Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#271

Post by misslibby » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 6:53 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #266

misslibby wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't live in the US. What socialist like you keep forgetting is that somebody has to provide the jobs that you claim the rights to. If nobody provides the jobs, you can make laws all you want, people still won't have jobs.

We've been running that experiment for upwards of a century. It turns out there are a couple motivating factors for why people form companies, including: 1. There's something they want to do and they need a lot of people to do it 2. They want to make a lot of money 3. They want to set their own work conditions Socialist policies don't really impact motivation 1 (in fact, they can enhance it; one way American firms ar…

Most companies don't need lots of people. And setting their own work conditions is exactly what is at stake - which also impacts workers, as it also limits their choice of companies to work for. I also doubt wanting to make a lot of money is as common as you think - you can do that more easily in some corporate jobs these days, without the risk.

I don't know the extent of socialism in the US, but it certainly isn't a socialist country yet. Yes, we have run the experiment in the past, and all socialist countries failed spectacularly.

There is no such thing as free health care. Whether companies pay directly or via taxes doesn't really make a difference. The system in the US seems weird in various ways. All the "free health care" systems in other countries seem to be struggling a lot, by the way. None of them is really a proven solution as of now.

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#272

Post by misslibby » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 6:59 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #267

misslibby wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are incredible. 1.) he doesn't have to justify reinstating Trump at all. People who banned a sitting president have to justify their actions 2.) Seriously, what the fuck - you want to hold his dying child against him? This is ridiculous nitpicking, you can say "it died in his arms" even if he wasn't holding his child all the time. You should take a long hard look into the mirror and ponder what your irrational ha…

I don't hate Musk. By-and-large, he earned his way into the money he's made. ... but some of that earning was done via deception. Look at the history of billionaire CEOs, and you quickly learn that bending or breaking with the truth is pretty much mandatory at some point in their careers to win the game. They are salespeople for the firms they helm, and a certain amount of sales is based on deception (information asy…

Iirc there was one event that might qualify as deception, when he claimed he already had funding secured from some entity and that made some other entity (the government?) also give him funding. That first entity ended up also giving him funding.

Can't say I rank that very high in terms of deceptions, as it doesn't involve the actual product, and also, in the end it was true that entity 1 also gave them funding. And entity 2 could have given funding under the condition that entity 1 gives funding, to be safe.

As for FSD, as far as I know it is still officially in beta and they officially say you can't rely on it just yet. I don't share his optimism for its development, but it seems conceivable that he legitimately thought it was doable in the timeframe he imagined. I don't think missing delivery dates really counts as lie. Companies do it all the time, even companies like Apple. They announce they are working on product x and expect to have it ready at time y, and frequently they miss the date y by years of sometimes even scrap the product completely.

I also haven't heard of an increase in accidents because of Tesla FSD. The accidents that happens seem to all make the news and on close scrutiny turn out to be nothingburgers.

Edit: this seems to suggest that Teslas with autopilot have far fewer accidents than normal cars https://www.notateslaapp.com/news/1144/teslas-using-autopilo... - I supposer you can find all sorts of other statistics, though. I haven't really looked into them. Googling, one finds many headlines of the sort "most vehicles involved in automated driving accidents are Teslas" which are of course misleading bullshit, as presumably that is just an artefact of the much higher number of Teslas on the road.

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#273

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 1:19 PM UTC

misslibby wrote: post #271

shadowgovt wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been running that experiment for upwards of a century. It turns out there are a couple motivating factors for why people form companies, including: 1. There's something they want to do and they need a lot of people to do it 2. They want to make a lot of money 3. They want to set their own work conditions Socialist policies don't really impact motivation 1 (in fact, they can enhance it; one way American firms ar…

Most companies don't need lots of people. And setting their own work conditions is exactly what is at stake - which also impacts workers, as it also limits their choice of companies to work for. I also doubt wanting to make a lot of money is as common as you think - you can do that more easily in some corporate jobs these days, without the risk. I don't know the extent of socialism in the US, but it certainly isn't a…

> Most companies don't need lots of people. And setting their own work conditions is exactly what is at stake

Great, if they don't need lots of people the Equal Employment Act shouldn't be a problem for them. There's a minimum size on enforcement of the law.

I really think you're overestimating how difficult it is to avoid creating a hostile work environment. You just follow up on reports. That's what you do. There's a whole standardized process to it and every company does it. The fact that Tesla failed to follow it (and failed so hard a jury originally awarded over $100 million in punitive damages, a number speaking to their outrage and disgust at what was allowed to occur) makes Tesla an outlier here.

Point blank: do you think the goal it is trying to achieve is correct but the method is flawed, or do you think the goal (changing, by law, the environment so that an entire demographic of Americans have any hope of having a job without harassment based on unchangeable characteristics they have) is wrong?

