But the current system is not okay for people who need medications that exist and are cheap to manufacture (eg insulin) but can’t afford rates being charged
There is no patent protection on regular insulin, so it's some kind of ordinary monopoly problem, it appears.
I suspect a better set of regulations around generics would solve the problem with ordinary market forces. Probably there are quite a few policies that protect the existing drug companies that don't make any sense for generics.
IIRC the issue with insulin is that while "regular" insulin is not under patent, there are better insulin products on the market that are, and those are what everybody prefers.
Then, because most people do actually have insurance, the insurance pays for the more expensive version and so that's the only one anybody makes. The market for "regular" insulin is limited to people without insurance, which isn't a big enough market to justify all the regulatory work needed to manufacture it.
What's really needed there is to make it easier for generics manufacturers to get regulatory approval.
"What's really needed there is to make it easier for generics manufacturers to get regulatory approval."
That seems like a sensible solution to the extent the quality/safety itself is not compromised. For instance maybe there is difficulty importing from other countries, but there should be no problem importing regular insulin from Germany, for instance.
> Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights.
But isn't it the very definition of privilege, when through no effort of your own you get to enjoy the benefits for which others have "fought", "struggled", and "sacrificed"? How is it different from the privilege of being born into a rich (or just functional) family?
> You may have been Lucky to have been born in the US, but not Privileged
It looks like the word "privileged", through all these fights on social media, has got a bad rep :-) How is being privileged different than being lucky?
'a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.
"education is a right, not a privilege"'
Obviously whoever wrote that should be penalized because they mucked it up with their example, if privilege is a special right then how is education a right not a privilege?
But anyway, a privilege is something that is understood as something you have been given. The American Constitution holds that rights are something that one possesses innately, although a cynic might wonder what the difference is I think a close reading leads to the understanding that when a right is taken away it is by nature wicked that such a thing should be done, whereas the removal of a privilege would not be automatically unjust.
Thus by the American conception of things every human has the right to free speech, that China takes that away from it's citizens thus not make American's privileged - it makes China bad and its citizens oppressed for having their rights removed.
on edit: sorry about the many typos, not going to fix though as I am dealing with pneumonia and near bed time.
>Thus by the American conception of things every human has the right to free speech, that China takes that away from it's citizens thus not make American's privileged - it makes China bad and its citizens oppressed for having their rights removed.
A priori, in a natural state, there is no "right of free speech". It was fought for, built, implemented, and maintained. We are privileged if we are born in a country with solid institutions which grant you this right. That's all there is to the initial comment, I don't see why such a fuss.
Aside from that one can easily determine that the authors of the bill of rights were quite clear in almost every instance not to "grant rights". For example in the first amendment it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." most people say the First Amendment grants Freedom of Speech, but anyone with a decent grasp of the English language would have to say that it only makes it illegal to limit that freedom.
Now of course I am myself not quite happy with assuming inalienable rights to exist, it seems more reasonable in some ways to assume they were fought for or granted, that they came from somewhere and are not natural to humans. On the other hand I am at least as reluctant to assume a natural state and that I can know what rights, if any, might apply to that state.
So if you can expound on your knowledge of this natural state, please do so. I merely expounded on what the generally understood American conception of rights was, and did not presume to claim to know the truth of that conception.
Close, but not quite. In a state of nature (natural state) you absolutely have the right to free speech, among many other natural rights which are innate to you. You simply lack the guarantee of the ability to exercise that right when in a state of nature.
In the absolute state of nature there is probably nothing to stop you exercising that right, unless you are eaten by a carnivore just as you open your mouth to declaim.
"rights" as defined by libertarians and anarchists who follow the non aggression principles, are assumed as axiomatic, or considered "self-evident" to them at least. It is a belief based on a form of trancendencent morality above the whims of flawed humans, but universally exist (somewhere) in the hearts of all humans. There is no proof of this of course, but many believe it.
Absolutely. For example, in the 4th grade, my group ("advanced" students) was allowed to test for a Gifted and Talented program (only the students in the "highest" level of classes could take the test).
The G&T program was basically training for grad school: indepdent study, project-based learning, access to computers and internet when they were rare, etc.
That training made a huge impact on my career (I am a post-scientist ML expert at a large internet company). I mentioned the program to some folks I went to school with and they pointed out this G&T program was not ever offered to them.
Interestingly, these kinds of systems end up being important for the long-term success of a country. but at the same time they tend to perpetuate privilege.
Students who weren't in the highest level of classes weren't even given a chance to take the test
> But isn't it the very definition of privilege, when through no effort of your own you get to enjoy the benefits for which others have "fought", "struggled", and "sacrificed"? How is it different from the privilege of being born into a rich (or just functional) family?
