Theres a lot of obvious layers of stupidity here, i wanna point out the ludicrousness of thinking you can define legislative legal terms through executive order.
I don’t think they have access to private cameras, but why would they need them when there are government cameras literally everywhere? I don’t know if you’ve been to London, but there are cameras on virtually every light pole. There are literally tens of thousands of government surveillance cameras in the UK.
If they can’t access private cameras, they will add so many public ones that they aren’t necessary. It’s a bigger problem than just access to private cameras.
I hated that article. I don't need all of the charged language or opinion. Here'sthe WSJ article if y'all want to read it of note, the WSJ isn't really making a determination here. Mostly just quoting out of touch executives and labor firms.
I'm all for work reform but how this comes back on the Wall Street Journal is beyond me.
I agree that the article linked here misrepresents the original. I think you could make a case for the original taking the old timey, generation-wars perspective of "these gen Z-ers and their entitlement", although they've clearly tried to preempt it in the piece fairly explicitly.
I also agree that misrepresenting the article erodes trust in the outlet, although to what extent Boingboing has an editorial line these days I don't know.
Not that stupid when you realize a lot of people see them as status symbols and don’t want people to think it’s “fake” even if its better or rather perfect. Sucks but ig people really like bloodied shiny rocks over anything else if it makes them look rich.
I was going to post the original wapo article, but then I saw wapo wouldn’t even let me read the whole thing. I don’t knowingly link to articles that are paywalled.
boingboing.net
Top