Ah yes the global elites, not like Harvard- and Yale-educated governor of a state. He's just plain simple folks.

I am so sick of these dumbass conservative conspiracy theories.

Over his termination, not the whistleblowing. The deposition wasn't to get new information, it was so Boeing could try and trick him into saying something they could use against him in the court.

He had disclosed it already, the deposition was about his termination.

Exactly! This...ain't it.

The problem with the conspiracy theories for both whistleblowers is that in both cases they actually disclosed the damaging information already.

They aren't going to reduce the capacity of the battery just for the battery-eaters of the world.

Besides, you can't really "neutralize" toxic metals.

I don't know if they could be converted into safe compounds but once the battery contents get dispersed inside a stomach you'd need a lot of "neutralizing agent" to make sure you got all the metals - many, many times the entire capacity of the battery.

Damn, I won't be buying any more of those then.

Surely I can't be the only person who sucks on their batteries to see how much charge is left.

They were popular but they were famously bug-ridden and unstable. Nobody misses Windows 95 or XP, btw.

Hell, NT was the first moderately stable OS they had, and that was just because someone had the bright idea to halt new feature development for a period of time and focus on fixing what they already made.

I remember the 80's and 90's.

Microsoft software now is light years ahead of where it used to be. Is it perfect? No. But it's stable and works now, which it certainly didn't do for a few decades.

That's just not really enough to be that influential.

Eh, it was a bit cringe.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/c...

"What exactly is he influencing? Certainly not product design. Everything Microsoft produces today is shit. "

Wait you think that if he was influencing them they would be better? What in the 40+ year history of Microsoft makes you think that?

What I see here seems to be people arguing from the predetermined biases without regard for the topic.

For example, claims of it having to do with abuse in any direction would require some substantial evidence.

But then, there's also bias in this:

"If you want to somehow tie feminism into the declining birth rates, especially given the relatively recent MeToo movement, a less tenuous tie would be the increase in awareness that women have to how abusive men are ..."

And in this:

"But it's the womens fault still?"

The idea of "fault" here seems to imply that falling birth rate is something that is wrong that needs to be blamed on somebody.

The available evidence of falling birth rate can actually be "tied" to feminism fairly easily, but in terms of women having choices and tradeoffs, including women becoming more educated and building careers. I don't think anybody would argue that these choices didn't emerge as a result of feminism. I don't know that anybody, or very many, would say that is a bad thing. Rather, an consequence of staying in school, going to university, and building a career is that marriage and having children is delayed, and having more children would mean more time out of their career.

For example, the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) summarizes the research nicely in their article, "Why is the birth rate declining" (May 6, 2021): "Between 2007 and 2020, the TFR in the United States declined from 2.12 to 1.64.3 This decline may signal a longer-term drop in lifetime fertility shaped by broader social factors, including postponement of marriage and childbearing to older ages and long-term increases in women’s educational attainment and labor force participation. Although most American women say they expect to have at least two children, many women delay childbearing whether by choice or circumstance to the point that they may end up having only one child or no children at all."

Refs:

Martin O’Connell, “Childbearing,” in Continuity and Change in American Families, ed. Lynne M. Casper and Suzanne M. Bianchi (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001).

Eve Beaujouan and Caroline Berghammer, “The Gap Between Lifetime Fertility Intentions and Completed Fertility in Europe and the United States: A Cohort Approach,” Population Research and Policy Review 38 (2019): 507-35, https://link.springer.com/arti....

You'll also note that while fertility rates declined for women of most ages, the rates actually increase consistently from the late 1970s to today for women in their 30s. That is, women have children much later than they used to, and have fewer of them total.

That is inconsistent with any links to abuse (in any direction). It a simple matter that the changing role and available choices of women -- which of course has a lot to do with feminism -- is a trade-off. There's finite time available. Women can't have children at the same rate as they used to, and stay home with them, and go to school, and build careers. That's impossible.

Instead, what we've learned is that when the choices are opened up, a very large portion of women prefer education and career over having children, or having them while young, or having as many. Is that a bad thing? It certainly has consequences on populations and demographics, but would it be better to declare the outcome "we" want and then force women to do the bidding to get that outcome?

By "we", I mean collective discussions about what "should" happen in society. A free country means the outcomes can't be dictated; if you want to dictate statistically outcomes, you have create an unfair, unfree society where individuals are forced to do what is necessary to get that outcome.

This is fundamentally the result of freedom along with the rapid increase in standard of living. People aren't forced into things by circumstance, government, or social pressure. (Sure, I've heard some objections that women have been pressured to not stay home and have children, but at the scale of whole population that would require a lot more evidence than pointing to a few feminist leaders who have said women shouldn't do that.)

It is what it is. It isn't a "fault" or a blame. It is an outcome of freedom and choice.

I appreciate your comments as my original comment was not particularly good.

I suspect, at this point, that Hasan is already making a living running No Tech For Apartheid, and protesting for Palestine. It is even possible that it is a better living than they made working for Google, but probably not. I am not saying that sacrifices have not been made. However, when I say that this person is a professional protester I understood what that meant. My wife is a professional organizer. You can pay her, by the hour, to organize your closet, or your warehouse. Ibraheem is a professional protestor.