The reason this framing is despicable is that rights and privileges are not the same.
Being able to afford a Lexus is a privilege. Not everyone has it and that's OK.
Having access to clean water is a right. Not everyone has it and that's not OK.
Free speech is a right. Everyone should have it even if some people currently don't.
If you ask ten different cartographers to create a map of the world, you'll get ten different maps. That hardly proves that the world doesn't exist.
We decide where the line should be drawn through argument and public debate, and by refusing to comply with weaker definitions from anyone who can't convince us using reason that where they want to draw the line is actually in the interest of the people.
I think that this distinction isn't widely understood as the definition of privilege. If you look it up in a dictionary privileges you'll see a lot of definitions where privileges are defined as a special case of rights so they are most definitely not mutually exclusive
That's just reinforcing the point. Privilege is a special "right" rather than a universal one that should be held by everyone, something like the right to be called doctor (held only by someone with a doctorate) as opposed to the right to due process (which should be held by everyone).
Due process is a human right in a way that having a title is not.
Due process should be accessible to everyone but until that's actually the case it's still a privilege of the people who have it. The fact that other people should have it doesn't mean it's not a privilege to the people that do.
(It's still a right by the way, as I said it can be both)
Edit: Anyway, I don't feel the need to argue this since it's just a semantic argument but the general thesis is that I found your narrow definition of privilege to be surprising compared to how I've experienced people using it but English differs over geography so idk.
I think the heart of this is the is/ought distinction.
When you have a right to free speech and then someone puts you in jail for exercising it, it isn't that you don't have the right, it's that your right is being infringed.
Calling it a privilege that you don't have any time someone is infringing on your rights would mean that nobody's rights could ever be infringed, since any time they were infringed it would merely mean that you didn't have them to begin with. But you do. People have human rights even when someone is violating them.
Being able to afford a Lexus is a privilege, but it is not an example of capital-P "Privilege" [1]. Not every lower-case p privilege (perk) is an example of capital-P Privilege.
The point is the opposite -- not every right is a privilege. Some are inalienable and their denial is a human rights violation rather than merely an instance of economic disparity.
That a right is "inalienable" is a construction such as any other right or privilege. A social construction enforced by solid institutions. You only have the "right to life" (however inalienable you think it to be) because there is a whole system of laws, courts, government, law enforcement, that grants you that right in practice.
Everything is a social construction. Does that mean we should descend into relativistic nihilism, or that authoritarianism is acceptable merely because it exists?
Human rights are defended when we as humans refuse to stand idly by while they are violated. Which is why it's still important to identify the lines that are not to be crossed.
Muddling the fundamental safeguards that allow a free society to exist with the petty jealousy of who has a bigger house is only a boon to the despots who would tear those safeguards down.
You're conflating the existence of a right, with the freedom to exercise that right. Just because a government/society/group/etc infringes upon your ability to exercise your natural right does not mean it doesn't exist. The concept that the rights of the individual are derived from the individual is the basis for a lot of classical liberalism/enlightenment thinking, which in turn is the basis for most of today's modern governments.
You speak of privilege as an absolute category; I was thinking in more relative terms. If you take two people, of whom one has access to clean water and the other doesn’t — wouldn't you say that the first is in a more privileged position than the second?
So I'll tell you why I really hate the term in this context.
The common usage is to describe an unfair inequality. One person is feeding steak to their dog while another is starving. The spirit of the accusation is that the better off person is too well off and we need to even it out by knocking them down -- since we can't feed steak to every dog, since we can't give everyone a private jet and a mansion and a harem, the people who have those things are contemptible for not giving them up to help the less fortunate.
Human rights don't work like that. It isn't the case that people in free countries could help out people in authoritarian countries by giving up some of their free speech if only they weren't so greedy and selfish. They're not using up all the free speech so that nobody else can have any.
It's possible for more people to have free speech, and due process, and clean water, without taking any of it away from anybody who currently has it already.
Which makes the relativistic comparison counterproductive. It isn't a zero sum game. China should have it independent of whether or not New Zealand or America does, and they could all fully have it at the same time.
> The common usage is to describe an unfair inequality.
> The spirit of the accusation
Yes, this is indeed the common usage, which I find extremely puzzling. The word "privilege" has become somewhat of a pejorative term — an accusation rather than a statement of fact. It seems to have a stronger negative connotation than the word "luck", or the word "advantage", although it has a very similar semantics. I wonder how long this has been the case. Has this bundle of negative connotations come to be associated with this word during the latest culture wars (and if so, I would like to push back against this automatic "spirit of accusation" against those who happen to be in the privileged position), or is there a much longer tradition of such usage?
> It's possible for more people to have free speech, and due process, and clean water, without taking any of it away from anybody who currently has it already.
