81–90 of 448 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, Apple should be dialing down investment in Texas.
Will they dial down investment in nations with far worse human rights or is this just virtue signaling?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Err, having had a long career in tech, I’ve found that companies like to hire younger people. Those who might be sexually active, considering starting families and trying to balance career requirement vs pregnancies. Such as young professors, rising developers, pretty much every aspect of stem. While the regulatory backlash is a concern, I would think that attracting or keeping staff is a larger concern.
And I, having seen Austin, TX grow from a laughingstock to an industry powerhouse, find your points humorous. There is a very big elephant in the room for where people are moving. And those people are young. And those people do not have the belief monoculture that has existed prior. Smaller elephant in the room #2 is that cost pressures and globalism don't care about the opinions of the traditional PMC that has reign…
This makes sense. I fully agree with Google on sticking to this one. Do NOT fund states that suppress our rights.
When NYC PD was doing stop and frisk, pretty much nobody suggested that we boycott NUC based companies. This is all about status and which states we view as beneath our own. Trying to do economic sanctions as a whole has not been effective in recent state-wide rights deprivation legislation, and I don't think it will do much here either. We need to expand the court, have a civil war, or something like that. (I'm not…
I think something is already inconsolable in this country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Note that most contraceptives prevent implantation and IVF creates more embryos than needed. Both are no-no’s under the new regime. Do you have any examples of specific laws of in any states that would make contraception or IVF illegal? Most pro-life people are very supportive of IVF as they are all about people having more babies. Many states with anti-abortion laws also have laws explicitly making surrogacy legal…
Every state that defines life begins at conception rather than heartbeat or viability. The supremes already mentioned contraception and ivf willingly discards embryos that are not needed.
Sorry, does Google normally bar their employees from relocating at will anyway?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For-profit companies don’t care about anyone’s rights. To believe otherwise is naive.
Google cares about attracting and retaining smart people. Smart people generally respect reproductive rights. So I guess in some ways you are correct, but not in the way your response to the person you are responding to would imply. What is interesting is that I guess the average google employee is in a good enough position in life to either afford birth control, get an abortion if they need one, or simply figure out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Note that most contraceptives prevent implantation and IVF creates more embryos than needed. Both are no-no’s under the new regime. Do you have any examples of specific laws of in any states that would make contraception or IVF illegal? Most pro-life people are very supportive of IVF as they are all about people having more babies. Many states with anti-abortion laws also have laws explicitly making surrogacy legal…
It's not about making it illegal, it's that IVF typically results in more fertilized embryos than are kept. So like you said, the pro-life folks would force every single one to be kept.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Possibly. Now the fun will begin if when the Feds stake a claim via the Commerce Clause to make inter-state abortion travel a right. This could end run Roe's overturn because the Feds could say that a State not allowing abortions will affect the price of abortions much like the Feds said you can't hold back corn grown on your farm to feed your livestock because that would prevent the corn from going to market at a ma…
Kavanaugh's concurring opinion said this: > Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that Austin is actually politically moderate, though the strong authoritarianism is much more troubling to me than the heavy political slant.
That is my understanding as well. Austin itself feels like a city plucked out of blue state, but I didn't want to risk being caught in the growing Texan zeal with nowhere to go.