501–510 of 615 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we raise the age of adulthood from 18 to whatever acceptable age ends this discourse once and for all?
Probably not, because there's inevitably a transition period.
I’m tired of the pearl clutchers. Decide an age you’ll actually accept. That’s an adult. No more infantilization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we raise the age of adulthood from 18 to whatever acceptable age ends this discourse once and for all?
Not without impacting other political aspects. Remember we only lowered the voting age to 18 some 50 years ago to justify the ability to send more kids to a war we started. And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Having listened to the book on Audible, I'm both shocked at the behavior of the executive team, and not surprised all at the same time. What bothers me about all of this is what it says about us. It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about. We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way,…
That chapter struck me as paranoia and hit piece. What really happens there, if you ignore the author’s spin on it and concentrate on the facts is Sheryl is repeatedly asking her pregnant employee to please come stay in the big bed in the private jet and rest. Then author has good points, such as Sheryl not taking into account she’s expecting ready deliverables. But she also spins it as if something sexual might happ…
In Europe several of my acquaintances shared a bed with their professors/superior for various non-sexual reasons. It’s also a cultural thing.
How do know she's telling the truth? I'm not inclined to give any high level Meta person (current or former) the benefit of the doubt. I haven't read the book, so I don't really know what kind of, like, proof or anything she includes (or could include). Is it just a "trust me not them" thing?
Having listened to the book on Audible, I'm both shocked at the behavior of the executive team, and not surprised all at the same time. What bothers me about all of this is what it says about us. It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about. We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way,…
Nah, the "pass" only exists because we're not allowed by govt to shoot at billionaires
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not, because there's inevitably a transition period.
Sure, raise it past the transition period. I’m tired of the pearl clutchers. Decide an age you’ll actually accept. That’s an adult. No more infantilization.
If anything, based on the median in the US right now, we should be introducing more self-determination earlier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That chapter struck me as paranoia and hit piece. What really happens there, if you ignore the author’s spin on it and concentrate on the facts is Sheryl is repeatedly asking her pregnant employee to please come stay in the big bed in the private jet and rest. Then author has good points, such as Sheryl not taking into account she’s expecting ready deliverables. But she also spins it as if something sexual might happ…
HN guidelines say: Assume good faith. We should apply it to Sheryl here as well. In Europe several of my acquaintances shared a bed with their professors/superior for various non-sexual reasons. It’s also a cultural thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that the literal reading of the term itself implies that poor people have less of a say than rich people.
It would if the saying was "vote with your dollars" or "vote with the dollars in your wallet". A literal reading of the term means you signal your vote/opinion by choosing what to pay for and it can hurt businesses since they have to generate revenue, not that $1 = 1 vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would if the saying was "vote with your dollars" or "vote with the dollars in your wallet". A literal reading of the term means you signal your vote/opinion by choosing what to pay for and it can hurt businesses since they have to generate revenue, not that $1 = 1 vote.
I disagree. The wallet is a term that can be augmented by 'fat' or 'full' or 'heavy', which means that a wallet can be different sizes. From this you would get that poor people would have thinner wallets and thus less effect on outcomes where money is a factor.
But i mean, we are splitting hairs over semantics at this point. I could see both interpretations valid but i prefer mine.
My understanding is that as part of a severance package she received in 2017 she agreed to some kind of "non-disparagement" clause. She then went on to write a book disparaging the company. The arbitrator didn't rule on the disparagement itself or if anything was true or false. Only ruled that she had to abide by the contract she signed. It sounds like an interesting book, and I'll add it to the list. But it also sou…
The article covers this: Instead, [the arbitration ruling] relied on a non-disparagement clause in her severance agreement with Facebook to silence her. Which it did, from March 13, 2025, her publication day. We could still publish the book, but our author could not talk about it. So she followed the clause. Personally I don't care. If she can publish the ugly truth about Meta and snag a pile of their money in the pr…
That’s a lie. That’s not silencing. That’s taking back some money if she speaks.
I know a guy who is sentenced to 15 years in jail for posting a YouTube video about the Ukrainian government. That’s silencing.