A lot of companies don't "need" anyone because they are not subject to profit and loss anymore. This is the result of government policies of cheap money, government contracts and higher and higher barriers to enter the market.
If there was a need, even if there were a lot of candidates managers would prefer the first to be enough. But they don't have a need, government policies give them all the time in the world. So for managers it's worse to get the "wrong" candidate than a sufficient one. Managers also prefer multiple rounds, testing, etc, because they can avoid blame by showing they hired someone that passed all the tests. At the same time for managers it's better to get one superstar they can brag about than a person that can do the job, because there is no job subject to profit and loss in the first place.
This is how I explain the current situation, situation I find absurd. I may be wrong, but that's what I think. I don't know if it can help, I think your pain is fully justified and this is my attempt at easing it. It helped me a little, knowing I'm not the problem and nor is the person in front of me (at least not really)
>"Likewise, all online stores must be able to trace traders selling goods via their platforms, in case they are offering counterfeit items or other illegal products."
>"[It] will require online marketplaces to check their sellers' identity before they are allowed on the platform, which will make it so much more difficult for dodgy traders to do their business," commented Mr Breton.
I see, it's another "let's regulate the big by removing small players from the market". Of course, of course. Totally not another gift to the bigs masked by helping normal people.
If you execute such an order and try to seize the property, you deserve to die if you die in the confrontation. After the Nuremberg trials, "I was just doing my job" is not recognized as an excuse anymore.
Now, should the judges, bureaucrats, etc deserve to die too? No, because they don't actually go there and try to seize the property, but they must be put in jail as taking part in the conspiracy to unlawfully get the property of the old man.
When bureaucrats and judges will begin to pay, they will stop doing stupid stuff against weak people.
In early 00s I had a popular videogame forum. One day I made a backup and, bored, I started looking in the image folder. I found pics of a naked girl and in my naivety(I was a minor) I thought we got hacked (we got hacked sometimes because I didn't know anything about programming or web security). So, I searched the database to try and find the origin (which was really painful since, as I've said, I didn't know how to program), and I found out the girl was a user sexting using private messages.
Never said a word about the incident, but added an advice in the rules about images not being crypted.
Reading about things like this I love the way we select people for university in Italy. There is a written test, multiple-choice questions.
Those who score higher, pass. Yes, it sounds like a system that favors test takers, but there are so many seats to take that if you don't score enough you really don't deserve the place (I say this as a person who was never smart not good at tests).
Nobody will consider anything else. Sadly, I've noticed a slight shift towards a more american way of talking about things like race and sex, even in universities, but I hope the legal system is strong enough to keep having neutral admissions.
Our economy is already in a bad place, last thing we need is young people being discriminated for anything but their ability to perform a task, even if arbitrary.
"So it’s possible that big companies are increasing their market power by using lobbying to capture politicians and regulators. If this is true, it’s very bad news for free markets and capitalism."
So, they managed to blame capitalism and the free market for the effects of lack of free market and the will of politicians and the public to accept regulation that causes less free market?
What the hell!!!!
This is the kind of culture that makes it possible for estabilished companies to lobby for increasing regulations. If there were a "free market at all cost" approach, maybe even punishment for those who attack the free market with lobbying, there would not be this kind of problem. There would be other problems, of course, but not this one.
Of course, they had to blame even the lack of free market on the free market. Come on!
the housing market, especially in the US, is far from being capitalistic. You have all kind of weird rules, zoning laws maybe are the first culprit, and guess what is the result? You don't have enough houses, people are homeless and prices are most often ridiculous. This despite the fact that you have really a lot of land and the kind where you could build really high structures to house people.
I wish I knew this 10 years ago, when I decided to study math and get a CS degree. Sadly, while I'm good at programming (at least to the extent that nobody ever complained and projects got shipped), I'm really uncapable at math. I don't know what it is exactly, I just can't do it, no matter how much books, video lessons and tutoring I throw at it. I always understand theory but I cannot solve most exercises and problems despite a lot of practice.
