I don’t see why companies wouldn’t want people to work fewer days a week. Paying at least 20% less compared to a full week seems great for them, given they won’t get 20% less value. Since some days are already largely spent twiddling thumbs waiting for things to happen.
What you’re describing is “part time” and companies LOVE part timers. Lower pay, no benefits. What people actually want is full time, but full time means 4 day work weeks. Around Europe there have been tests where everyone maintains their salary but works 4 days instead of 5. The workers are better rested and more productive so even despite less time worked per week, the net work output does not decrease.
Why not have different options for full time? Or is that what is being advocated for? But my original question was why would companies be opposed to 4 day full time?
The perception of lost productivity, whether true or false, would be the opposition. I’m sure with a lot of specific jobs, productivity is highly maximized even at 40 hours. And in customer service positions, you might still need coverage 16 hours a day 7 days a week. So ultimately if your whole team of 12 works 8 fewer hours a week each, they’ll need to hire 3 more people to cover the lost time. If nobody’s weekly pay amount changed, now suddenly your labor costs have risen 25%.
I’d assume they’d pay less so the hourly rate would be the same. Maybe it’s the training and getting up to speed the has a longer payback time? Or just communicating between more people to do the same work is difficult?
The tests I’ve read about in recent times have not netted a loss in pay - simply a reduction in hours but an increase in productivity because workers are well rested and happier with their work life balance.
Again - what you’re describing already exists, it’s called a part time job. If it comes with a loss in pay, then how improved is your work life balance when you have to go get a second job to supplement your income as a result of transitioning to a 32 hour work week? And how much more productive are you going to be if it means you’re now working a 6 or 7 day work week?
I was thinking moreso in terms of higher paying jobs. Programmers often complain about how draining their jobs are, but it pays so well they stay with it. I think a lot of them would be happy for 20% less time for 20% less pay. I’m in engineering, and I would think hard about it as well. I could live off 20% less, and I would be happier with more free time.
Part time doesn’t have benefits does it? Or as many protections against getting fired? So I don’t think that’s exactly equivalent.
In rural areas young men normally have more access to both and they’re more likely to already take part in activities with guns. Like pest control, hunting.
Yet some young men don’t like alcohol, and they are more likely not to like guns. It’s an interesting correlation that should be further studied. Not sure why you think there isn’t much here to think about.
Because it makes no sense. The headline is implying that drinking leads you to buying a gun directly. That’s dumb. Drinking could lead you to make reckless decisions. So, it’s possible that drinking increases your chance to make an impulse purchase, and that purchase might be a gun. But that’s not causation.
If you read the article it basically states the same thing. It basically states that drinking can increase violence, and drinking can also lead to unsafe handling of firearms. So, the cause of violence here is alcohol.
And the final nail in the coffin is the following quote: “The authors say their findings can inform strategies to discourage drinking and thereby decrease the likelihood of handgun-carrying among youth and young adults in rural areas.” So, the goal isn’t to decrease violence. It’s to decrease handgun carrying among young adults.
Also, a sample size of 2000 12-26 year olds? That’s about 142 per age, which is not too bad, but in my opinion 12-17, 18-20, 21-26 are vastly different groups. They themselves state that 19-26 is where the most drinking/gun owning occurs, which makes sense. That’s when you are allowed to legally purchase a gun and that’s when you and your friends start to drink. You could say the same thing about owning a car. But if I told you that drinking is linked to purchasing a car, you’d think that’s stupid.
So, it’s possible that drinking increases your chance to make an impulse purchase, and that purchase might be a gun. But that’s not causation.
It’s not causation, and I’m not trying to imply it is. But it is a correlation, and that is interesting enough on its own.
If you read the article it basically states the same thing. It basically states that drinking can increase violence, and drinking can also lead to unsafe handling of firearms. So, the cause of violence here is alcohol.
I don’t care about the cause of violence, I care about the correlation.
