Your link says this:
Some 60-plus definitions and descriptions of the term exist, according to the Global Living Wage Coalition.
https://www.investopedia.com/t....
That doesn't sound like consensus to me.
The article states that a "living wage" for a family of four in the US is $104,000 per year. That definition is laughable. "If you don't make six figures, you're a slave!" That's absurd.
People who keep looking after they find someone, are going to do that whatever site they use. The point is, on Bumble, there is nothing to do there BUT hook up. On Facebook, the whole site is geared around maintaining connections long term, not just finding that special someone. This means they can hope to keep you engaged, even after you find your soulmate.
Standardized by whom? And what authority do they have to say what my standard should be?
When I graduated from college, I shared a studio apartment with a roommate, to make ends meet. There was *nothing* wrong or inappropriate or demeaning about that arrangement. We had everything we needed, including food, utilities, and transportation. Was I a slave because I didn't have a two bedroom apartment to myself? Not at all.
My son, who has only a high school education, supported himself initially by working at a local movie theater. With one roommate, he too was able to maintain his own apartment, with utilities, food, and transportation. Was he a slave? Not at all.
Your so-called minimum standard doesn't apply to everyone.
For decades, there have been two main sci-fi camps: Star Wars and Star Trek. Star Wars appealed more to the jocks, Star Trek to the nerds. There are a *whole lot* of nerds (including me) who have loved Legos and Star Trek for years.
They really need more than just this one ship, they need a whole ecosystem of Star Trek ships, large and small.
That idea is *ludicrous*!!!
Other dating sites are all about finding that special someone. Once found, they have no ongoing business model, nothing to keep people interested in staying on the site. Quite the opposite: once a match is made and the new couple gets serious, it would actually be seen as cheating, if one of the couple kept using the site.
Facebook has a big advantage here. After a successful match, they can hope that the new couple will transition to their core product, which is meant to connect people long term.
Because of this difference in strategy, Facebook's dating features just might work.
You can go in, but you can't go out.
The dictionary says so!
This quote is stating a worry, not an actual event.
You worry that someone might...see it as an inspirational launching point for a collaboration between 23andMe and a charter school.
If such a charter school had been founded, you can bet it would be in the news. It's not.
The summary implies that the tech industry is actually *doing* some of these dystopian things.
"The tech industry is delivering on some of the futuristic notions of late-20th-century science fiction," writes Henry.
All of the dystopian concerns listed, appear to just be *worries*, none of them have actually come to pass.
The billionaire class. Yeah right. That's nothing but mumbo jumbo, as if the billionaires all wanted the same thing. Do you think Elon Musk and George Soros want the same thing?
Nobody's forcing anybody. If you're not satisfied with your pay, hold out for more! If the company won't give you more, go find your desired rate of pay somewhere else! If you can't get more money for the job you're willing or able to do because somebody else will do it for cheaper, that's not the company's fault, that's the other guy's fault. Maybe the other guy doesn't need as much to live as you do. Does that make him a slave?
What is a fair wage anyway? Should they have to pay you more if you have a family, and the young single guy less because he's single? Clearly, the single guy doesn't need as much money to live, so your idea of "barely enough" might be "just great" for him!
Your argument is economic gibberish.
Who said anything about access to a charter school?
There are zero Google search results for anything about a charter school connected with 23andMe to exclude children who don't pass some kind of genetics test. This smacks of a made-up scenario.
That makes sense.
Article is paywalled, so I can't read the whole thing. But the summary talks about a bunch of dystopian fantasies, but doesn't relate those to things happening in real life. It mentions the partnership between a charter school and 23andMe, but how does that relate to eugenics? They are looking for genetic correlations, but that's a long way from eugenics. The summary doesn't even list the real-life copies of the movie fantasies. Maybe I just don't watch enough TV I guess.
If cost savings is the goal, they could save a lot more by switching to Windows, or better yet, Linux.
This seems weird, I've never heard of a company using Macs as servers. Desktops, yes, but servers?
It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln
