Arbitration is just another power grab by companies, originally the government would keep this sort of excess and greed in check, as we have successively dismantled that capability the people of this country had to turn to the courts to seek redress and enforce the cost of consequences of mismanagement back on to the balance sheets of the companies via legal liabilities.
This was supposed to be the mechanism that enforced market penalization envisaged by capitalism, especially in sectors where choice was limited or no other options existed.
Companies got tired of having to deal with lawsuits that resulted from the misbehavior of their organizations so they started pushing binding arbitration clauses, and because no one gives a fuck about the people in this country they have been able to push this as an effective and cheap mechanism to shut customers up and remove their rights.
However you feel about corporations, they are entities that exists only because our social contract allows them to, they haven’t always existed and if we keep granting them or allowing them greater rights and freedoms than the actual people in this country, they may not always exist.
Arbitration makes sense when you think about how costly the court system is. The problem is that the defendant gets to choose the arbiter, so its not a fair system. If the arbiter was neutral I think arbitration would generally be better than the traditional court system in many cases as its easier to use without legal representation.
The "defense" would argue that the arbitrator was mutually selected when the contract was signed, because the "plantiff" agreed to the contract terms.
The fact that the contract was non-negotiable should have made it a "contract of adhesion" where the plaintiff is recognized to have little choice in the details and the courts should provide scrutiny to ensure that they were equitable. But the supreme court has decided that "contracts of adhesion" don't really exist because you always had the choice to not have a cell phone or internet service or a job.
Not really. Any corporation will be represented in an arbitration by lawyers. The arbiter will likely be a lawyer. You will be bamboozled by their arguments and the best you can hope for is to make a reasonably clear statement of your claim and hope that the arbiter doesn't agree with some technical argument the other side has.
And (I don't know if it always works this way) you will take turns speaking with the arbiter, you will not directly hear or be able to question/challenge what the the other party is saying.
> Arbitration makes sense when you think about how costly the court system is.
The court system isn't required to be trash. That's like how we made immigration so impossible that we just let people in illegally. It's a pretense. If official justice is so burdensome that we have to create extensive private legal systems, we should figure out a sane way to do things.
People who have the power to make decisions prefer it this way.
The court system is expensive because it’s the wrong mechanism to address this aspect of corporate and monopoly power, frankly all companies have gotten too large they aren’t efficient at any thing other than redistribution of the fruits of labor increasingly unfairly all the way up the organizational chart.
The fact that no-one fails no matter the egregiousness of their actions or behaviors is absurd.
Well sadly, the mechanism made to disrupt such monopolies will probably be crippled in 6-12 months, maybe even sooner. We're definitely in a plutocracy .
Yep big companies basically have too much capital to fail. They own distribution channels they seek rent on. No one else can get ahead of them. A small company making a mistake will die. A large company will not even notice it.
Depends on what you mean by "care for". Calling your parents a few times a week to make sure they're doing OK and dropping by on the weekend doesn't take too much time and effort. But as people get older they need more and more care. Caring for one person with dementia or other similar problems that comes with aging is for all intents and purposes a full time job.
And eventually if you can't afford to become unemployed to do it or pay full time caregivers, you need to move them to some kind of care home where there is minor scaling effect. Being housed together, the residents can share caregivers since most do not need continuous help.
A common arrangement is a board and care home with about 4 residents and 2 caregivers who work mostly non-overlapping shifts, and one sleeps onsite to (hopefully) be able to handle overnight care needs.
A larger place can scale a bit better. E.g. 10-20 residents can have 5-10 staff on various shifts. But some staff could be cooks or handle cleaning while others focus more on the residents' needs. And at this level of staffing, they can manage to have an overnight shift with someone who remains awake to keep an eye on things, as well as probably having other(s) sleep onsite to be on call to help with bigger events.
I agree with you, but I read the article as saying you can't care deeply about more than one person at literally the same instant. Your attention is directed to one or the other.
But I think even that's not literally true e.g. the social worker could make dinner for all four kids at once. And probably converse with all four of them while doing it!
But, I think I agree with the broader point that care doesn't scale, even if it does scale slightly greater than 1.
No, it’s a thread about car sales and cybertrucks position in that list.
Also, I’m sure we are all familiar with the value of anecdotal evidence vs data, the response of “I’m a ____ and I don’t _____” is limited at best and meaningless in the aggregate
The value of anecdotal reports that "I experienced ______ failure" is similarly limited at best and meaningless in the aggregate,
but somehow they're taken as gospel.