And the final nail in the coffin is the following quote: “The authors say their findings can inform strategies to discourage drinking and thereby decrease the likelihood of handgun-carrying among youth and young adults in rural areas.” So, the goal isn’t to decrease violence. It’s to decrease handgun carrying among young adults.
Carrying handguns among young adults leads to increased violence. Having “decreased handgun carrying” as a goal seems completely fine to me as long as people still have a choice.
Also, a sample size of 2000 12-26 year olds? That’s about 142 per age, which is not too bad, but in my opinion 12-17, 18-20, 21-26 are vastly different groups. They themselves state that 19-26 is where the most drinking/gun owning occurs, which makes sense.
That sample size seems completely fine. Which measure exactly isn’t to your liking? Can you be specific about what n or P you’d expect?
You could say the same thing about owning a car. But if I told you that drinking is linked to purchasing a car, you’d think that’s stupid.
Yeah, I think you misunderstand the study. Of course I’d be very interested in knowing whether people who drink are more likely to buy a car. Why would I think that’s stupid? Explain it clearly to me.
But I think I understand - you don’t want people to lose access to guns, so it’s easier to declare the study to be “stupid” than to accept the correlation as reality. The problem is that the study isn’t making any judgements or publishing any guidance - it just presents a correlation. You shouldn’t reject studies because you don’t like possible future implications.
Yeah I’m generally in the “the state shouldn’t kill people” camp but I can’t muster the empathy for pedophiles. Take them out behind the shed and shoot them.
Some of the replies here are absolutely vile: if you’re going to endorse locking people in cages for years if not decades and pretend that’s a justified response to anything short of their being an immediate physical danger to the people around them, then the least you can do is accommodate their most basic needs and ethical positions.
Prisons are pitched to us as places of rehabilitation - somewhere to pay penance and right wrongs before returning to the community, better for having served the time. I think it’s a deeply disingenuous characterisation which serves mainly to let people avoid facing up to the reality which is prison’s purposeless and ultimately harmful cruelty, but it is the dominant characterisation nonetheless.
But, if we blindly accept the rehabilitation narrative, then how exactly do we expect to rehabilitate people by fracturing them psychologically? By forcing them to violate ethical commitments which are sacrosanct to them, by alienating them from their communities and forcing them to abide by a clockwork dictatorial regime without any semblance of comfort or dignity, by leaving them to rot miserably for years?
No, and no wonder prisons are factories for broken people and recidivism if this is how people think about them. Get a hold of yourselves.
Also, before anybody retreats to the flimsy position of “but prisoners shouldn’t eat better than schoolchildren” or “but what about the poor” - yes, those people are also underserved, and we have resources available to improve conditions for all of them too. All that’s lacking is will.
Last but not least, if you concede that you care about neither the incarcerated nor the society they come from and will return to in time - then there’s also the question of why animals should suffer? If people aren’t even worthy of being afforded their basic preferences, then why should the default be the option which necessitates the lifelong suffering of sentient beings on an industrial scale?
Glad to know veganism is more important than justice.
He doesn’t have the right to be a vegan in prison. He’s in PRISON. Being justly punished. When you’re in prison, you don’t get to live the way you want barring basic human rights, and being vegan isn’t a human right, it’s a lifestyle choice.
Get over that fact and take your cultists out of the thread
he already has PBJs and PBJs are given specifically as a vegan option.
he doesn’t have the right to be vegan when he’s locked up
you don’t have the right to exploit crime threads to push your shitty political agenda.
This thread is not about you, not about vegans, and you coming in here brigading and unethically deciding the fact that a dude who stole billions is claiming to be vegan (whether that claim is true or false) is more important than justice and literally everyone else is unacceptable, get the fuck out of the thread
You. Unless you think we haven’t noticed you’re hiding behind a debate about the importance of punishment, the viability and legitimacy of the prison system and abuses of the U.S. prison system in a situation that has nothing to do with them because you’re trying to promote veganism.
