They are not worried about control of social media platforms, they are upset at US-based control of social media platforms. They know as well as we do that twitter et al. doesn't really call the shots in the US, in the end they do what congress implies they do. This is what they hate, that the US government maintains de facto control over the most important platforms of the internet, while the lack of overt legal oversight allows tech companies to resist similar controls from other global powers.

As an American, they can get stuffed. We built the internet ecosystem, it has blackjack and hookers, and if you don't like it you can ask China to build you another one.

Man who sells overpriced packaged goods and premade foods says we should spend health care money on "healthy" packaged goods and premade foods? Color me shocked.

Ironically, diversity and inclusions are exactly what they are talking about here.

This comment deserves an award.

Evidently in your rush to be petulant you didn't read the very words you quoted:

In many cases, it essentially allows the original retailer to control distribution of their product, since simply transporting and warehousing it costs more than a 10% markup

Notice it does not say wholesaler, manufacturer, or distributor.

To increase the specificity of your analogy: The first week the home chef side of the family buys 3 of 7 expensive ingredients, doesn't buy the rest, and they go bad. Two weeks later they buy 4 more, but again won't commit to buying the rest. At the end of the year they have spent thousands on ingredients that were never used, which in turn meant they never had the budget to go out either. And the person doing the shopping sets arbitrary constraints on where they will buy certain items because they "like the people there, and they depend on our business."

I don't know if you're really proposing this as stated, but there are a couple reasons why the version you state wouldn't work.

1.) In many cases, it essentially allows the original retailer to control distribution of their product, since simply transporting and warehousing it costs more than a 10% markup. You essentially make the good non-transferrable.

2.)As a corollary to #1, it prevents some areas from having the product at all. In particular, people in cities and remote areas both have to pay premiums because delivery to them is expensive, if a can of beans in downtown Manhattan has to cost the same as one in Grand Rapids, then people in Manhattan just won't be able to buy one because no one will be able to sell it there. (yes I know the OP is about England)

3.) What determine the MSRP? The price when it was originally sold? Would this mean if you had a classic 1967 Corvette Stingray, could you only sell it for $4700? If I sold hex bolts, would I have to keep my stock segregated if the MSRP changes? If it's based on the current MSRP, then there is another issue of keeping up with that number as it might be changed at any time by the manufacturer.

Apologies if I'm taking your suggestion too literally.

Mod this up. Anti-silicon bias must stop. If robots can serve in the military, then they deserve to have property rights.

"Anything but that" is clearly not an action that should be taken. For every action that Google could take to improve their UI, there are at the very least thousands that would make it worse. Also, the GP's point is that the criticism given is not a vector, it's a scalar. Saying the UI is horrible and you hate it is not an actionable suggestion, it's how a three year old describes his dinner.

Are you still being paid to keep this up now that the election is over?

Thank you as well! I learned a lot from your comments, I certainly had no idea the systems were tied together. I'm neither a pilot nor aircraft engineer, but I do have an interest in control systems so I've tried to keep up with this whole debacle. (I've also been on the operator side of operator error, so I have strong feelings about the subject) I was curious what the switch looked like and where it was, and that's when I found the article.

I really enjoy these kinds of discussions here, and they are rare these days.

This has been a difficulty for me in understanding the current "trans movement". In my experience and understanding is that people transition seeking a clear gender identity, either male or female, as it seems you have. However much of the current movement seems to be about carving out gender identities separate from established genders which seem to further isolate and single out people who, in my experience, have been trying very hard to fit in to the world. I feel like it's a real burden on these individuals, for a crusade that doesn't seem to benefit them.

The majority of interior designers are female.

This is untrue both literally and figuratively. Literally in the sense that promoting anyone (as in advancing their position in a an organization) requires demoting no one, since many positions open up organically. Figuratively in that one can encourage and even actively seek out applicants of a specific group, that otherwise might be underrepresented in your applicant pool, yet still hire based on merit. This is what (good) diversity programs do, recognize that the people who your employees know, live in certain areas, or went to certain colleges are not comprehensive samples. There might be other people in very different circles or career tracks* who are better than scraping the bottom of the closest barrel.

*One example is Google's current push to hire veterans, a group with a very different career journey than your typical silicon valley engineer.

Many people are looking at what the employee did or said. But it hardly matters! The point is not how much right or wrong was on each side of the dispute, it's that the employee believed they were in the right and nevertheless summarily terminated for telling what they thought was the truth. Even if they were completely in the wrong, these actions by Google (and specifically how quickly and unyieldingly they were performed) will inhibit their ability to benefit from their own employees.

Are you talking about Timnit Gebru or James Damore?