341–350 of 627 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Groups of chimpanzees are often led by the strongest one. They are also often not led by the strongest one - you can take over the group by forming a coalition to depose the current leader. Then you fight him.
That's interesting - still seems like a "military action".
There is currently a major outage at a major part of the infrastructure of our nation, and nobody believes anybody about why. The airline is saying it's something to do with weather, but somehow they're the only airline effected. Everybody online seems to the think it's some sort of labor strike, but the union denies this and nobody can find anywhere where people are planning this. And yet thousands of people are stu…
The most likely explanation is here [1]. Pilots (and apparently some air traffic controllers) are doing a sickout to protest vaccine mandates, presumably to make the powers that be understand just how difficult they can make things for the country if they proceed with intended mass firings. But the sickout is technically illegal, so nobody will acknowledge it. That is why you won't see a clear explanation of this inc…
The White House thinks they can force unilateral changes to the union contracts.
If the unions admitted to what was going on, the White House would have more legal authority to intervene more directly with the unions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't forget all of the future losses by losing the trust of both the customers and the employees. Who's going to remember this? Even a large percentage of the stranded passengers are likely to fly Southwest again to save $36 on a flight. > This assumes that they can absorb these losses. If they couldn't, then they could very very likely receive a bailout or other assistance. It is the existence of these safetynets…
> Who's going to remember this? Even a large percentage of the stranded passengers are likely to fly Southwest again to save $36 on a flight. You can see how this is a problem, right? This essentially means the market is not working as it should - instead of improving quality of service, it makes people absorb the bad experience, ad infinitum. The market is not able to deliver feedback to the companies, who instead r…
> You can see how this is a problem, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is the price we pay for rewarding "efficiencies" up and down the entire chain, leaving no slack whatsoever. with large companies or operations these efficiencies can be over really minor things as well because it means bonus for someone. the root cause of all of this is "short-termism". everyone is only worried about the next quarter, not the next 5 let alone 20-40 years.
The US commercial air transport industry is an absolute marvel. Millions of people moved thousands of miles every single day, mostly at extremely affordable fares. And tons of cargo moved as well. All with an excellent safety record, especially in the past decade. If "the price we pay" is a day or two of one airline (not any of the others) grounding most of its fleet, most likely due to a controversial internal HR po…
This is the thing with markets: whatever optimization you make, you won't reap the fruits of it for long. Someone - either competitors or adjacent third parties - will show up to suck out your margin, leaving you mostly as you were, but locking that optimization in as a permanent fixture in the industry. This means that when companies over-optimize, shoot past the optimum "value to profits" ratio and aim for higher margins still, they make the industry permanently (well, until next collapse) worse for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> our operation has become brittle and subject to massive failures under the slightest pressure I somehow notice a lot of this lately, in many different areas. I wonder if there isn't a common cause behind those. Is it just covid or something bigger?
According to this substack[1], it was a pilot walkout/"sickout" due to vaccine mandates. It's actually happening in more companies/industries than widely reported. I imagine it's also picked up steam since last weeks revelation from leaked internal Pfizer emails[2] that they used cells from aborted fetuses while testing the RDNA vaccine (testing - it's not in the vaccine), but have publicly stated otherwise. It was a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the specific question that the government is answering is "should these people be employed if they make choices I disagree with". It is more borderline than it might appear at first blush. I'm not sure I can think of a precedent for being so willing to eject that many people from the workforce in such a way.
> should these people be employed if they make choices I disagree with This is a disingenuous way to frame it. The current govt is anti-Nazi, but it's never tried to mandate that all employees found to be Nazis must be fired. The reason vaccines are an issue of employment (only at larger employers, by the way) is that unvaccinated people endanger their coworkers. People have a right to be unvaccinated, and the rest o…
This isn't based on risk assessment, this is based on ideology. There are situations developing where someone who is less likely to transmit COVID is being fired while someone more likely to transmit the disease is kept on - and everyone involved in the process knows it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The downvotes on this site have gotten insane. This is a perfectly rational comment. Whether you agree with them or not, just burying your hand and refusing to acknowledge that a nontrivial percentage of workers oppose mandates is just asinine. Boneheaded authoritarianism. If you ever wondered how horrors like the soviet union and nazi germany are possible, take a look at the religious groupthink that has seemingly c…
> "99% survival rate" 1% dead means around 3.5 million dead, in the US alone. Do you consider that acceptable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I deleted a tweet in the comment that was an afterthought, not the comment itself. The comment itself still holds true. I am not an anti-vaxxer, and you couldn't have drawn that conclusion if you had actually read the comment. I was simply stating why this happened. I don't like that it's happening anymore than you apparently do, nor did I render any opinion on whether or not I agreed with the pilots and ATCs that ar…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "99% survival rate" 1% dead means around 3.5 million dead, in the US alone. Do you consider that acceptable?
If the choice is between 3.5 million dead, and the rise of authoritarianism and censorship, then yes the former is much less tragic than the latter and therefore the more acceptable option. And that's before taking into account that the survival rate is quite a bit higher than 99%, so it won't be 3.5 million dead. And also before taking into account that the vast majority of the dead will be the very old, and people…