Excellent news, but also: Let's see the penalties, and let's see the vigorous enforcement. If this doesn't have teeth, it'll be pointless. Let's see a serious fine that puts a scumbag company out of business.
I really don’t like this kind of cynicism. You could use the same argument to say California will never pass a bill to enable universal opt out, which they did.
Assuming part time work (approximately one day every two weeks) at 10% of the yearly ~2000hr worked per year that equates to about $3300 per year, which seems sensible to me.
If by one day, you mean one day and night, since elected officials make all the important decisions at 3 a.m. When you give someone the job of managing billions of dollars of resources and pay them less money per year than their mortgage costs each month, what do you think they're going to do? Be a hero who protects the people from corporations? That's what everyone on this site seems to think politicians do. But the people don't pay them anything. So what makes you think they're looking after you, and not themselves? The only way they can survive is by feeding off the public. Unlike corporations, they do it through force and involuntary exchange.
When I replied to the above comment it said _five_ (not nine as it does now) figure budgets. So I assumed something akin to a person helping a community group, minor league sports team, and definitely not a billion dollar public entity.
And in that case it would certainly require a full time job. And it ought to be well paid.
But, no, I still do not subscribe to your related conspiracy theory. Can you provide any tangible examples?
I copied and pasted that line from a tweet I made a while ago. Why don't you Google "san francisco elected official pay school board" ($6000/year) and "san frascisco school board budget" ($1.2 billion). So they actually manage 10 figures up there and they get paid even less than European e-commerce developers. The President of Y Combinator is a died in the wool conspiracy theorist. He tweets all the time about his belief that they're removing algebra from curriculum. Another one of my favorite conspiracy theories is that the SF school board secretly does arms trafficking. You should google it. But at least they're better than european politicians, who are putting larvae in your food supply and want to spy on literally everyone with chat control.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but even if each business can only ask you once a year, couldn't that still result in most individual sites implementing a nag?
I noticed that too. The cynical part of me observed it's a Sinclair-owned news station, and I can't help wondering if they made it unavailable because it doesn't support the position of their corporate owner.
If you want to be part owner of agricultural land, I couldn't recommend AcreTrader more. I've been investing with them for a few years now and the overall experience has been great. Too early to discuss profits yet as most investments are on a 5-10 year horizon.
It baffles the mind that people decry the death of a dog while munching a burger. Cows (or chickens, for that matter) are not less precious than dogs, and yet the vast majority of us eat as much and as many of them as they can afford.
> Cows (or chickens, for that matter) are not less precious than dogs
You can feel that way, and that's fine, but people are allowed to decide what they do or don't find precious. They are allowed to rank species and members within a species in order of most to least precious. There's no inherent rule that all life must be valued the same. Would you not be more sad about a human child dying over a cow? Would you not be more sad about a loved one dying about a random person you don't know a few thousand miles away?
The person you're responding to didn't mention "feeling". They made a moral statement. Feelings are something we deal with, morals are something we work to build. Confusing the two will lead to a very confusing life.
Additionally, your examples are passive. A more appropriate comparison would be "Would you not be more sad about killing a human child instead of a cow?" Of course you would be! But what if you didn't have to do either?
Humans are remarkably skilled at extending-reducing the range of their empathy, often deep compassion is reserved only for the carefully selected in-group members. It’s even easier to withhold it when it comes to other beings.
Yeah. They hijacked our maternal instincts and our productivity instincts. Dogs have evolved to the point where they now have humans handling artificial selection for them instead of relying on natural selection.
It's a 1000x speed up to have humans picking out the cute ones and deliberately forcing this forward to make money.
You have to realize that it's our own instincts driving this forward and if it detriments humanity then the traits of "seeking profit" or "seeking cuteness" become subject to natural selection. These traits will go away with time.
If you're just eating a burger, you're not personally slaughtering the cow. Secondly, the relationship of humans and dogs is far different than humans and cows, dogs have evolved alongside us as companions, and cows are food.
If you had to choose between a family member dying or a totally random person dying, even though objectively they're both just humans, you're going to kill the random person, because you have feelings and emotions, and they are part of the equation. For the same reason you'd kill the random person, people would kill the cow, and want to save the dog.
