161–170 of 283 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
optimistic, this requires the arc of history to bend towards non-fascism.
Fascism always collapses, the question is only how much will remain by the time that occurs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you also think businesses shouldn’t need to be “forced” to deal with accessibility? Web devs shouldn’t be forced to deal with accessibility either right?
This is a dumb conversation because the landscape of the discussion is one where the costs increase exponentially as the disability being serviced becomes more rare, and there isn't an objectively correct answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From 11 to 3 employees. Doesn't seem that outrageous outside of such a time of crisis (since this lab seem dedicated solely to outbreaks, not research), which is when the parent entity should temporarily allocate more people.
> From 11 to 3 employees. Doesn't seem that outrageous outside I hope I never have you as my manager If you think a ~70% reduction in head count isn't outrageous.
3 does seem a bit low, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you also think businesses shouldn’t need to be “forced” to deal with accessibility? Web devs shouldn’t be forced to deal with accessibility either right?
Web devs aren't forced to deal with accessibility either, unless they choose to work with or for an entity that requires it. No one is coming for your self-hosted blog because its not ADA-compliant. But if you want every restaurant to be forced into labeling, you will see the small restaurants claim all the allergens are used and they cannot protect against cross contamination.
> The CDC Has a Cyclospora Lab. DOGE Downsized It Last Year [1] [1] https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-cyclospora-lab-doge-downsize...
From 11 to 3 employees. Doesn't seem that outrageous outside of such a time of crisis (since this lab seem dedicated solely to outbreaks, not research), which is when the parent entity should temporarily allocate more people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> From 11 to 3 employees. Doesn't seem that outrageous outside I hope I never have you as my manager If you think a ~70% reduction in head count isn't outrageous.
I've worked along scientists a few times, many twiddling their thumbs and coasting along on the back of their PhD. No idea if this applies here, mind you, but I don't see an innate need for that many people, even if this disease has major outbreaks (let's say > 50 cases) every few years. 3 does seem a bit low, though.
You should have mentioned this up front so we all knew you were fully qualified to understand the staffing needs of critical governmental health organizations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> From 11 to 3 employees. Doesn't seem that outrageous outside I hope I never have you as my manager If you think a ~70% reduction in head count isn't outrageous.
I've worked along scientists a few times, many twiddling their thumbs and coasting along on the back of their PhD. No idea if this applies here, mind you, but I don't see an innate need for that many people, even if this disease has major outbreaks (let's say > 50 cases) every few years. 3 does seem a bit low, though.
[flagged]