Anyway, I wasted my 20s trying to get good enough at math, when I could've pushed on my talents instead. I really thought it was all about hard work and that I wasn't working hard enough, or maybe that I should've approached the problem from some other angle. Big mistake. Wasted opportunities.
The article says that China is doing good and the US is not doing well in this regard. I think they're both wrong. It's really stupid, and offensive and immoral, to put individuals into boxes. We don't know how the talents of individuals can express themselves to serve the needs of other people. That's why there should always be complete freedom of studying and working, instead of universities and States deciding who can do what job and on what terms.
Eventually I know programming will become a closed profession and I won't have access to it because of my inability to do math despite my ability to ship software. I can't even imagine how much we have lost in other closed fields in terms of productivity due to this belief that you just have to put in the work.
I hope I'll manage to get out of programming before it's too late. Clock is ticking.
If facebook's actions are illegal now, they are illegal now, there is no ex post facto.
Can't talk for the US, but for example the "friendly fraud" could be considered fraud in many European countries, since it brings profit to facebook by inducing people into error. The punishment includes jail time. You do need someone to start a lawsuit, of course, and that's what the judicial system should do when the fraud is repeated. But do they do it? Nope, instead we just have the politicians whine that they need more power. What a surprise.
The reason why FB and big companies in general are unafraid of current laws is that they know they won't be applied. It's a big hassle to punish the rich and the corporations, because people working in the judicial system just don't care about making big enemies. Also it's a pain in the ass because there are two thousand layers of limited liability they have to uncover before they can put the responsible people in jail. It's much easier to focus all the energy on some poor guy selling some weed or a small business not submitting the right form at the right time. Punishing them need zero effort, they can't defend themselves properly and their punishment justifies the work of the judicial system.
Elected politicians should be the one to keep the judicial system in check, but they don't have an incentive to do so that it starts to punish rich people FIRST.
In the end the people, by showing support for "more laws" they only get more laws, which will cost more money to the taxpayers and also will make life difficult for the small business while big business won't care and will even be advantaged by them. All this aside from the fact that it doesn't make sense to make another law when there is already a law.
This is a classic tactics by politicians: instead of reprimanding the judicial system for refusing to do their job properly, they cry and whine publicly in order to get the consensus to create more laws, which often guarantee more power to the government and also the creation of special regulatory bodies where they can put their people with a juicy governement salary.
All the problem described in this thread could be solved with laws from 25 years ago.
Facebook stealing call and contact data? No, they can't do it. No, GDPR was not needed. No, putting a phrase in a ToS that nobody reads is not enough to save a company from being destroyed in court in case of serious wrongdoing.
Friendly fraud? Also a crime, just use the existing laws.
Calling the users dumb fucks? Not a crime.
Manipulating the users emotion or testing the algorithms on users? Also not a crime and I don't see why it should be.
Of course, it's much easier for the judicial system to not bother with those big companies by applying the existing laws. Why risk getting attention from such powerful people? And after all, if they were to apply the existing laws, then the poor politicians would have much less fake crisis to work with in order to expand the role of government and make money.
This is how the whole government thing work. Proved since the beginning of time. Trust them even less than Facebook.
Did you ever noticed that when it comes to protect a public official, for example a cop killing someone, all the State pieces work in perfect synchrony? I mean, everyone, from lawmakers, judges and the lowest of clerks suddently learn how to make exceptions and interpret the laws in new ways.
Yet, I have to believe that lawmakers aren't able to stop billionaires from screwing up the small guy without making complex regulations that impede progress and innovation, regulations that in the end make the rich and the bureaucrats a lot of money and sink hopes for the honest entrepeneur.
I have to believe they're making the laws in good faith because they really have no alternative.
Of course. I totally believe it.
Targeted ads are great. Things cost less because there is more competitions between suppliers and they don't have to pay a lot per piece, since they can target only the specific people who needs the thing they sell. This is GREAT for people with small business and low budgets... but we know now that Europe only care about the big business and billionaire overlords.
Also with targeted ads you don't have to hear/read about products you will never care for a moment in your life.
I can totally see the sites that caused the GDPR to become a thing on the list. What an incredible job EU bureacrats, keep it up, it's not like the economy here doesn't need more rules.