They are not zero-skill factory workers. If they are any good, they will quickly find another job...

This is the modern, hyper-capitalist world we live in.

What you described above should be the goal of EVERY company, otherwise it's a badly run company. There is nothing "hyper-capitalist" about it. Companies are not charity, the main goal is profit.

If you had a company, would you keep paying employees you don't need and diminish your profits?

no, cheaper goods and services is actually a benefit to us too. maybe not to your ego, but to us people who have other stuff to spend our money on besides national pride, cheaper goods are better. (especially if the quality of the product is not why you are paying more.)

I wouldn't pay a dime extra for 'made in the usa' stuff. not today, and not even before trump came into office. there's nothing patriotic about paying more for goods. (and if there is, I guess I'm not patriotic)

Ambient radiation, environmental pollution, random mutations, other carcinogenic mutagens... There can be like a bazillion reasons for getting cancer. Smoking is one we know about, and we know how it works pretty well. But like most cancers there's a big roll of the dice involved on top of literally countless other factors. This is not surprising even in the least.

Someone can just randomly remotely take control of your cameras at your house? no thanks. I don't care why you say you need to be able to do it. hands off.

Books: The Bourne trilogy, which, contrary to the movies, were very entertaining.

The college degree loan thing was already becoming a problem when I was an undergrad over 20 years ago. It was fine when one might be borrowing $5000 per year as even entry-level college grad jobs that actually used degrees paid enough to make repayment of those loans doable, but the trouble was that far too many truly entry-level jobs started preferring college degrees when they didn't really contribute, so more and more demand for college degrees among people drove up prices for the limited seats. Which led to a balloon in both traditional colleges increasing their programs and their tuition, and for-profit colleges springing up to try to get in on the act.

Funny, I got a good job in the late nineties doing just that. I was cold-calling and I got hired onto the quality assurance team for a specialized software product. Unfortunately despite the company not being a dotcom they were in investment-building mode and the investor got cold feet so they went under anyway, but it was a good job and the people who hired me did so based on or technical conversations when I cold-called.

My current job I got by having experience with this team when I was at a different employer. They liked me enough they asked me to interview when a prior teammate retired.

There was a crude joke back in the day, that Java was great because it worked on all computers exactly the same way that anal sex was great because it worked on all genders.

Little did we know exactly how prescient that crude joke was going to be as Oracle hadn't yet taken over.

I've seen some temp jobs work out well, but I've seen others where it was not so good.

Temp-to-hire where the employer actually really does intend to hire-on, and uses the temp-process to get to know candidates before making offers is fine. It's actually not a bad idea if basically everyone is on the same page. Temp agency needs to be ready to move people around if various employers do or don't like candidates, and temp-employees need to understand that there could be periods of downtime, and might themselves need to ask the agency for alternate placement if they don't like where they're temping.

On the other hand I've seen temps that were abused very heavily, because regular employees didn't want to do shit-jobs or didn't really want to work at all, with no intent on actually hiring. I've also seen rather odd people working as temps because even in a temp-to-hire arrangement the business didn't like some of the temps but still needed work to be done so kept them around for longer than normal just to complete the task before releasing them.

That's all well and good to say, but that neither addresses what actually changes, versus how some changes have proven harmful and should be avoided if possible even if they're common.

...that a business whose name evokes a movie scene where a hostile alien entity forcibly envelops and implants its offspring into an unsuspecting space merchant-marine doctor would host nonconsensual sexual content?

..."Armagh," is what the forecaster said when he realized how miserable the weather was going to be that day.

I haven't seen it either, other than catching snippets of it on TV from time to time. I'm assuming that he's paying for exclusivity, so that she isn't working for other clients.

That said, that's an awful lot of money, better part of $400,000 per year. It seems ... unlikely that the client would directly pay that much. I would see a much more likely scenario where he's putting her up in accommodations and has lines of credit at various stores that she can use, but where she's otherwise on a short-ish lease. Similarly a distaff-counterpart in George Peppard's character as a struggling writer turned gigolo in Breakfast at Tiffany's where his benefactor is providing him with his apartment but he isn't getting a whole lot of actual money from her so that she can maintain control over him and can keep the arrangement somewhat secretive.