Of course it is. I am surprised that the presupposition is that a privileged person is necessarily taking something away from an unprivileged one.
> Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights.
Next South Park should do an episode that shows how greedy western leaders running opium/heroin for the better part of now two centuries, turned the most populous country into a paranoid dictatorial hellhole for the Chinese people.
US introspection would be too on the nose?
You ever ask yourself what percentage of the heroin/opium supply would be pulled off the market if China could extradite people from HK? More than 50%... and who gets hurt by that?
Many brave people have fought and died for their countries and rights. Its easy to forget that minorities and “unlucky” people fight too; knowing that you’re safe expressing your points of view is something that many have earned, not all have received. That very much sounds like privilege to me.
We need to avoid getting lost in minor internal debates. I agree some classes of people in America have had more difficulty exercising their rights, but they always had those rights and the courts enforced them usually. What we are talking about with China and Russia is totalitarian dictatorships that come and take you from your home and beat you and murder you for making a comment on the internet they didn't like or even sharing a Winnie the Poo meme.
We need to all band together to fight this or we will lose all of our privileges and rights.
You, uh, you could own people a few generations ago. There are women alive today who remember not being able to vote. To call that “some difficulty expressing their rights” is remarkably tone-deaf. And no, the courts usually sided with the majority (c.f. Plessy v. Ferguson, etc.)
Name a country that's never done it. Because I think taking criticism from them would be appropriate. Or at least someone who hasn't had an asshole ancestor in the last, oh... I don't know... 3 generations?
Let's just discuss what your ancestors did to my ancestors! Because holy crap! That'll definitely fix our current day problems! No better cure for the present than to yell at each other about things that happened a few hundred years ago! Maybe if we turn it into a card game, we can have tournaments and see who's the most oppressed every year. As a Polish-Jew, I wonder where I'm going to be in the rankings in historical oppression. Oh wait, it doesn't matter. I'm going to focus on today instead.
I’ll be sure to remind the millions of Muslims in Chinese concentration camps that they can rest easy knowing that other countries also sometimes commit atrocities.
Hey, hey, homie. I've been discussing that it's been going on here on HN and arguing against some apologists for the communist regime in China. Shove it.
The point to that statement, instead of trying to use this as a situation where America is to blame, because it always is, let's stick to the discussion at hand with China and their CURRENT atrocities. Because no country is innocent, no country is heaven sent. We're all trying to live in a world where this shit doesn't happen anymore. If we just look around and go "Well you're ancestors did this!" "And your ancestors did that first!", we're going to get no where.
We fight to make this country what it is so that we can all stand together as one people, not so we can whine like little babies about who’s more privileged or marginalized than everyone else.
Which marginalized group, when fighting "to make this country what it is", hasn't been opposed and mocked (e.g. "whiny little babies) by the status quo at the time of their fight?
There is more to be done to protect, secure, and expand the rights of everyone. But they are still rights.
Privileges are things granted to you, often conditionally, by someone else. Using the word often sounds quasi-religious to me: "Thank Privilege for this meal we are about to eat, and our safe home, ...".
>Privileges are things granted to you, often conditionally, by someone else. Using the word often sounds quasi-religious to me: "Thank Privilege for this meal we are about to eat, and our safe home, ...".
most people didn't do anything do get whatever rights they are enjoying - they were just born into these rights while many other people don't have those rights. Pretty much definition of privilege.
> Calling our rights "privilege" is throwing out the struggle and sacrifice of everyone that fought for those rights.
That argument works for the Lords Privileges in England too - the ancestors of those Lords were brutal knights who fought bloodily to become the Lords and to get and enjoy the Privileges themselves and by their descendants.
I think you're conflating the exercise of rights with the existence of those rights.
"Being born "into" these rights" is close to accurate, but misses the point. You (and everyone else) are born with a basic set of natural rights which exist regardless of how much or how little you can/do exercise them. People have been struggling for hundreds of years to avoid having those rights infringed upon, not to "create" them.
Privileges on the other hand, derive their authority from a secondary source. Driving, public education, etc are good examples of "Privileges" where society builds/pays for something, and members of that society are granted the privilege of its use. Compared with your right to free speech, which doesn't disappear because someone/something infringes upon it.
> are born with a basic set of natural rights which exist regardless of how much or how little you can/do exercise them
There is no such thing as the "natural rights" except may be for the right to die (and even that is contested by many governments (and super-government-powerful organizations of the past like the Church was for example)). Any rights are created as a result of an [usually temporary] equilibrium between various participating forces established and supported by violence or a credible threat of a such.
>Rights can, in theory, be had by everyone. Privileges are inherently for a select few.
when it is had by everyone then it is a right. Until that it is a privilege. For example voting in US was in the past a privilege of white male property owners, and today it is pretty much a right (if one discounts voter suppression state laws, etc).
