Except that a well functioning society that expects its laws to be respected cannot allow the law to be circumvented by commercial agreements.
If a country passes a law that guarantees all its citizens the right to free speech, and now a company forces (!) a citizen to sign a contract saying they waive that right in order to receive the compensation they're entitled to anyway, why should the country accept that? Why should that person lose their right to free speech? Did the country give the company the authority to cancel its own laws at will?
It's the same with companies forcing candidates to sign non-compete agreements in order to be hired, if and when the company fires them. If you're a lawyer, and your employer fires you, what do you do? Work as a cashier for 3 years until the NCC expires? Change your career?
No company should have the authority to make the illegal legal (or vice-versa), and no country should accept its own citizens giving away their rights to some for-profit company. That's mafia shit: "If you excercise your right to free speech to expose our crimes, we will withhold the money we owe you and ruin your life in court".
You meant to lie, and you did lie, and you continue to lie. Standard TikTok rage where words no longer have meaning, reality must be rejected, and any headline is true even if the article directly negates it or there's no source, so long as it makes Israel look bad.
I swear, it's almost as if the anti-Israel mob _wants_ it to be true.
They obliterated a kindergarten in Israel just this morning, and several others since the start of the war. Last week a missile landed right behind my house, just between a kindergarten and an elementary school, damaging both.
Literally all Israeli casualties were civilian.
Your comment made me realize international media doesn't care to even publish this, leading to this incredibly skewed view.
Thanks for correction. I looked up the news and could find reporting that some fragments of a missile did hit kindergarten. Thankfully no kids were there.
The ban is on reporting the exact locations (i.e. coordinates) of where missiles land, because it's information that is useful in helping the enemy to calibrate where missiles will land. Reporting on other details is perfectly acceptable.
This is a fairly recent phenomenon: I'm a longtime Small Web user and even I struggle with this massive influx of AI posts. I'm hopeful it will be addressed.
In the late '90s, a friend recommended I download some freeware from a website. It was 1.2MB. I told him "are you crazy? 1.2MB? It's gonna take a whole week!"
It's weird how you both describe visiting other cultures AND thinking everybody's just like you in the same paragraph.
1. You can fill your own car with gas, but some people can't, or prefer someone more knowledgeable to do it for them. Some people like the comfort of having someone bag their groceries for them, or have disabilities that necessitate it. Some people are old. Today you learned.
2. Your economic system is not different than theirs. Everybody NEEDS a job to support themselves, their families and to be functioning members of society. That means jobs that can easily be automated won't be automated. Also, you may make a lot more money than that kid bagging groceries to make a few bucks for himself, but at least what he does actually helps someone. What we here on Hacker News do is mostly build imaginary products that will be gone and forgotten quicker than you can say "Al Bundy".
3. Not only that, all of us here have basically written our own replacements and made ourselves obsolete. Something tells me your job isn't really needed too.
Economics has this concept called revealed preferences[1]. These are preferences that people don't say that they want, but is what they actually use preferentially. An example of this the ordering machines that you normally now see in fast food places these days. People often say that they'd rather order by a cashier, but when given the choice of using one of these machines, or waiting a few minutes in line to get a cashier, they overwhelmingly choose for the automated option.
Tying this back to your first point, the revealed preference is that people would rather fill their own gas tank, rather than be forced to wait for someone to come and fill it for them.
Bagging groceries is different, however the revealed preference is that people would prefer the lower price/lower service supermarket, and those that need the help have to ask for it.
You are correct that everyone needs to earn a living, I think that most people would prefer that others can earn a living doing a somewhat meaningful job, in a somewhat safe manner.
The reason that much of this isn't automated has nothing to do with ensuring that jobs exist, but rather that the cost of automation is higher than the cost of labour. This is what op is talking about.
> the revealed preference is that people would rather fill their own gas tank
MOST people, not ALL. Smaller markets can still be profitable and useful markets. Most people prefer to pay less and cook their own food, but some people prefer to pay more and have lunch delivered to them. That market is doing quite well despite the fact that pretty much everybody can just stick something in the microwave. There are endless more examples.
> doing a somewhat meaningful job
Who decides what's "meaningful" and what isn't?
> The reason that much of this isn't automated has nothing to do with ensuring that jobs exist, but rather that the cost of automation is higher than the cost of labour.
SOME of the times, you're right, but not ALL of the times. People (most often via unions) aren't resisting automation because they're excited about moving to a "more meaningful job" or because they hate progress. They're resisting because in modern society they MUST have a job, and if they spent the past two decades working as cashiers in supermarkets, their ability to find "more meaningful jobs" at this stage in their lives is extremely limited, and chances are they're gonna have to take a pay cut. Progress cannot come with higher unemployment and poverty rates. If that means low income, less meaningful jobs remain, so be it.
More than that, it's practically impossible to find good specialized, human-written websites. Search engines don't find them, all results are AI garbage. With no real ability to be discovered, there's no incentive to maintain such websites too, and so the cycle of slop continues.
If a country passes a law that guarantees all its citizens the right to free speech, and now a company forces (!) a citizen to sign a contract saying they waive that right in order to receive the compensation they're entitled to anyway, why should the country accept that? Why should that person lose their right to free speech? Did the country give the company the authority to cancel its own laws at will?
It's the same with companies forcing candidates to sign non-compete agreements in order to be hired, if and when the company fires them. If you're a lawyer, and your employer fires you, what do you do? Work as a cashier for 3 years until the NCC expires? Change your career?
No company should have the authority to make the illegal legal (or vice-versa), and no country should accept its own citizens giving away their rights to some for-profit company. That's mafia shit: "If you excercise your right to free speech to expose our crimes, we will withhold the money we owe you and ruin your life in court".
Sign me up!!
reply