religious fundamentalists. Hamas is not Daesh. There is no sharia law in Palestine. Your statement is textbook islamophobia.
Second, are you really invoking gay rights in the context of a genocide? I'm sorry can you please send me the news article you must have read stating Israel is using LGBTQ-avoiding bombs? Because to argue that the LGBT community would have it worse under Palestinian statehood than the current genocide is truely mind-boggling.
Would you make the same claim about gay Jews in Germany? In the concentration camps?
> Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.
> But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer.
> Of those polled, 95% felt a loyalty to Britain, while 93% believed that Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws.
24%. 24% = 1/3. You seem like the kind of person who caused the McDonalds 1/3 pounder flop.
It's the pay.
> People get bored working on one domain, one product and one codebase.
Yeah bullshit. It's the pay.