Whether that behaviour is good or bad have nothing to do with the economic system in place. Pure capitalism have obvious flaws. To me, a company being more powerful than a country is one.
I think the framing that "individual bad actors must be regulated for the good of the collective" is wrong here. In my opinion, what GP is saying is more along the line of "powerful actors must be regulated for the good of the collective powerless people".
When you look at it like that, then what Google and Apple is doing does not fit this point of view. They are (extremely) powerful entities imposing themselves on the whole world.
That's a common point of view, but when your disability is never someone else's problem, it becomes waaaaaay harder to manage. You should display more empathy to people that don't follow the norm.
Then maybe the easy solution is to make sure anyone showing up late doesn't disrupt anything? That accommodates everyone, is flexible, and does not unfairly punish anyone.
It really shows that you know nothing about sleep-related disabilities. I know someone suffering from idiopathic hypersomnia[1]. You can't just "choose" to go to bed earlier to wake up earlier in the morning. Sometimes it might work, most of the time it doesn't.
You think it's the disabled person's responsibility to never put a burden on others when others' expectations puts an unreasonable amount of burdens.
And we're talking about this specific kind of disability, but as someone else said in a sibling comment, it could be anything. Imagine you really have to go to the bathroom for some reason (pregnancy, diarrhea, ...). That can happen to a lot of people. Should all of them be prevented from being accepted into class ?
That's why we speak about "empathy, tolerance, flexibility". Empathy towards the weaker few, not empathy towards the "normal" many.
You do realise this system is unsustainable, though ? We just cannot grow infinitely just because .end of life care costs money.
We are way too many, and the #1 source of global warming is human activity. At one point we'll have to stop growing, so the system of how we pay for elderly care has to change.
> the thing so many of people with these views have in a common is they feel no shame about the harm they are causing.
> If in your own opinion you did something wrong, you should absolutley feel shame
It implies that the list of people you don't like think they did something wrong but refuse to feel shame about it.
To me, all those people are not shameless - in the sense that they don't feel shame _at all_ -, but don't feel shame because they don't feel like they did something wrong (how can you think you're wrong when you don't _believe_ in climate change ?).
I think there is a huge difference between making something illegal for business (here: gambling in games) so that huge companies can't profit off of that legally, and making something illegal for people (war on drugs).
Like many people, I think the war on drugs was a terrible idea. But preventing huge pharmaceuticals companies from selling drugs isn't.
And why should we maintain the population ? Have we reached the perfect amount of people on earth ?
We could be a lot less humans on earth, it would be amazing for the environment, and I think we'd be as happy.
The only downside I see is economic (in the sense that everything is built with the expectation of growth). But it is to me an economic problem, and not a reproduction problem.
A little nitpick : you seem to imply that buying a book is having an influence on parenting skills. I'd argue that's its correlated but does not have a direct influence.
As you said, if you're buying a book it means you're ready for self-reflection, which is what has an impact on parenting.
> You know, your way of thinking will eventually lead to understanding that interviewing is inherently discriminatory against everyone but the best candidate
That's not discrimination. The problem is when you assume someone isn't the best candidate because of (pick (religion, origin, language, disability, ...)) but you don't know that.
A lot of people have used your way of thinking to justify discrimination. "Obviously foreign people are less educated. I'm just looking for the best candidate so I should not interview someone with a foreign name".
How can you be sure that _you_ are not discriminating ?
> I love it when people from internet forums are telling me what my job is.
So you don't agree that your job is to hire the best person without discrimination ? Or you don't agree that giving people the proper tools allow them to be the best version of themselves ?
That's an interesting idea.
It would need some kind of tweaking for low values otherwise it would be exploitable to generate as much revenue from a 10 people sub then from a bigger one.
> This would encourage people to participate in smaller communities, which could be really nice for keeping the "small town" vibe of early reddit.
Couldn't it also cause a fragmentation of content across different same-ish subs ?