Jury decides to change their verdict after being algorithmicly sentenced to 90 days in jail for using the wrong exit in the court building as they were being released from duty by the court officers.
CEO of VerdictAI is quoted as saying “shit happens, if they have any value as humans they would have enough money to get out of this, so the AI must be right. One must not lose sight of the fact that we have freed Americans from millions of hours of manual labor with our InmatesAI volunteer workforce.”
Maybe I’m making assumptions a rather than making an inference, but this seems like the perspective of somebody who wants to stop development of future technology altogether because of bad actors.
I’m not saying there aren’t concerns, but risks can be mitigated and precautions put into place to prevent catastrophes. Stopping development because of valid concerns is not the right move. It’s not even the right move to stop developing weaponry which has a stated goal of causing direct harm to other humans.
There are people in the world who will attempt to do these things and much more dangerous things recklessly and with far worse intentions than making money, and if those people get technological and military superiority over The West, the world will look very different than it does today. There are a whole lot more ways the world could be worse than it could be better.
The current world order is not ideal, but think about what the actual long term outcome is if The West stops.
“Stopping a small number of incredibly over-resourced people from externalising consequences for their sole gain and causing significant and long lasting woe and damage on the rest of us” != “stopping innovation”
Nobody is saying “uh uh, no more problem solving”,drawing that conclusion would be uncharitable at best, and “wrong” at worst. The argument is “gosh, maybe we could have some innovation that’s actually useful, and not some polished-turd/enshittification”.
I’m not sure you’re making the same argument as the others in the comments above. I agree with your comment aside from your characterization of the others comments.
We’re still a democratic republic that can stop the enshittification of utilities (or whatever the problem de jour is). There are bad actors, but by and large, things are working and continue to be improving. Some things need to be bolstered, some things need to be replaced. Stagnation is not the answer.
What would you propose as the solution? All new ideas go through a centralized approval process? That experiment is already being run in other countries. If they start winning, the US will adapt or die.
But always always with Mus-informed grand intentions of changing the world for the better.
All we need is another market to solve every problem! It makes everyone with power and money happy, they love markets because they are experts at fucking everyone every way possible. Thats how you build inter-generational wealth!
Quite the opposite, depending on how it’s used it is THE authoritative system for the code, which gets exponentially more valuable with more contributors
Using your yardstick, we wouldn’t have any open source software, everything costs time to implement, that’s the point of open source, we donate time to the collective community. All those security features are not enterprise specific, they are rudimentary for any modern open source product
I'm saying that companies that opensource their products tend to distinguish "enterprise" and non-enterprise based on things like RBAC and audit mechanisms, neither of which is "security" as much as "compliance".
The original license owner, if a commercial enterprise trying to sell the product alongside the "open" version, has less incentive to accept those features from the community as it would reduce their sales of the enterprise version of the same thing, and may not align with their long-term product roadmap.
In open source, the team managing a codebase isn't under any obligation to accept contributions the community and you are welcome to fork the project, if you like.
RBAC is absolutely a practical security control, even for non-commercial users. Least necessary privilege is not a checkbox, it will 100% save your butt in a breach by limiting blast radius.
Let's say you work at a company that uses Elasticsearch. Let's say you're running a newspaper and you've got your logs in elasticsearch. Let's say one of your reporters ends up getting chopped up while they're visiting the Ostrich embassy to get a marriage license. Now let's say you're then asked "who looked at the logs of the CMS who searched for and found the IP address that was used by that reporter on October 1st 2018"
That example, purely hypothetical, is an example of "security" but not the typical security you'll see in some open source application -- it's an enterprise "compliance" feature that won't be trivial to implement and will be judged not just on completeness but on user interface, ease of use, ease of implementation, etc.
"security" means different things to different people
This isn’t news, this is exactly what we said when the don’t be evil company was pushing them in the name of page loading speed (b/c the faster they get to display an ad making time to sell another ad!)
This was supposed to be the mechanism that enforced market penalization envisaged by capitalism, especially in sectors where choice was limited or no other options existed.
Companies got tired of having to deal with lawsuits that resulted from the misbehavior of their organizations so they started pushing binding arbitration clauses, and because no one gives a fuck about the people in this country they have been able to push this as an effective and cheap mechanism to shut customers up and remove their rights.
However you feel about corporations, they are entities that exists only because our social contract allows them to, they haven’t always existed and if we keep granting them or allowing them greater rights and freedoms than the actual people in this country, they may not always exist.