I have no expertise on the subject or those particular accusations, but generally speaking I feel that a company's response to bad PR is probably not the most trustworthy and objective account of what has happened given their direct involvement in the matter. It seems as a given that they would want to refute it.
I guess if we're going for "weird" tips: Only shop for groceries on a full stomach. I've found it helps me against being tempted to buy unhealthy things (sweets, snacks, soda)
> There wasn’t much substance abuse treatment at CAAIR. It was mostly factory work for one of America’s top poultry companies. If McGahey got hurt or worked too slowly, his bosses threatened him with prison.
And he worked for free. CAAIR pocketed the pay.
> Men who were injured while at CAAIR rarely receive long-term help for their injuries. That’s because the program requires all men to sign a form stating that they are clients, not employees, and therefore have no right to workers’ comp. Reveal found that when men got hurt, CAAIR filed workers’ comp claims and kept the payouts. Injured men and their families never saw a dime.
It's somewhat incredible (in a bad way) how far capitalism can go in terms of monetizing everything in people's lives when left unchecked.
> It's somewhat incredible (in a bad way) how far capitalism can go in terms of monetizing everything in people's lives when left unchecked.
Slavery/indentured servitude/prison labor predates capitalism by forever, that really has nothing to do with it. Similar (but much worse) labor camps existed in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
I think that the point is that while it is widely agreed that these sorts of issues exist under systems like slavery, many people do not believe that they exist under capitalism.
Many people on the right believe that capitalism is incompatible with the exploitation associated with practices such a feudalism and slavery. Therefore, they argue that safeguards and regulation are not needed. This is showing hat exploitation is also a feature of capitalism; therefore, the regulations are still needed.
less capitalism, but the concept of having everything handeled by private enterprise that is for-profit. With prices set 'by thr market' is sorta what happened here.
Rule by unaccountable large organizations isn't specifically "capitalist", as it has existed in societies of every type of economic organization. By this definition even the Soviet Union was capitalist.
I totally agree with you that private organizations being above the law (especially sadistic ones like this) is bad.
> by the market
How is someone forced by the state to perform free labor a market participant?
I assume making the name of the function they want to eventually get rid of more annoying to type is part of the reason to do this rather than just tracking ones needing replacement.
The reddit thread mentionned in the article [0] is more interesting. Notably it mentions who filed it (OpSecSecurity) and apparently they claim their DMCA process was spoofed.
I wonder if DMCA-leeches like "OpSecSecurity" realise that their misconduct opens the door for an easy-out strategy by "pirates" like the following:
- upload a copyrighted work to the 'net under the name 'ubuntu-[some-old-edition]-[some-odd-architecture].iso'
- share the BTIH (bittorrent hash_) on a forum giving the true name
- sit back and watch downloaders use the simple defence of "I just downloaded Ubuntu, what are you talking about?"
Using an older release and an odd architecture makes sure those looking for the real Ubuntu (or Debian or Wikipedia or whatever, as long as it is well-known and freely distributable) are not likely to end up downloading/sharing the latest bit of Hollywood drivel.
They will lose this fight, they probably know they will end up losing it but they're willing to leech their customers for their "services".
Amusing. They claim to have 'incontrovertible evidence' that it wasn't them. That is literally impossible, unless they have incontrovertible evidence who did it and that that party did not acton their behalf.
E.g. if their proof is that these claims were sent from a gmail address they would need to be able to either identify the actual sender or prove that none of their staff or agents could have access to that account.
Not in all cases, but when coupled with the private prison system of the US which is less concerned with rehabilitation and more with the extraction of value from its "residents", you do get a problem.
Having 30-ish (or more) children crammed inside a classroom is not the same as having smaller groups of children play together outside in terms of potential transmission.
From the article:
"A high level of diversity is paramount on Sharma’s list of essential goals. In projects Afforestt has undertaken in India, his company so far managed to use about 336 types of native trees out of 2800 that are known to have existed in the country. And the company has started its own nursery in Rajasthan to begin to add more species to their plantings.
Sharma is adamant that the impact of even very small forests on local communities is significant enough to matter. Research from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, which found increased fungi, bacteria, pollinators, and amphibians on two tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad that were based on Sharma’s models,, lends some scientific credence to this claim."
In this case, it would seem end goal is fauna/flora diversity.
>> on two tiny planted forest sites in urban Zaanstad
Ok. But that is where the debates start. Many forests will not lend themselves towards diversity. Look at places like the pacific coastal rain forests. If left alone they will become a homogenous zone, one canopy of trees. Clearcutting strips increases diversity of tree/bush cover, helping small animals and everything that feeds on them. Diversity over and above the "natural" untouched state. So is the goal a natural level of diversity, or an artificially elevated diversity for diversity's sake?
I think you need to look a bit closer at the pacific coastal rain forests. Even if you had a tree monoculture (which you don't), the amount and number of lichen and moss on untouched, old or even second growth trees is exhorbitant. Those in turn host a huge variety of other organisms.
The number of edible natives is also respectable, and those didn't come from nowhere. They were here all the time in those 'homogenous' zones.
I lived in that area for years. And i said homegenous canopy, not monoculture. The blanket canopy works for certain trees, but not for all and certainly not for all animals. Birds like eagles cannot hunt through forrests. Deer dont get as much to eat with diminished sunlight getting to the ground. The edges of clearcuts, the transition from apex canopy to bare soil in the cut, are the most diverse and animal-friendly zones of that forest.
I think part of the problem here is just lack of age. If fully grown western red cedar falls, it will strike other trees, knocking them down or shearing them off on one side, weakening one of those and potentially setting up a game of dominoes that takes three centuries to play out.
That cedar will lie on the forest floor for decades, hardly decaying (or rather, it would if we stopped meddling). No new cedars will grow in that spot quickly, but hemlock may root on the side of the trunk, fifteen feet off the ground in the moss. Between the precarious perch and hemlock being hemlock, that tree will die in turn, creating a new opening that might contain cedar again.
FWIW, my limited understanding is that initially, in Japan, the focus was on restoring the native forests, conserving Japanese species and ecosystems.
> So is the goal a natural level of diversity, or an artificially elevated diversity for diversity's sake?
I favor E. O. Wilson's proposal that we set aside half the Earth as a nature preserve and more-or-less let evolution do it's thing. Which half is, of course, an open question, eh?
One way or another, I doubt we can avoid continent-scale ecological management.
Which half is always this problem. It's compounded by the fact that Europeans have scourged their land of anything worthwhile - relegating nature to tiny preserves and replacing most wilderness with farms and cities. Often these same people insist that other nations avoid developing and "preserve" their land. How about we raze Europe's cities and give half her land back to Nature first.
Diversity does not have to be a static or micro thing, along any dimension. E.g. temporal or spatial. If you look on a larger scale, there was/is species diversity across centuries/aeons (evolution, Ice Ages, ...) and across hundreds or thousands of square km. Could be a large homogeneous patch of 500 sq. km. next to another 300 in size next to a large or medium heterogeneous patch, and so on. On a larger scale, that's still diversity.
I have a git-based wiki, and I've been slowly migrating it to Trilium [0]. There's a certain appeal to having your knowledge base purely contained within a git repo but ultimately having a rich dedicated editor is less of a hassle to me. Setting up the self-hosted syncing is pretty easy as well.
