Yeah, “unnecessary” is the health insurance code word for “we can get away with not paying for it”. Because it’s executives and lawyers and not doctors that determine if something is “unnecessary”. Sure they have doctors as scape goats, but they have specific instructions not written by medical professionals that they are required to follow. Unnecessary doesn’t mean it won’t save a person’s suffering or life, it means it’s more expensive than relieving the persons pain is worth or the person’s life is worth (i.e. the likelihood that they would lose a lawsuit for significant damages if they die).

Mugshots are also designed to make people look bad because it used to be a way that criminals would use for self promotion. But if they look bad then it has the opposite effect making them seem more animalistic and thus more evil. Also often used in wanted posters if enough photos are available. This has been the case for long before photography was invented with drawings as well.

Otherwise, they’d look more like photo IDs, which have the same requirements and are bad compared to something framed specifically to flatter someone, but not as bad as mugshots. Doesn’t help that most mugshots are taken after long, abusive “interrogation” sessions or other situations that exhaust them rather than immediately upon arrest, but that’s on purpose.

But the tactic to use mugshots as self promotional got popular when photos first came around because if they could get in a good shot, it’s not like the police could afford to take multiple. Film was expensive. And they were put in newspapers and such, so they spread around for free. Just look at the famous criminals of the Wild West era. So police doubled down on making sure the photos looked as bad as possible and it became a popular tactic to use against “famous” criminals. Now it’s used against basically all criminals.

Unless the criminal is wealthy, like Trump. Then they can have all the money.

The monkey’s typing and generating Shakespeare is supposed to show the ridiculousness of the concept of infinity. It does not mean it would happen in years, or millions of years, or billions, or trillions, or… So unless the “AI” can move outside the flow of time and take an infinite amount of time and also then has a human or other actual intelligence to review every single result to verify when it comes up with the right one…yeah, not real…this is what happens when we give power to people with no understanding of the problem much less how to solve it. They come up with random ideas from random slivers of information. Maybe in an infinite amount of time a million CEOs could make a longterm profitable company.

Yeah, but then anesthesiologists could then just say they can only work a certain amount of time because it costs them too much money in billing and appeals. Thus rushing a surgeon that then has a set time limit. Any time an insurance company makes a decision about what care a patient needs over the advice of doctors, it will result in problems. Sure there are going to be abuses, but instead of a blanket policy, it should be the responsibility of the insurance company to investigate fraud and waste.

I mean what other job do they have to spend money on but reducing fraud and waste? Oh wait, they spend money on software that is designed to deny claims, so they can blame the software for being overzealous and not the policies.

That was the whole point of the DMCA, though. Prevent bad publicity by claiming copyright infringement and companiea have to take down the content before they investigate any response. Any time a company doesn’t do that they are risking their own necks. So usually they only ignore it if they know for sure it’s bogus which requires that they spend the resources on a person reviewing every notice before the required time expires.

Sounds like people who defend themselves with deadly force have more rights than those who defend themselves without murder. So, the lesson should be to make sure to kill, not just injure someone who is attacking you? That’s what the gun companies have been wanting anyway. More people will need to buy their guns.

Because if they admit a mistake, his will they get the next job with all those billionaire CEOs out there who have never made a mistake? /s

One problem is the push by conservatives towards individualism. The “I don’t have enough to give handouts.” while ignoring the fact that those “handouts” would help them as much as everyone else. Combined with the “American Dream” lie that says “you could be one of those rich people abusing everyone else as revenge.” which goes back to the social concept of “paying your dues” or the Christian ideal that “suffering is holy”. And so they think if they just suffer long enough, that they will eventually be the ones on top making others suffer to serve them. Plus the political setup that keeps it a two party system of lesser evil choice rather than actually having the ability to choose something good. And the prevalence of modern “conservative media” which is just fascist and oligarchical propaganda designed to empower the hateful, murderous minorities among the poor to keep many just trying to not be murdered for being female and daring to get raped, non-christian and daring to be in the country, black and daring to not be a slave, transgender and daring to use the “correct” public bathrooms that shouldn’t exist as gendered in the first place but because the stalls are so revealing end up seeming like they need to be kept in private rooms, though the stalls could just be actual private rooms like in many other places, eliminating the whole need, or whatever demonized group of the month they want people hating to keep them distracted from economic issues and focused purely on survival. It’s not unique to America or setting new, it’s been getting better over time if looked at in terms of centuries or so, but the current version is especially rough, even compared to times like the great depression. But at least technology has made it slightly more survivable than then.

