A select few get a chance to truly pick their projects, even then, most need to apply for grants internally and externally to get the funds. Professors may also be tied to teaching, cutting their time from the researches they them valuable. When accounting for this, a lower purchase power and seeing 'the grass is greener' on your private corp peers, you are very likely to think long and hard about jumping ship.
Google is an indexer, therefore it searches for information on the internet that correlates or is @tonyjstark. If you ask your government for a 'Rights to be Forgotten', they will request for everyone in their jurisdiction to remove you from it. Google EU and others then have to remove the indexed information associated with you. However, Google US, Bing Colombia, etc are not in your jurisdiction, so it can still index the information associated with you. Also, if the website that is being indexed is not within EU jurisdiction or has been copied elsewhere, then it also falls outside of EU jurisdiction.
If legislation like these ones could encompass the whole world, certain powerful countries, corporations, individuals, etc would use it to ensure that only what was beneficial to them would be indexed, searchable and available.
> If you ask your government for a 'Rights to be Forgotten', they will request for everyone in their jurisdiction to remove you from it.
That's not how this works. You ask the entity in question to remove your data.
You only ask your "government" to enforce that right if everything else fails. You're already assuming bad faith from the entity. Some requests are actually reasonable and when you talk to a human they will do it if you have a good reason.
What would the world look like if all volunteering stopped? Would society have reached the point it is today? Volunteer encompasses all kinds of areas, including software and research. It can be argued that some segments would be covered by for-profit organizations, but decisions in this area is often driven by the return on investment (ROI). This means that some solutions would likely be paid or not pass the potential ROI test. If it became paid, it would likely be a barriers of entries to a lot of people, leading to slower integration and growth of the platform, software, etc.
I was not arguing against volunteering. From the article, I just did not understand what was described in the title. I’m glad there is so much volunteering, I think the current climate crisis shows that capitalism cannot work for everything.
The answer is yes and I always point to the Financial Crisis of 33 AD in Rome which was mainly caused by a mass issuance of unsecured loans by the Roman banking house.[1]
Some of the major reasons why financial recessions happen are: abnormal leveraging, liquidity mismatches, wars, taxes, subsidies, governance.
Fiat currency is one of the reasons society has had a lot more stability in the value of money in comparison to any other time in the past. Currencies tied to commodities such as gold, silver, etc have always been more volatile due to supply oscillation, business cycles and periodic bursts of 'pocket' recessions.
The problem with fiat currencies is that there is just a little too much temptation to print a truckload when there are "emergencies". This often causes hyperinflation or massive inequality leading to the rise of populism and democratic backsliding.
Printing a truckload of currency is often a byproduct of populism. Even without fiat currencies, governments would simply use other methods to debase the value of their coins [1]
I think there is a fine line a lot of major companies have to go through to ensure they are not inadvertently doing fiscal fraud (and other types of fraud) while maximizing their main goal, which tends to be profit maximization. If the government punishes too hardly, individuals and corporations are more likely to shy away from that market due to increase in operations cost (E.g. More lawyers + accountants) and implicit risks. Customers would also move away from those products and services if the cost became too high.
Part of the governments job is to ensure that they react to potential loopholes faster, decreasing the competitive advantage that a non-conforming organization may have. A harsher punishment may even put some companies out of business, impacting unemployment rates, supply chains, medium-long term government revenue and the services they provide.
How would you go about increasing the punishment while considering the possibility that the corporation inadvertently did that? Would you punish larger companies more harshly? How would that impact the market place?
I couldn't agree more. This is something that no one, from any polical side, right or left or republican or democrat or whoever in whatever country, says enough. Companies are indeed considered as real entities whereas they are just emergent structures which behavior comes from decisions made by real humans. And I truly believe that those real humans should be trialed and sentenced more or at least as much as the company they are working for in cases of fiscal fraud. And this is not the case now, the company shielding them from the consequences of their individual actions.
For companies, the justice system works quite well (just like here, even with extraterritoriality and fiscal paradise), nations can manage to apply the law to them. But the responsibility of the individuals in the same legal cases is often forgotten.
Take the Google example : even if you talk of "fiscal optimization" to give a nice appearance to those actions, some individuals in Google crossed the line and knew it perfectly. And it is true that Google, as a structure, is ok with it ('don't do evil' does not apply when it comes to maximizing profits). But those people at Google who crossed the line will never appear in court, nor the ones having validated their work (probably the higher management), which is a shame in my opinion. It happens that a company break the law, but it never does it alone : it is people who instruct it to do so.
To see my point, look at England at the moment : if a ruler of a country decides to break the law, is it the country that is responsible or the leader ? My view is that it is both and both should be prosecuted by the individuals impacted.
