Honestly I don't think we even need to go that far; police should just use the laws that they already have at their disposal. Look at this shooting in Highland Park, here we have a guy who was known to police to be a danger to society to the point where his weapons were stripped in the past. How the hell does this guy pass a background check? Did no one do basic due diligence? Did no one use OSINT to find this guy's social media pages where he was advocating for violence? It seems like the vast majority of shootings feature people who were historically very problematic and yet they were able to pass bg checks. Why is this happening?
> Should definitely not be more than FIVE times what he makes. Because you're not 5x smarter, efficient, or important as FIVE (5) janitors. Period.
Again, it doesn't matter if I'm smarter, more efficient, or "more important" than 5 janitors; what matters is how much money I can help the company make and how hard I am to replace. If I'm enabling the company to make 10X more money than the efforts of a janitor could yield and I'm very hard to replace, then I see no reason why I shouldn't be paid more than 5 janitors combined (granted, this isn't a great comparison because a janitor is more of a cost center, but you get the point). It has nothing to do with who the janitors are as people or who I am as a person, it's purely about money. Also where did you get the number 5 from? Why not 6 or 4? This is what I mean when I say this is very arbitrary.
> but in my earnest (peasant, non-leet) opinion, I think I can draw a straighter, truer, more direct corollary from a persons idea of what fair is (no matter how opaque) than I can from whatever bullshit he types in as a reply.
You seem to believe that companies exist to provide good paying, "fair" jobs, when infact they exist solely to make money. People are paid based on their ability to contribute to this, full stop.
> Why are people so concerned with the salary of the ultra rich?
Two reasons. First it's because the left lets Twitter determine their messaging and so the economic problems facing the country have been framed incorrectly with an unnecessary moral slant. The economic problems facing the poor are not a function of "wealth inequality" (the delta between rich and poor), but instead are a function of the poor having insufficient resources and services regardless of how much money the rich have. When you frame the issue as wealth inequality, then bringing Bezos's wealth down without any concomitant increase in funding for the poor is a victory as the delta is being reduced. Certainly the rich will need to be taxed more to pay for additional services necessary to improve the lives of the poor and middle class, but explicitly lowering the wealth of the rich doesn't need to be in scope to solve the problems we are facing.
Second, no one wants to admit it and by saying it this comment will get flagged, but people care because they are jealous and misinformed. They have zero understanding of what an executive's job actually entails / they don't know anyone in such a role, and as such they (incorrectly) think anyone could do it. Therefore they don't understand why executives are receiving very high levels of comp or amassing massive net worths when they don't appear to be "doing" anything complex.
> We need hard limits on executive pay because if you adjust every other employees salary at a truly fair rate, Jassy should be lucky to make 10 million a year.
This makes no sense. Why should executive salary be tied or compared to the salary of any other employee role? Should my salary as a dev be a function of what a janitor makes? Should my Manager's salary be tied to my salary? I'm not sure where this idea originally came from but compensation should be based on the value the employee is adding , the rarity of that employee's skills, and how in demand that skill set it, not some arbitrary multiplier of another role's salary. I don't care if a CEO is paid NX the rate of the lowest paid role as long as they are adding value commensurate with their salary. Also, "truly fair rate" according to who, you? What makes you qualified to be the arbiter of corporate compensation?
> There is literally no job on earth that should command this price tag.
The people who have a vested interest in deciding this, namely Amazon shareholders, apparently disagree with you.
> Places that allow the rich to prevent themselves from being taxed by their home countries do not deserve existence.
You are falsely assuming that every country's tax policy is reasonable or fair. Look at the United States policy on foreign assets which effectively amounts to double taxation for no other reason than "we don't like rich people" / "we don't like our citizens not living here".
> We need to get this money back under our control - if only to prevent social unrest from the 2/3rd of the US which have less than 1000$ in liquid savings.
It's not your money to begin with, it belongs to the people who rightfully earned it, not the government, nor the poor. Peoples' assets don't exist to serve as piggy banks for social programs and redistribution.
I think you could take the opposite view as well. Yes, if they could treat employees poorly then they would, but they can't so they don't. There is more demand for talent than there is supply of talent. I work at a company that has both contractors and full time employees, and it is very obvious when looking at work product why the contractors are the contractors and the full time employees are the full time employees.
Contractor output is frequently technically shoddy or lazy; their reports are riddled with grammatical mistakes and frequently difficult to understand; and there is no way that they could take point when interfacing with a customer as their English skills simply aren't good enough.