It’s weird though. It’s literally just the guy you were talking to, and another who’s account is only a couple hours old and solely has comments on this post.
It’s weird that every single comment he made would have exactly 3 upvotes only an hour after posting on a 2 day old thread, deep within a comment chain of nearly 20 back and forths.
But maybe not, honestly it’s possible you’re right. It was just pretty suspicious.
I don’t especially care whether there’s a formally enshrined right for incarcerated people to be vegan - I’m saying that if we continue to insist upon locking people in cages with an ostensible objective of rehabilitating them and not simply performing retributive cruelty for its own sake, then we must treat the incarcerated people with diligence and respect as baseline. You can’t expect for well-adjusted people to emerge from a system of institutionalised dehumanisation, cruelty, and uncaring indifference.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to respect an incarcerated person’s ethical commitment to not exploiting animals, and to be diligent in providing food of a reasonable nutritional standard which doesn’t violate those commitments to consume. Peanut butter sandwiches do not fulfil that criteria by themselves.
I’m not sure what you mean by “my cultists” - I didn’t bring anybody here, and I found this thread independently through my own feed.
In order to preemptively address some of your assertions in reply to another person in this comment thread:
This thread is not about you, not about vegans
It’s not about vegans, no.
It’s about respect for a person’s ethical commitments in a scenario where you’ve deprived them of the ability to satisfy those commitments themselves. My argument would not have to substantively change in order to comment on a person whose religious dietary restrictions aren’t being respected by the available options, to give an alternative example.
It’s true that the final paragraph of my original response speaks specifically to animal liberation, but that’s because I’m passionate about that issue independently of this one. That said, I think my original reply would remain perfectly sound with that paragraph removed if you’d prefer to take it that way.
the fact that a dude who stole billions
I don’t think the crime or characteristics of the incarcerated are especially relevant here. My argument would remain unaltered if the incarcerated person was poor, from a marginalised background, and in prison for much less exceptional reasons.
is more important than justice and literally everyone else
I don’t think that whatever justice there is to be found in the prison system is nullified by respecting incarcerated people’s ethical commitments, and I think that applies to all incarcerated people.
Unless you think we haven’t noticed you’re hiding behind a debate about the importance of punishment, the viability and legitimacy of the prison system and abuses of the U.S. prison system in a situation that has nothing to do with them because you’re trying to promote veganism.
I’m a prison abolitionist first and foremost, and I thought that’d be clear from the overall thrust of my original post - but apparently not. Respect for the incarcerated, their humanity, and their ethical commitments is very much the compromise position.
Well, good news: prison absolutely is for punishing people, not rehabilitation. And it never should be. Prison should never go away, specifically to spite disgusting monsters like you who want to do away with justice, ensuring that no one who does evil things will ever see meaningful life-rendering consequences for their actions.
You’re the kind of person who ruins the lives of abuse victims. Who tells rape victims that they need to put aside their emotions for your idea of a greater good while nothing is ever expected of their rapists or of you. People like you destroy millions of lives peddling this shit – there’s even a CSA survivor in the comments calling out another one of your ilk.
I’m a prison abolitionist first and foremost, and I thought that’d be clear from the overall thrust of my original post - but apparently not. Respect for the incarcerated, their humanity, and their ethical commitments is very much the compromise position.
No, what you are is an apologist. The idea of doing away with punishment, even prison, is nothing more than cheap apologia, anti-survivor, anti-justice, completely immoral and anti-human. Though given veganism is being used as the main driver for you to peddle your evil political agenda in this thread, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if you truly did not give a fuck about any of that.
I nor anyone else with decency, goodness and common sense are going to give you or your evil ideas any quarter nor should they. The very idea of doing away with punishment or even prison given the horrific reasoning you hold for it is morally repugnant and can be dismissed on its face.
You are disgusting. Get away from me. I hope you never get what you want.
I don’t care about sharp words from a brutish authoritarian.
