qyron @ qyron @lemmy.pt

Posts

0

Comments

69

Joined

2 yr. ago

Just plain stupidity. Did not bother to look it up in the dictionary and fumble it.

Wherever you work, are you so powerful there that you can refuse to follow intructions or operational guidelines? Are you so financially secure you can just quit your job and leave if you are aware the company is involved in unethical practices? Don't you those who depend or rely on you for security in their lives?

If so, congratularions.

But many, if not most, don't have that power and security. They need to work in order to live and take care of others.

Going back to the tweeter/musk debacle: how many were purged from the company or left it for dissent, how many stayed, even though they knew the company was going to engage in behaviours and practices completely contrary to its history and how many have really signed up for the new boss's "vision"?

Crude analogy but valid enough.

If the company was to be dissolved as punitive action, as you suggest, where would those who stayed because they had to find jobs, considering they would be condemned by association?

Wait, let me try to answer that on your behalf: it would be necessary to lead proper investigations, to determine who was voluntarily, willingly, involved and those who were stuck with no other option.

Or are you perhaps suggesting that no matter what, the moment you complied, regardless your personal agreement, you are as guilty as those who made the initial decision that turned the company on its head?

This isn't a black and white world. Please stop to consider these downfall of your decisions onto others.

Could you be so kind and explain how would you ensure those who would be losing their livelyhoods survive? And their families?

We tend to peg a face to a company and demonize the whole from one person, like the tweeter debacle and that hair enhanced loon that bought it out of a whim, motivated by spite.

How many have lost their jobs already and how many more would lose them if the company was to be dissolved for punishment in their spread of false information (thus, aiding and abetting) that have led to the terrible losses and even worst for many?

Or perhaps Facebook, with their assistance with covering and gagging the genocide in Myanmar?

This doesn't mean I disagree with severely punishing these entities. Fine them in millions and billions, force them to break into competing entities, severely regulate and control their actions. But kill a company because, and in this particular case for BMW, they could cooperate or cease to exist, perhaps in horrendous ways?

That would make the punishment as bad or worst than the crime.

Okay, so I am from a country where we got rid of a fascist government less than 50 years ago, thus ending 4 decades of dictatorship. The memory of those days are still quite fresh in our collective memory, regardless the new right wing zealots going to far lenghts to retell a very well and publicly documented history.

And that history is an history of repression, social stagnation and political persecussion. And denunciation.

KGB, the famous KGB, created a reputation for repression by brutality but here it was impossible to tell who you could trust. Your neighbour, your loved ones, that person you encountered every day on the bus, your coworkers... besides the very easy to spot and identify agents that could at random approach you on the street, question and drag you off to the nearest police station or detention center, with no expected time to return home, if ever.

It took, technically a military coup, an inside job, to take this repressive regime. Luckily, it was never their intention to instate a military junta and democracy was instead established.

People could either support, tolerate or endure the regime. There was no other options. Thousands conspired for decades and died in the process. The slightest suspicion and any one could end behind bars, deported to one of the colonies, where prison conditions were even worse, as if such thing could be possible or simply gone, occasionally dragged out of their house, in the middle of the night, in a very loud and public exibition of force for everyone to see and never to comment but by whispers.

That is how fascism, and by extension, any dictatorship enforces complacency.

Not many are willing to become heroes and even less survive to tell the tale. The notion that when dark times arise a great hero will come is an hollywood creation.

You mean like Nike in Bangladesh, but without the wire fences and just through the use of police enforced and government backed brutality, when the workers tried to rally for better work conditions?

I'd risk, with a good degree of comfort, that the negotiations would have been more along the lines of "serve your country and be paid for it or don't serve your country and go to a concentration camp and die a miserable death", the last part as subtext.

You do not negotiate with any sort of dictatorial regime. The regime holds all the cards, including the cards the other players think they have in hand.

BMW and, by extension, any company, be it small or large, cooperating with any regime is understandable. It's that or risk a terrible, more or less public, demise. That is why dictatorial regimes go to great lenghts to ensure companies and business owners favor by putting large quantities of money and/or resources in their hands.

Self preservation is easy to turn into greed.

That's devious.

Heerily similar, isn't it?