To achieve your goal, you will need to change the very fundamental fabric of humanity and the reality of resource scarcity. Here are some examples that can lead to war: economic gain,territorial gain, religion, nationalism, revenge, civil strife, defensive. Below are a few expressions of what it can look like:
* Actor A burned your crops -> Do nothing (appeasement)
* Actor B disrupted your servers causing economic losses -> Do nothing (appeasement)
* Actor C stole your technology and sold it to everyone by a fraction of your price -> Do nothing (appeasement)
* Actor D manipulated a group within your nation to cause internal conflict -> Do nothing (appeasement)
* Actor E invaded your land and claimed as their -> Do nothing (appeasement)
* Actor F used their position of power to gain concessions from you -> Do nothing (appeasement)
* Actor G defamed you, leading to society admonishing you and potentially imprisonment -> Do nothing (appeasement)
Each Actor can be seen as both individuals or nations that are in existence today. Every one has their own set of interests and rationale for acting in certain ways.
Yeah absolutely. It will happen. In time. But not now. What you think as the fundamental fabric of humanity is but a stage. We will overcome it. Unfortunately until we get there, much suffering will still ensue.
Do you have any justification for this belief that war is just a stage that humanity will get over?
There has always been war. There will always be people who think it's their destiny to rule over you, that you'll really be much happier if you're conquered, and if you don't meekly comply then maybe you just need to be ... liberated.
For as long as some people think they're better than others, there will be wars, and I don't see people not thinking that any time soon, do you?
I would highly encourage you to read [1] to get a better sense of the potential available in the North. The arctic is estimated to have over 22% of the world's oil and gas reserve [2]. Around 10-12% of the world's population is dependent on fisheries and aquacultures for their livelihood [3], so naturally, as fisheries become depleted in other parts of the world [4], the value of Northern fish stock (especially wild caught) is likely to rise. Minerals are already extracted all around the northern territories, an increase in temperature is likely to make some regions/zones economically viable, just take a look at Europe and China's race towards Greenland's potential rare-metal stock [5]. As a trade route, it can be considered one of the safest and fastest route to connect the East of North America and Europe to Asian markets. Just to give you a sense of how much money circulates in Trade Routes, the Suez Canal in Egypt hit a record revenue of $5.5billion in 17-18 [6]. Even if the northern region only becomes viable for half of the year, it may still be worthwhile, just look at other industries (think Tourism) that are on the same boat.
Countries have gone to war for territory and resources for millennia, if Canada doesn't position itself well to protect it, someone else may come and try to take it away from you. This can happen via fisherman/oilers invading your territory, among many other ways. Always remember, if you are not willing to take the risks and investment is potentials, someone else is and when they strike gold, you may only be able to watch it.
There's no infrastructure in the Arctic North, which means anyone seeking to exploit mineral bounties has to be willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money to build the infrastructure to export it.
The Yukon and Northwest Territories, with relatively easy access to the passable infrastructure of the Alaska Highway. Yet the cost of mining operations in these areas has caused most of the operations to close down. Similarly, a lot of the Siberian mining operations shut down when the Soviet Union's collapse meant that it could no longer afford the subsidies needed to keep the remote outposts running.
I don't expect the mineral wealth to be economically exploitable anytime soon (this century), and the sovereignty of Canada over its Arctic archipelago and Denmark over Greenland are quite secure, unlike the potential for bounties in marine domains, where the international boundaries and rights are far less clear.
As a counterpoint, we can agree that the sea has lots of resources as well and that does not mean that we are all going to live in an oil platform because that is simply not ideal. There are well paying jobs to be had in those regions, but I do believe the parent post has a point on limiting stuff. Is it economically viable to build a underwater community? towns in the middle of the mosquito infested Amazon? etc etc
Well-off parents will simply have more incentive to disown their child.
The overall goal of affirmative action is to allow smart children, regardless of background, to break through the socio-economic glass ceiling regardles of the parent's decisions and abilities.
Although it can be seeing as a noble action, it is to wonder whether too much incentive on one side distorts the market too much, forcing well-off parents to spend higher % of their income to compete with Affirmative Action, including in gray and not so gray areas.
Monopolies like these are partially built by the demand side flowing towards the option of least resistance. In such case, the average person will float towards browser X when Y seems to, for example, become slower, take more processing power or pure peer pressure "I can't believe you are still using browser P, it is so slow!".
As demand floats towards few suppliers, organizations with the most value to gain from it will either look to purchase one of the current suppliers or increase investment to outpace its competitors. In time, the market becomes a monopoly/oligopoly due to both demand (customer) and supply (org/biz interests). At this point, the mono/oli has the means to change things, either slowly or drastically, to maximize their gains.
Unless a good portion of society takes further interest in keeping what they believe to be right (e.g. privacy) and put their money and time where their belief is, non-profit orgs or less agressive ones are most likely to lose 99 out of 100 times in the long run. This is a human nature challenge, not necessarily an entity problem.
