121–130 of 387 posts
... imagine this the other way. Imagine that "@rulesObeyer" is the one with the agenda. Imagine RO is paid by a competitor to spread misinformation and "stir the pot", then re-read the thread. Suddenly RO seems incapable of reason or adapting in the face of clear evidence against its assertions. It makes for a fun read. (Similarly, "anyone condemning this comment or defending @rulesObeyer must just be @rulesObeyer in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes...and is that not factual? My experience being in a union tells me it is.
My experience being in a union tells me it's not. But unions literally are (within the law) whatever their members decide they will be, so if you expect that of your potential union, it just means you expect it of your coworkers.
Some bad unions: all unions are awful and the solution is to not have unions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see this complaint a lot, but I absolutely disagree. It's a conversation back and forth between "Diana Wilde @rulesObeyer" and a series of different accounts in the format @AmazonFC , culminating in "Diana" saying the tweet that was linked. The lines connecting the tweets very clearly show the flow of responses. There are instances where conversations can be hard to follow if you're not involved, because the replie…
I agree with you about the tree-like conversations. It would be great if there were a site or a an app that could display them AS trees.
E.g. I'm fairly sure Slavoj Žižek isn't working in an Amazon warehouse.
Then again - we're all in this gig economy thing, so maybe anything is possible.
I know the essential argument is that the job should pay more and also not be automated away but due to the competitive nature of capitalism there is a tipping point where it becomes cheaper to have robots do the work. Should all these jobs be replaced by robots? What would society look like then? I don't think anybody in charge is answering these important questions.
The very first response is "eally like? cause your workers are liars?"
There we go, now the entire conversation is everything or nothing, you're either with them or against them. Then it's off into personal attacks and arguments about followers and etc.
Nobody is talking to each other in any of that. They're just posting for everyone else to see.
The medium is the message and twitter is dumb, and it makes everyone on it dumb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You scroll up, and then read each tweet. I refuse to believe HN users are this genuinely ignorant about such a basic website. It's really nowhere near as hard to read as anyone here makes it out to be.
I took your advice, and the fifth message in the list (by "@amazonfcrafael") starts with "(2/2)". I don't see the (1/2) of that message, so it seems parts of the conversation are missing and I'm looking at some kind of automatically generated subset of all the relevant tweets. But I guess I'm "ignorant"...
I see people saying they are 'chat bots'; any evidence of this other than people's general feeling? To me the FCA's came off like normal human beings who actually like their job a bit more than average (these people do exist). The people replying to them come off as infantile.
A real gem in there was the comment of "there is actually an open door policy at the FCs, which allows us to directly communicate with our managers if we have concerns or issues." Think about that for a second. The fact that they feel that is notable to call out, saying they "actually" have that... implies that they believe it is normal to not have an open door policy, and not be allowed to talk to their managers abo…