You've confused a feature with a bug. That isn't a flaw. That's entirely by design. It gives the impression of being defined, but ultimately allows it to be fudged however the political winds are blowing. Neat, no?

Good coding is a combination of experience and intelligence with a side of knowledge.

If you think people won't be afraid to openly criticize code if it comes from *PROTECTED CLASS* when one is a member of *NOT-PROTECTED CLASS* then you've clearly not been paying attention to this part of the world.

It'd be nice to be wrong with this. It'd be nice for the SJWs not to eat this. It'd be nice if merit and not other considerations was the only determining factor. It'd be nice. It'd also be surprising

This isn't something that can or should be fixed with technology or silencing the opposition. Myself, I don't think "hate speech" should be banned. When one bans something like that one doesn't actually make it go away, all one does is drive it underground. The correct and only workable solution is to confront it and destroy it on equal footing. If the posters of such speech truly have no real value, they will be driven out. Can one change the minds of the propagators of such things? Probably not. Though, that wouldn't be the point. One doesn't argue against such to change their minds, but to hopefully change the minds of anyone listening and banning such doesn't have a chance of doing that.

Interesting. I was unaware their Mac sales were in the can. In that case... Yeah, I've got nothing here

Seems to make plenty of sense. It's contained within what you said right here: "huge locked-in customer base". What else are those people going to do? Move to Windows? Linux? They're solid Mac users. A lack of hardware updates and such doesn't matter. Their sales are still strong with little to no new investment. That base is more than happy to keep paying more and getting less.

You post as an AC and give a single cite which itself says that Tesla was not at fault, according to OSHA, for the incident. Were you trying to prove your point or just hoping no one would bother to actually read your cite.

What's more, I'd be very very surprised if every UAW and Japanese plant is a paradise of safety and wonderfulness where no one is ever hurt and no one ever feels over worked and so on. I've been to at least one such plant, small sample I know, and I can easily imagine standing at that line all day and thinking that I'm all kinds of overworked.

Your cite, such as it is, mentions that some workers claimed they were being paid as little as $5/hr which is of course under minimum wage. However, they are also contractors paid by a different company and not Tesla. Even if their claims are true, which in my opinion is doubtful, the sub-contractor is at fault not Tesla.

Your cite is ultimately not much of a cite. I'd say "try again" but since you posted AC you won't even see this response.

Not only that, but absent a very very tight job market, if Tesla is really paying so poorly for the area and treating everyone so badly then why work from them? If they aren't having any trouble getting employees then either they have one hell of a PR department to cover these awful awful conditions or.. maybe those awful conditions don't exist and the UAW just wants another source of dues?

In very general terms and most cases, missionaries don't show up in another country telling people they're structural engineers or the like and then proselytize. Is that sometimes the case, yes I imagine it happens for reasons of safety and such. I'm sure you could try and make the comparison that what this person may have done is exactly the same thing, entering hostile territory under false pretenses. Whether that comparison is accurate or not doesn't actually change the base fact that it is dishonest and arguably immoral.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, no one is saying this person can't agitate for unions at all, but whether or not he was paid to go in as an agent of the UAW to take employment under false pretenses purely to advance the agenda of the UAW. It's one thing if the workers at Tesla hated life and figured the only way to fix things were to bring in the UAW and it's something else entirely if the UAW said to itself, "There's an untapped source of union dues!", and decided to pull some shenanigans.

SO SAY WE ALL!

To be frank, I know exactly what you're talking about and the reasoning behind it and I still agree with him. He said it more directly than I did, but what you're saying makes absolutely no logical sense and the proposed solution the an agreed problem and issue does nothing at all to address the issue at hand.

Er... What?

There are many reasons why things seem to be heading in a less Liberty oriented direction but I'm reasonably sure the ownership of guns isn't one of them. I can't say I've ever heard a single person say anything even remotely like "Well, that latest violation of the principals of Liberty is totally okay because I have my AR-15!" Even if a person said such a thing they'd be rightfully laughed at as the idea is ludicrous.

The closest anyone has come to such a statement is that the Second Amendment provides an ultimate last resort option in the event that government went too far. Each person's limit of too far is likely different, but that doesn't even remotely justify the idea that present conditions can rightfully be traced to a "delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy"

What makes you believe that to be the case? What's more, even if that were true, logically throwing away ones guns wouldn't change anything and the correct course of action would be to get more involved in elections and pay more attention to things.

First, who said that? Second, no one has ever died due to a gun. Never has a gun leaped up off a table and shot someone just because it wanted to. They were killed or injured by someone using a gun. You may wish to stop blaming the tool and blame the user.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. It's one that I clearly don't agree with and to which I would say "What gives you the right to determine that?" If you don't want one, want one in your house, or want to be around people who have them that's your business.

Who cares? If one really cared about those harmed they'd focus on what brought things to that point and not the tools used, as if banning them will suddenly make criminals shrug their shoulders in defeat. You want to help those people? Fantastic. Demand an end to the War on Drugs. Look for ways to lift people out of poverty without demanding more money from tax payers. Improve mental health care and campaign to remove the stigma associated with getting help.

You're correct. There are serious cultural differences here. When bad things happen in many parts of the world people look to the heavy hand of government to solve their problems for them. You don't see that quite as much here, though that infection is starting to take hold.

In conclusion, like many who favor ever increasing regulation, you seem to want to blame the tool and ignore the causes. It seems to be the case that you believe that if only you could ban guns then suddenly criminals will just stop doing business, what with them being such law abiding chaps and all. -.-

Crazy people with guns are a vanishingly small minority though. They grab headlines but aren't where most of the problems are. I'd wager we could reduce harm far more effectively in other areas with other programs. Ending the failed "War on (some) Drugs" would be an excellent start since large numbers of the murders and such are committed by and/or for drug gangs and related activities. Ending the drug war would likely remove their power and profit base and reduce crime related to same. There may be an uptick in user related crime but I'd wager it would be nothing but noise as compared to the drop in straight gang related crime.

Heavily regulating guns won't hardly effect, if at all, those most likely to misuse them and as such there seems little logical reason to increase regulation beyond current levels. Reducing crime, already at record low levels, even further is a good thing. Reducing violence, also at record low levels, further is also good. I think we trip ourselves up when we try and focus on "gun deaths" and "gun crime" and not just "crime."

Seems reasonable. Many people have long said that the quickest way to convert an "anti-gun" person to at least being neutral is to be nice and maybe take them to a range. De-mystify and de-demonize the subject as it were.