It’s complex. If there was a method for collective bargaining, maybe, but illegal union busting is extremely common and the government agency that enforces that stuff is purposely kept underfunded, so enforcement rarely happens, and because the fines are less than the money they save by union busting, it’s still worth it. Not to mention, there just have never existed unions in “professional” industries like tech. A few have started to pop up but they have had very little luck taking hold due to the union-busting efforts and propaganda. There really is very little middle class in the US anymore, so most people live paycheck to paycheck and missing one or two checks can leave you homeless. And there are very limited safety net programs in most of the US.

So, companies constantly create cycles of layoff and over-hiring that are coordinated across industries either with direct collusion or just because companies know that when the stock market in their industry goes down, that all the other businesses will be doing the same thing. So, people who have just been laid off are desperate to survive and when you just lost your ability to pay for rent and food, plus lost your medical coverage, and are no longer able to contribute to retirement which social security and Medicare programs no longer are guaranteed to be around in a decade, and there’s only a few months of unemployment benefits which give only a percentage of your pay which was already not enough to afford rent, assuming that the companies don’t illegally pretend that your layoff was actually “for cause”, which has happened to me, and thus making unemployment benefits unavailable, then people are willing to accept less pay each time they change jobs. And most employers no longer offer annual raises that keep up with inflation, so even if you stay with a company for a long time, you end up making less and less over time. And if you quit to go find another job, you have no safety net at all in most states.

Add to that the extreme un- and under-employment in the country which is not tracked because people who are unemployed for more than a certain period of time are assumed to not want work and drop off the statistics and underemployment is not really tracked. But gig-work is so common now that underemployment is extremely common. So, the competion for jobs that are full time is extremely high.

Then look at the extreme homelessness issues that people see constantly and fear becoming. And then consider that publicly traded companies are pressured by the system to increase short term profits at the expense of long-term growth, so there’s no incentive to keep a loyal, experienced workforce and every incentive to treat employees as “replaceable cogs”. And the fact that many companies have policies against or at least generally consider it to be a fire-able offense (even if not on paper) to tell coworkers how much money you are paid, so without collective bargaining, there’s often no way to know what you’re being paid less than fairly.

All of this, and several other factors lead to a job market that generally has every incentive under capitalism to not pay fairly across the board. Sure there are a lot jobs that pay well in tech, finance, etc., but they are the exception that everyone is competing for. So the companies have the power without collective bargaining in place as individuals have very little control over how much jobs pay.

Anyway, it’s complicated, but workers in the US generally have very few options for employment and have relatively unstable jobs that they rely on to survive. Plus little to no enforcement of the few regulations there are around employment mean that the vast majority of workers take what they can get just to have food and shelter.

That’s just how tech is in the US among several other industries like finance and healthcare, etc. This guy just happens to be being honest about the abuse much like Elan Musk has been for years.

But many companies expect you to work unlimited hours when you’re a salaried employee. Problem is that the minimum pay for a salaried, “professional” employee until this year was only $684/week, though it finally got raised to $1,128 per week starting next year assuming that doesn’t get reversed by the incoming administration as conservatives are very against minimum wage regulation and have been promising to eliminate it. But with median rent being over $3,000/month in San Francisco, that’s not a lot of money.

It’s just that office work culture has been devolving back to this idea that employers should own their employees time entirely if they’re paid on a salary basis. It’s not as bad as places like Japan, but its getting there. But if you want to get out of poverty, it’s one of the few ways to move up by “paying your dues” so you can then abuse other young people when you move up (another social concept I despise).