You’re free to continue endorsing an institution and approach which generates further undesirable behaviour as recidivism whilst preventing little wherever it’s implemented. You can continue to pretend that criminality is a phenomenon completely local to the actor and not a reflection of broader social and structural issues which we need to address. You can proceed with turning out more victims by proxy of the traumatised ex-incarcerated continuing to deal harm if it’ll satisfy the sadistic streak inside of you demanding that infractions incur the infliction of suffering and trauma in turn.
Regions which engage with mass incarceration and operate more sadistic prison regimes overlap with those regions with the highest rates of repeat offending. That’s not a coincidence, but a product of thinking like yours.
Prisons which exist with actual commitments to rehabilitation, and which respect the dignity of the incarcerated, while imperfect, turn out far fewer repeat offenders than those who don’t.
If you care about victims of abuse, as I do, then you’ll turn instead to approaches which result in fewer of them to be counted: alternatives to incarceration, and the pursuit of relative normalcy within the institution for the incarcerated where it still exists.
I hope for a future without coercion, abuse, violence, or pain. I would hope that we all do.
I don’t care about sharp words from a brutish authoritarian.
But you do care about writing a half-page’s worth of the most obscene, arrogant, self-satisfied, apologist garbage you can muster because ultimately, this is about the lack of respect you have for other people, especially abuse victims who you step all over to get what you want. Like here:
If you care about victims of abuse, as I do, then you’ll turn instead to approaches which result in fewer of them to be counted: alternatives to incarceration, and the pursuit of relative normalcy within the institution for the incarcerated where it still exists.
Who, in the world, would reasonably listen to someone like you? Someone who thinks like that? You know there are actual CSA survivors in this thread, right? Possibly even rape survivors? And you’re here talking that kind of shit thinking you know them better than the rest of humanity and have the right to speak for them?
Did you know I am an abuse survivor? That most of my friends are? Did you ever even think to emphasize with me, or ask me who I am or why I feel the way I do?
No. You absolutely did not. It didn’t even cross your mind to, because you’re a disgusting abuse apologist who doesn’t give a shit about anyone other than yourself. You likely only support getting rid of punishment specifically because you know it will hurt everyone else.
Don’t listen to him, pretty sure he’s a troll. Also looks like he has alts, as every one of his comments immediately gets upvoted two or three times, while comments like yours get downvoted. It’s pathetic.
Prisons are pitched to us as places of rehabilitation - somewhere to pay penance and right wrongs before returning to the community, better for having served the time
In America? many states don't even pretend with that pitch. They want to be "hard on crime" and "give justice to victims". And voters vote for that.
Weird, I just saw a thread you were involved in yesterday and thought you were fucking dumb. Guess it was only a matter of time before you proved yourself a tankie or a conservative.
This is kind of an interesting connection if you are bitching about me saying China doesnt own Taiwan given this article that you posted is about an autonomous region of China known as Inner Mongolia. Do you believe autonomous regions like Taiwan or Inner Mongolia are their own or are they Chinese?
Secondly, this article is 100% about rare earth metals being disposed and how our consumption forces them to have these sorts of places. Sure you are right, they have a lake in Baotou that is basically poison and its a biproduct due to Chinese practices in manufacturing. Ill give you that, but keep buying made in China, force your problems to someone else and then blame them for the conditions they have. You are the type to look the other way to slave labor as long as you get the product you want.
The cell phone you are holding had components made in china. About 80% of all battery production comes from China.
Its ok to say you dont know where you are buying the materials of the things you use, just dont forget what your purchasing power is helping to create. Its a toxic lake in northern China.
I conceded to you already after seeing the article you sent me… You were the one that brought up my post history so I was talking about that. Then you went and made a confusing statement about calling me a conservative and a tankie which made no sense. Now you are saying I brigade and strive to make Lemmy a worse place. You are the one calling me names and talking shit for seemingly no reason. You could have just dropped the link and left like a sane person but you had to hit me with the "i read your post history you nerd now i got you where i want you 🤓 "
Look around, you are the only one seeing goal posts here. There is no argument here. I told you already that. I was just saying if people want to complain about chinas waste, then they need to look in the mirror and see who is the real culprit
Lol im sorry i didnt realize I was talking to a kid. I am capable of having a discussion where I can change my mind and still have a nuanced opinion. I apologize if you cant and you have a single brain cell to work with.
