... What are you going to do with them? Sent them back?
and they both leave the room thinking they understood what was said, when in fact, neither did.
That's quite a common occurrence in meetings where you don't have someone with real requirements gathering skill. When other people are running the show, I like to end meetings with "just for laughs, why don't we right down what we just agreed on?" Invariably, hilarity ensues.
I suppose we can go write this way to do so.
Even if one accepts a failure of security, the only "tightening of security" that would have made any difference today versus on 9/11 are the locked, reinforced cockpit doors.
This, and only this, was required. Israel had them for decades, so there's not even a reasonable smidgin of doubt that this wasn't a well-known way to stop a hijacking.
Nor do you recognize that you can save the wealth you earn so that you have better choices in the future including not working at all.
That doesn't mean that the in between part couldn't be a whole lot better if the general work environment wasn't what it is. Right now - if you want to work 30 hours a week, you won't get 75% of FT pay. You might get 50%, if you're lucky and no benefits and most likely less, unless you can grab an hourly based contract job with some upper and lower bounds on hours.
No, I mean people. What's the point of pushing this phony argument? We already know lots of people choose to work more for a variety of reasons.
Like keeping your job through the next layoff, where you'll be asked to work more hours?
And because of that, we have to keep working?
Nobody forces you to work. But of course, if you want stuff other than just not working, then you need to come up with a way to get that or have someone get it for you.
But you're happy with that not changing in over a century, because of your neuroses?
My neuroses don't matter. What do you care if I don't buy into your assertion? Slack all you want, it's nothing to me.
I'd rather work less, at least when I work for someone else. When I work for me, work time takes on an entirely different meaning. Having FT work with health care benefits be 25-30 hours per week would be awesome (insert something here about how universal basic healthcare could enable this environment without costing employers) A 25 hour week (at reduced pay) would allow me to do a whole host of other activities should I so choose, without having to give up a living wage. I might even be more productive during those 25 hours than the normal 40 expected today.
The fact that you see nothing wrong with Apples requirements says loads - so its ok to set prices across your ecosystem and everyone else ecosystems (which is what Apple was doing) but setting prices on just your own ecosystem is completely wrong...?
The fact that a publisher setting their own price on your market with the only requirement of that market being that it is equal to or lower than any other market you sell in seems perfectly fine. Apple is not setting a price, the publisher is free to set any price they want anywhere they want to sell. Amazon, however, is setting the price, regardless of what price you want to sell your product for.