Yeah. They don’t pay less, though. They pay one person what other companies pay people to work 40 hours as a salary and make them work 80 or more. They may only get 60 hours worth of productivity in those 80 hours “worked”, so yeah they’d get more productivity out of two people working 40 hours each or probably even two workers working 30 hours each. But they are only paying one worker’s salary and getting more than 40 hours labor.

Good thing they don’t pay hourly wages then.

Which is why I was emphasizing that theoretically it is possible, but that it’s not realistic. The realistic scenario is revolution which would require centralized leadership which then never actually gives up the power and money they were put there to redistribute and decentralize. Thus it’s never been done. The only way for communism to exist without the need for a group of people to give up power would be in that theoretical world where no elite-run government ever existed to need to take the power and wealth away from and that only historically has existed in very small communities prior to them having regular contact with hostile outsiders. Currently only a few “untouched” tribal societies exist in that way.

No there are many forms of communism besides Marxist. None have been successfully implemented, including Marxist communism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies

Socialism, specifically in Marxism, is one of the steps of economic change between capitalism and communism. But yes it has many different forms outside of Marxism, just like communism has many different forms outside of Marxism.

But I’m talking about communist ideology overall which in a very broad sense is designed to transfer power and economic control from the elite and/or wealthy to the general population, which by definition is a decentralization of power and wealth. Marxism starts with a centralized government designed to gather up all of the resources and power from those elite classes and redistribute that to the people, so while it starts out centralized, centralization is not the goal even in Marxism. But that’s the only step that has ever been implemented, so many people mistake it as the only step.

No, now you’re talking only about Marxist communism. Communism as a whole does not state that a single central power owns everything or that individuals can’t own property. Marx was very much against almost all personal property, but communism is simply about making the means of production owned by the people doing the production and not a small subset of individuals. That doesn’t mean ownership by a single entity. That very much could be local community governments that own each factory or power plant or whatever. And it’s only about the “means of production” not the products necessarily. People can still own the products in many forms of communism. Communism doesn’t necessarily dictate a specific economic theory beyond the idea that entities that produce goods that are to be owned by the people, should be owned by the people making the goods, not individuals, and especially not individuals who don’t participate in the production, only in the sale and profit of the goods they don’t produce.

But communism is less centralized than representative democracy or dictatorship or whatever the pre-revolution government likely was. These portions of the government must decentralize as part of the process of moving between government types. That decentralization is essential or it’s not true communism, it’s the fake things that pretend to be communism like PRC, USSR, DPRK, etc.

The only way that some amount of decentralization doesn’t need to happen is if were talking about a society with no previous need for government forming into a communist state, which is what I mentioned was extremely unlikely, even if there were societies isolated enough to still exist without any form of centralized government.

I’m not really talking about Marxist communism. See my other comment, but in any realistic scenarios, communism is unlikely to form spontaneously as the first form of government in a new society.

And since revolution on a large scale requires centralized coordination and leadership, there will always be someone or some group given centralized power that is unlikely to allow for decentralization to happen on a large scale and is actually more likely to grab the power of the previous government system and keep it centralized, “for the good of the people” or “to defend the people” or whatever. Even well meaning revolutionaries are highly likely to crave control and be unlikely to want to allow “someone else” to change what they put in place. This then leaves in place the centralization indefinitely and never leads to communism.

Theoretically, one could spontaneously be created from scratch starting with a small group of people on a new world who have never experienced a centralized form of government. Formal governing is not required if the society is small enough and there are no outside forces at work to create a threat. But once governing is required, there will generally be forces at work that will centralize it. The only exception might be in a society with very limited need for cooperation due to plentiful resources available to all, such as a utopia like Star Trek’s Earth.

In all other, realistic scenarios, there will need to be a revolution. That will always be led by a person or group of people to organize the overthrow and coordinate the changes. This group will inevitably be in search of power themselves, corrupted by the power they are given, or infiltrated by those in search of such power and are unlikely to give up that power.

But they want backdoors in the encryption…because it’s too much work to go through proper channels to get data for themselves. Can’t have it both ways. If LE is going to have access then hackers are going to have access through the same means. Whether it’s companies that give LE a backdoor into their systems or the encryption itself has a backdoor, the weakest link is the only relevant measure of security.