You just want to punch down for some reason. I already said you got me on the issue on these places existing. From what it looks like, you just learned what goalposts were and you are seeing them everywhere. You are the one that also came to me saying my takes on other shit is stupid. Im okay to keep talking to you about how your take is stupid but at this point its a waste of time.
Or just compare the dangers of microplastic, of which China is quite a source. The microplastic will be around long after (most of) the tritium is long gone.
I’ve come to learn that if a couple people are wrong, it’s on them, but if it’s a lot of people, it’s the system.
They could have taken advantage of this and run a paid shuttle or guided hikes or sold timed tickets to limit the number of people per hour, etc. Maybe only charge people who live outside the region, or offer tickets for a suggested donation.
I’m not saying it needs to be merchandised with a gift shop. The point is, there’re a ton of creative ways to limit the number of tourists in that spot at one time with a side effect of revenue to pay for the extra load on public services. But instead they just throw up their hands?
Sounds like a missed opportunity. There are a ton of way dumber things people flock to see. I would think public interest in forest art installations is something that should be encouraged.
I agreed with you before reading the article, but it turns out it’s on private property. So no transport infrastructure, and the property owners would have had to shell out a while bunch from their own pockets to do anything.
They also tried putting up signs and hoping visitors would self regulate, but that obviously didn’t work out. Hard to blame anybody except selfish assholes in this case.
WASHINGTON — An F.B.I. informant who was embedded for months in the inner circle of Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia, is likely to testify as a defense witness at the seditious conspiracy trial of Mr. Rhodes in connection with the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The informant, Greg McWhirter, served as the Oath Keepers’ vice president but was secretly reporting to the F.B.I. about the group’s activities in the weeks and months leading up to the Capitol attack, according to two people familiar with the matter.
Just FYI for semantics. Generics is a term usually for small molecular weight compounds, usually under 900 daltons. Biosimilars is the term for higher molecular weight.
Doing generics is a lot simpler than biosimilars, in both you must wait for the patient to run out. But biosimilars are less likely to be made using an alternative process than the original trade secret process. This is due in part to the higher molecular weight which means a more complex compound.
Pazienza’s fatal shove of the respected coach came during a drunken rampage on a night of celebrating her upcoming nuptials with her fiancé at West 28th Street, prosecutors have said.
The 5-foot-7 Pazienza encountered the 4-foot-11 Gustern after becoming enraged by a Parks Department worker kicking her and her beau out of Chelsea Park — where the pair had been eating dinner — because the green space was closing, according to the DA’s office.
After throwing her food at her lover, Pazienza crossed the street and randomly attacked Gustern — and then coldly walked away as the elderly woman bled from her head, officials said.
“Notice how she didn’t go after some 6-foot-tall, 200-pound guy – she went after my 80-pound grandmother,” Gustern’s grandson said after Wednesday’s hearing.
Following the attack, Pazienza took the subway back to her Astoria home, where she finally disclosed to her fiancé that she had shoved someone hours later. \ After seeing on the news that the beloved vocal coach had died – and spotting herself in surveillance images released by police – Pazienza deleted all of her social media accounts, removed her wedding website and fled to Long Island to stay with family, the DA’s office said. … But Pazienza’s attorney, Arthur Aidala, has claimed that Pazienza was so bombed off of a cocktail of wine, weed and prescription drugs that she could not have possibly known what she was doing, or had the required “intent” for the manslaughter charge to stick.
Drugs and alcohol everytime. Where was her finance during this rampage? Thank you for the Details she going have pay for her consequences. Hopefully she sobers up and cleans up. That lady should have never died that way.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.