Sounds way too plausible for a joke. At least for anyone with experience in corporate IT.
But that was since 2009 the same parliament made a threat to pass such a ruling. Back then, all phone manufactures "voluntarily" agreed on using USB as standard charging plug until 2013. So this is just the next step, but manufacturers now have a chance to agree on some other standard (if neccessary)
So without this story, phones today would not have USB connections for charging.
Sorry, but you're clearly thinking of CSS here.
I agree 100%. I don't think the solution is to make women work more horrible jobs, but increase the quality of life for everyone by refusing to be exploited.
Oh yes.. nice idea. The problem is, that this goes against the average male ego. For some reason, competition is a defining male quality. (probably due to all the reproduction stuff, but why doesn't matter here)
Who can run faster, who can drink more, who can bang his head harder against a stone wall. And of course who can lift more weight, who can carry more meat from A to B. That is already a "who can work harder". Society only rewards this with "Who can make more money", so it can exploit that trait. And not the workers. We will only follow that urge for competition and to the exploitation part ourselves.
I was considering that, but tried to focus on another question: WHY do that 10hours overtime at all?
Perhaps there is a "female" solution like: "I'm making enough for me and my family, I'd rather spend those 10 hours with them and leave that rat race to those guys who seem to enjoy it." Sometimes the only way to win a pissing contest is not to play. (And if you're honest, thermonuclear war is only a very violent form of a pissing contest. But that's another movie)
Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment, and whether e.g. bullying in the work place, or unfavourable maternity/paternity leave arrangements are contributing to this.
That is a good point, but as usuall, the most likely but least obvious possibility is ignored: Sometimes called work/life-balance, but maybe women just don't see a point in taking part in that life-long pissing contest that "career" in our corporate world became? If that guy next to you does 10 hours of unpaid overtime to impress his manager, you're doing 12, right? The people deciding about promotions like that kind of commitment. And so on.
what has one to do with the other?
Maybe because there is a difference between someone "targetting" someone and publishing something with a "target audience" in mind.
Only if the company booked facebook to a show an ad only to 14 year old girls, this would be actual targetting. If they just booked the ad for a, say, generally femaile audience, 14 year olds might still see it, but would not be targetted.
IIRC, the tried exactly that, but were stopped by legal reasons.
There has to be more than that to it, because if that was the case, it would be cheaper for Google just to run a shuttle between the Google campus and the Caltrain station.
In general, I don't get the cultural fascination that US americans have for charity, while at the same time showing extreme disdain for welfare, public services, public funding of infrastructure (except for roads, military and prisons, go figure) and even decent conditions of employment.
E.g. waiters/waitresses are to be paid starvation wages, and rely on tips. Why do they have to beg?, is it so that customers can feel superior or something?, I have trouble understanding this.
I have the same trouble understanding that. But I at least have a theory: They just don't want gouvernment to do it. They know that there should be some things provided by the society (welfare, health, education...) they want as little gouvernment involvement as possible. So it is widespread believe that "society" here means that everyone should take part of that responsibility by donating to charity as your income allows it.
We Europeans rather think that all that stuf that "society" should provide is the very job of the gouvernment.
In a very sketchy example, when someone donates to the establishment:
In the US that would be a sign that society is still working, people are helping their fellow people and all is well as there is no need for gouvernment involvement.
In wide parts of Europe, this would be a sign that gouvernment failed to provide even the basic human needs.
But what we have here is people moving into the city, but the jobs being outside in the valley. So they're basically accepting a longer commute and probably higher rents. If people are pushed out of the city by that, they probably would be closer to the better job opportunities in the SF vicinity.
Well, what jobs did you have in mind where being "REALLY pretty" is the key qualification?
If this about taxes, then have the laws changed that allows Google to pay (only?) 14% tax. And stop discussing about what a bus stop costs!
You think SamTrans should run buses directly from places where Google (and Apple, etc) employees live to their workplace with no other stops?
I'm not sure anyone would be happier to see millions of dollars used to create publicly funded employer shuttles.
Well, there seems to be a demand for it and it seems there is already someone PAYING for such a service.
I wouldn't know why a public foundes bus company should be damned to only serve routes that lose money.