> A counter is that other countries (Japan, Korea, Italy, ...) that enforce traditional values have had a collapse in the birth rate.
Yes, but the value systems (at least in Asia) are quite different than even conservative ones in the US so I don't think that's a fair comparison. In Asia there is an expectation that relationships will lead to marriage, that you will marry well before thirty, that women will exit the workforce following marriage, that married couples will have children quickly, and that enormous amounts of resources will be spent on raising those children (especially in terms of education).
The birth rate has gone down there because it is overly burdensome to be married and have children under these expectations. This is far different than even conservative expectations in the US which basically amount to the father should be able to hold down a job and show up.
Preach! What we ultimately need is just a law that says it is illegal for companies to collect or store any data for marketing purposes, tracking, or resale. No opt ins, no exceptions. Unfortunately we can't fully kill targeted or unsolicited advertising at the root because of freedom of speech issues, but we can eliminate all the data it depends on.
You are viewing the experience as purely transactional, but they may view going there as a tradition and may think they have a relationship with the place (i.e. they are a regular). In addition, it sounds like they kick-started a tradition so they may even feel a sense of ownership. In other words, it is not just business, it is personal.
That's why you see those enraged 1 star reviews and why these people never came back. These aren't people who are offended at simple business transactions, these are people who feel personally wronged, and that will always generate a lot of negative emotion.
If we are recommending actual life sciences textbooks or literature, I would recommend the Hallmarks of Cancer, which is actually a review article. Simply reading that alone will give someone a strong basic understanding for how cancerous tissue actually develops and evolves capabilities until it becomes deadly.
The DoD funds a lot of medical research to improve combat readiness. When I was an academic researcher, we were working on a project that was partially DoD funded to develop a diagnostic device which was meant for personalizing medication for patients undergoing cardiac procedures, but the military was interested in using it for developing personalized versions of QuikClot for soldiers who experienced battlefield trauma.
I also worked for a company which had several novel therapeutics for agents commonly used in bioweapons in their pipeline and the DoD was funding parts of that as well.
A surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for example will cost ~50K I believe? It will be covered by insurance if it is necessary.
There are also less invasive forms of valve replacement (transcatheter / percutaneous) which involve collapsing a synthetic valve around a balloon at the end of a catheter, inserting the assembly into a femoral artery, guiding the valve into the heart and into the open damaged valve, and then inflating the balloon and deploying the new valve inside of the damaged old valve. In SAVR the old valve is removed and the new one is sewn in. In transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the old valve is held open by the new valve.
> If people don't want to take personal precautions, they should be at liberty to assume the additional risk.
I agree, the problem is no one is making them assume the risk. If they truly assumed the risk of not getting vaccinated, one of a few things would happen:
1. The risk of not getting vaccinated would be priced into their health insurance premiums and their costs would skyrocket.
2. If they require hospitalization, they should be turned away at the door if there is insufficient capacity. Alternatively, they can be hospitalized but discharged the minute their presence begins to strain resources. They could even be refused assistance generally.
3. If I can suggest that my infection came from person X (e.g. I was around them when they had the virus), then they should be liable for damages.
None of those things will happen, because people don't want to assume the risk that comes with their choices, they want to offload it onto other people. They want to be able to not be vaccinated then scream for help when they get in trouble and have the healthcare system ride to the rescue.
Are you assessing and recording your caloric intake and your macros currently? Are you assessing and recording your weight daily on a reliable scale? If not, those are the places to start. Buy some scales (body and food), get the MyFitnessPal app, and start collecting data on what you normally eat and how much you weigh over time. If you are losing weight over time, eat more of what you normally eat until you weight stabilizes.
Once your weight has stabilized and you have a baseline, go to iifym.com and develop a weight gain / bulking plan. This will be what you currently eat daily calorie wise + 200-300 calories with prescribed macros. Try to hit your newly prescribed calories and macros each day with a focus on healthy eating (track and record your food intake to monitor this) and keep track of your weight. You should aim for 1-2 lbs per week of weight gain. If you are not achieving that, increase calories by 100-200 per day until you do.
Everyone has dirty laundry they would prefer not be aired, and if they don't then their friends, family, or partners do. I don't think we want to live in a world where absolute moral purity (as determined by the most vocal, biased critics of a given person) is required to hold public office.