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#274

Post by viridian » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 4:28 PM UTC

onethought wrote: post #269

viridian wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't use boiling water to make coffee unless you want it to be bitter. General rule is you want 195-205F water, so you boil, wait 30 seconds, bloom the coffee, wait another 30 seconds, make the coffee. Finished coffee is around around 185-188F when I use a french press or pourover, I assume the air, container, and the grounds all absorb some of the heat. After about 5 minutes its a very drinkable ~160.

Weird how every espresso machine in existence has a boiler in it huh. Someone should tell the manufacturers they are doing it wrong.

Show me a high quality espresso machine that at the time of extraction has boiling water contacting the portafilter. I'll save you the trouble, because no such machine exists.

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#275

Post by throw0101a » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 4:35 PM UTC

onethought wrote: post #269

viridian wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't use boiling water to make coffee unless you want it to be bitter. General rule is you want 195-205F water, so you boil, wait 30 seconds, bloom the coffee, wait another 30 seconds, make the coffee. Finished coffee is around around 185-188F when I use a french press or pourover, I assume the air, container, and the grounds all absorb some of the heat. After about 5 minutes its a very drinkable ~160.

Weird how every espresso machine in existence has a boiler in it huh. Someone should tell the manufacturers they are doing it wrong.

> Weird how every espresso machine in existence has a boiler in it huh.

"Boiler":

> A boiler is a closed vessel in which fluid (generally water) is heated.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler

Heated not necessarily to 100˚C. Just a raising the temperature. It's also why there are temperature-controlled kettles (in addition to 'simple' ones that are just on/off):

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbel051H7-s

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#276

Post by misslibby » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 8:24 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #273

misslibby wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most companies don't need lots of people. And setting their own work conditions is exactly what is at stake - which also impacts workers, as it also limits their choice of companies to work for. I also doubt wanting to make a lot of money is as common as you think - you can do that more easily in some corporate jobs these days, without the risk. I don't know the extent of socialism in the US, but it certainly isn't a…

> Most companies don't need lots of people. And setting their own work conditions is exactly what is at stake Great, if they don't need lots of people the Equal Employment Act shouldn't be a problem for them. There's a minimum size on enforcement of the law. I really think you're overestimating how difficult it is to avoid creating a hostile work environment. You just follow up on reports. That's what you do. There's…

> You just follow up on reports. That's what you do.

And then you simply fire the non-liberals involved? Hostile work environment is usually people not getting along. I don't think that is usually easy to solve. You probably have some bias thinking about racists and what not. But even if you just choose to believe all liberal complaints, that enables people to exploit the system. An example would be female execs who seem to always file for "sexism" when they are fired, because why not.

> Point blank: do you think the goal it is trying to achieve is correct but the method is flawed, or do you think the goal (changing, by law, the environment so that an entire demographic of Americans have any hope of having a job without harassment based on unchangeable characteristics they have) is wrong?

I think nobody should be forced to employ somebody they don't want to employ (with their own money - for tax payer money, different rules are necessary). And I don't trust governments to know better how to run companies than the people owning the companies.

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#277

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Apr 06, 2023, 10:41 PM UTC

misslibby wrote: post #276

shadowgovt wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most companies don't need lots of people. And setting their own work conditions is exactly what is at stake Great, if they don't need lots of people the Equal Employment Act shouldn't be a problem for them. There's a minimum size on enforcement of the law. I really think you're overestimating how difficult it is to avoid creating a hostile work environment. You just follow up on reports. That's what you do. There's…

> You just follow up on reports. That's what you do. And then you simply fire the non-liberals involved? Hostile work environment is usually people not getting along. I don't think that is usually easy to solve. You probably have some bias thinking about racists and what not. But even if you just choose to believe all liberal complaints, that enables people to exploit the system. An example would be female execs who…

> And then you simply fire the non-liberals involved?

This is an odd sentiment and I don't know what to make of it. I'm assuming you don't think only non-liberals can create a hostile work environment, so what do you mean?

> I think nobody should be forced to employ somebody they don't want to employ (with their own money - for tax payer money, different rules are necessary).

As you've mentioned you don't live in the United states, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't know our terrible history with racism. The short version is that we had to pass laws after trying myriad other things because, as a principle of a nation where all men are created equal, it was unacceptable that there were entire regions of the country where one simply could not maintain employment if one had the wrong skin color.

It was an ugly fight. They shut down public education in some places during the fight. In some places blood was drawn during the fight.

But in the end, we the people said no.