I use a derivative of this browser for what I call "junk surfing" and I find it personally satisfying to feed it garbage searches, just for the fun of collecting an obscure crypto I know will never accrue any true value.

But if they are willing to give it to me, I'll take it.

The important searches go through FF or the DuckDuckGo browser.

So lets stop to consider, regardless of that nazi memorabilia.

You live under a fascist dictatorial regime. There are very few options available for you to live a relatively uneventful life.

Either you're an open, true, supporter, a passive one or a dissimulated dicident. Yes, there are more options available, but lets take these as the most broad categories.

Now let us consider that your regime an enacted several acts of domestic, unprovoked violence, internal purges and other assorted brutal and unpredictable actions against social peace and stability, in order to cement its unquestionable power over an entire nation.

Then, that same regime advances to a state of war, where all resources and infrastructure are comandeered to bolster the military.

At some point, companies are put a very simple option: either they cooperate and remain active or they refuse and suffer the consequences, that at best can be simple nationalization and purge of the heads.

Considering all of this, BMW supporting Germany's war effort is understanble.

Do I agree with that decision? No. But do I understand it? Yes.

Cooperate and live or refuse and die? Not an hard choice, especially if a lot of money is put on the table.

"There are two kinds of people: those of have lost data and those who are about to lose data."

Redundancy saves a lot of headaches.

I'm always for supporting new technologies, new companies, new ideas, but that does not mean I'm dropping everything to just get that brand new shiny stuff.

I see the concept and technology for SSDs as groubdbreaking and pretty awsome but I don't trust those drives to store data I don't want to lose. I still use good old fashioned HDDs: the tech is tried and tested, mature and reliable and very affordable.

I still use SSDs but I use them as not safe storage mediums, prone to break at any moment, without any warning.

And regardless of this I still keep several copies of important files and critical ones, if possible, are made physical.

And even then...

Read the opening sentence again.

Or...

Buy a pack of regular gummy bears, put them in a jar and force them to watch their god being slowly devoured over the course of a year.

That's a very original way to wish for someone's demise.

I've read a few texts from the same source and they read quite childish.

It felt like reading essays from very young children: there is some degree of coherence, some information is there but it lacks actual advancement on the subject.

Can we spare a moment to think about this?

This wasn't one or two isolated cases: it was a race to the stores.

I was a kid then and my grandparents got caught in the wave and bought more lamps that they required to light the entire house. Which later proved to be of bad quality and aided me in making their transition to energy saving bulbs.

People would line up in front of stores to get the precious, precious bulbs, making the exact same sort of conversation and observations we can read throughout this thread, criticizing government and politics in general.

The store owners would chime in and add fuel to the fire, stating a lot of people would lose their jobs, as the factories would close (cute fact: there was precisely zero factories for those products in the entire country).

People are stubborn and will not change ways unless no other option is available and even then grudgingly, while companies only shift practices if forced, be it by force of law or by cash flow and profit goals.

Governments enforcing positive laws and regulations, even if unpopular, are necessary measures to move things forward in a modern society.

Your momma is so stupid, she burns the water to make tea.

Are we talking about the machines that have literal pull out trays for ink, that comes in very large bottles, or an earlier model?

Because the EcoTanks I've been told about have those features.

I'm sorry, I'm not following your reasoning. Can you elaborate, please?

LED refrigerator bulbs are already a thing; bought one recently by accident, when looking for a very low power/low brightness for a bed side table.

Those, apparently, are no longer a concern.

Screw in LED bulbs with built in brightness and color control, that you can command from a phone application or through a conventional remote control, are already common, thus rendering conventional dimmers obsolete.

Why keep those? To my very limited knowledge, dimmers can require expensive and extensive installation.

I have seen LED traffic lights with built in anti frost measures and the expenditure to have those replaced is not a good argument to keep that particular use of incandescent lamps around.

LED low power requirements, paired with their long service life, enables traffic lights to be independent from the power grid, through the use of solar panels and batteries, keeping it working even when severe weather disrupts energy distribution. LEDs are also brighter and easier to see from afar.

There may be very particular cases where incandescent bulbs still do not have an alternative but to say they are irreplaceable is a disservice.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, I'm trying to be demanding.