And that declaration of "no" is tied to a privilege, not a right: the privilege to own a company, which is a legal construct licensed by the government. No one is owed the right to be a company owner, and if one wants to own a company, there are societal obligations they shoulder. Obeying the Equal Rights Act and the Equal Employment Act are such obligations (again, once the company is big enough!), right alongside "obey zoning laws" and "don't dump toxic waste in a river."

It is fundamentally naive to believe this is a problem the market will solve, because this country already tried solving it with the market.

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#278

Post by misslibby » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 12:11 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #277

misslibby wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You just follow up on reports. That's what you do. And then you simply fire the non-liberals involved? Hostile work environment is usually people not getting along. I don't think that is usually easy to solve. You probably have some bias thinking about racists and what not. But even if you just choose to believe all liberal complaints, that enables people to exploit the system. An example would be female execs who…

> And then you simply fire the non-liberals involved? This is an odd sentiment and I don't know what to make of it. I'm assuming you don't think only non-liberals can create a hostile work environment, so what do you mean? > I think nobody should be forced to employ somebody they don't want to employ (with their own money - for tax payer money, different rules are necessary). As you've mentioned you don't live in the…

> This is an odd sentiment and I don't know what to make of it. I'm assuming you don't think only non-liberals can create a hostile work environment, so what do you mean?

You claimed it would be easy to create non-toxic workspaces. So I assume you think you only have to fire the non-liberal people. How else do you imagine things to go down? It is also usually the liberals who complain loudly about allegeddly toxic workplaces (while somehow never creating any workplaces themselves - why are all business owners evil, when there seem to be so many good people around?).

Racism - yes I know you had all sorts of struggles. But I think you are lying when you claim black people could not hold jobs. In the beginning, black people were deported to the US to work. Also I don't think racism is at the core of your country, that is just the modern "Critical Race Theory" bullshit. It is not built around racism. People would rather be left alone.

Here is how you are REALLY wrong, though:

> No one is owed the right to be a company owner

Exactly the opposite: everybody should have that right. That means freedom. Nobody is owed a job, though - who should be obligated to provide that job?

If everybody can be a company owner, so can black people. Are you sure even black company owners would discriminate against black employees? There are many places with predominantly black population in the US, are there really no black owned businesses there?

And you know bloody well that most companies and organisations discriminate in favor of black people these days. You are really overly dramatic in your retelling of the story of racism. The sad thing is that in that way, the real issues are also not being addressed.

> because this country already tried solving it with the market.

I'm sure you misrepresent the actual history very badly here. "The market" would allow black people and also liberals who only love people to create companies and create all the non-toxic work environments they can dream of.

What would be stopping them? Would EVERY bank deny them a credit? Even good people like you, who want to help black people. Aren't there hundreds of millions like you - what would stop you from giving money to black businesses (for example via Kickstarter)?

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#279

Post by shadowgovt » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 1:39 PM UTC

misslibby wrote: post #278

shadowgovt wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And then you simply fire the non-liberals involved? This is an odd sentiment and I don't know what to make of it. I'm assuming you don't think only non-liberals can create a hostile work environment, so what do you mean? > I think nobody should be forced to employ somebody they don't want to employ (with their own money - for tax payer money, different rules are necessary). As you've mentioned you don't live in the…

> This is an odd sentiment and I don't know what to make of it. I'm assuming you don't think only non-liberals can create a hostile work environment, so what do you mean? You claimed it would be easy to create non-toxic workspaces. So I assume you think you only have to fire the non-liberal people. How else do you imagine things to go down? It is also usually the liberals who complain loudly about allegeddly toxic wo…

> But I think you are lying when you claim black people could not hold jobs.

We're done here. You do not know sufficient history to make this conversation worth my time. I can't bridge the gap if we're not working from the same collection of facts, sorry.

> What would be stopping them? Would EVERY bank deny them a credit?

Yes. That's literally what happened. Entire towns and states that would loan zero money to a black person. And we have no evidence that but for the law we wouldn't go right back to that.

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#280

Post by the_only_law » Fri, Apr 07, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

BenSahar wrote: post #225

panick21_ wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its kind of funny to claim 10+ years of fawning press coverage when the reality was that electric cars and by extension Musk go ridiculed and called dangerous and unsafe in the media. The same goes for every little issue with SpaceX. Coverage of Musk has always been mixed and in main stream media often covered negatively. Maybe in the more techy press it was mostly positive. But even then, go threw history here on HN…

Oh yeah, mainstream media really crapped on him. That's why he showed up alongside Tony Stark in Iron Man 2 and was treated like a god on an episode of Big Bang Theory. The media, for the most part, treated him gently until the Thai cave incident when people started to catch onto the idea that this "quirky genius" might be an asshole.

> That's why he showed up alongside Tony Stark in Iron Man 2

So did fucking Larry Ellison lol. Wasn’t that movie basically an ad for Oracle.