Another example - free speech can, in theory, be had by everyone in Russia or China, yet it is really far from everybody having it there. Thus it isn't a right there despite that "can, in theory".
I understand where you're coming from and I thought twice about using that word. I certainly appreciate the work done to give me freedoms, and I agree luck had a big part of it.
But the reality is that as a white middle class male in the US, I do have the privilege to say things and do things in public that people who aren't white or middle class can't. The freedoms we have aren't equally distributed due to systemic racism and sexism.
I think the main issue is that the choice of the words "privilege" or "right", when used by enough people, has the power to set societal expectations. Why should a privilege ever be extended to more people, the people who have them should just consider themselves lucky they aren't taken away.
And I think there are plenty of things that are "privileges", but it's based on the idea that it is impossible to extend it to everyone. Being admitted to a top school is impossible to extend to everyone by the definition of a top school. Being believed in a court of law when it's just your word over someone else's, but being more trusted because you belong to a particular group is a privilege. Being let off with a warning at a traffic stop because you have the right face is a privilege. Living in the "good" part of town is a privilege.
Surviving a traffic stop without being shot by the cop should not be called a privilege. Being able to receive a competent education should not be called a privilege. These are things that can be extended to everyone and the words should reflect it, so that it's clear which things we should be fighting for, vs the things that are impossible for everyone to have.
Every right has been resisted at some point. It doesn't drift in and out of privilege status depending on how must resistance is being applied at any one moment.
A right gains its power from people's belief that it should be universally granted, and that they will stick up for others when that right gets breached. Once a thing gets redefined as a privilege there is no expectation for people to stand up for other privilege.
We're definitely in the crazy years. A conversation about a Chinese crackdown on freedom, a country that literally throws minorities in jail for being minorities, devolves into a squabble over people in the US not feeling entitled to express their opinions, even though the letter of the law, every single politician, billions in private funding amongst corporations, banks and non-profits, does everything possible to ensure people feel entitled to express their opinion.
Can you give me an example of something a non-white, non-middle class person can't say or do in public? Maybe it's my limited world-view, but I can't think of anything specific.
Picking up trash on your own lawn (the officer involved in this faced no penalty and is currently getting paid in full until 2020 because he resigned).
As a minority male, I can pretty much say and do anything on public that a white person can say and do.
In addition, I am not viewed by a certain portion of the population as a oppressor based on my skin color.
If anything, sometimes I feel sorry for my white friends and am happy for my minority privilege of not being held responsible for things my ancestors did long before I was born.
Believe it or not, a lot of things have changed since the 60's. Name a society with more rights, more opportunities for the historically oppressed. Deny reality all you want, you're only hurting yourself.
You're attempting to refute an absolute statement with a relative one; "--- are oppressed" / "--- are less oppressed than ever." These two statements are logically consistent.
I question your definition of "objectively" in this situation
Of the your two comments thus far, neither is even remotely what one might call a counter-argument. "Nuh-uh!" does not count. There's still time to edit the comment, care to throw me something more substantial to work with?
What does "least oppressed society", a comparative term, have to do with the claims made by the parent commenter? That designation does not preclude the existence of any disparity or injustice.
Where do you even begin to pick apart a statement like this... The US is completely fucked with regards to racial tensions, it's a complete shithole in that respect, for the standard of a developed nation. Race permeates public consciousness to a degree not really seen anywhere in Western Europe. Until the 60s there was institutionalised discrimination for crying out loud. Even today there is a measured, objective disparity in: arrests, convictions, police brutality, not to mention job applications and other areas. Can you compare this to a country like Spain or the Netherlands?
"Least oppressed society in HISTORY", this reads like a Trump tweet. Sure is some egregious lack of self-awareness.
Where's the parallel between doing something illegal (10 years ago) and being able to comment on the political climate without fearing for your life/livelihood?
The unequal application of the law based on race. Equal treatment under the law is just as much a fundamental right as freedom of expression is and, arguably, equal treatment prevents the subtle and slow erosion of other rights.
The fact that African Americans are the most likely people by race to be stripped of their right to representation and political expression by a wide margin.
To clarify - this is via them losing access to representation by being deemed a felon, and a lot more African Americans are sentenced with drug possession or intent to distribute than any other racial group proportionally.
Depending on where you are, simply leaving the house. Black people are more likely to be "randomly" stopped, more likely to be searched at a stop, and more likely to be arrested at a stop. Other statistics highlight similar issues faced by other minorities.
The article you linked draws more of a link between income levels and police violence than it does race. They explicitly say that the crime rates of low-income neighborhoods, populated by majority minority groups, are higher than that of more affluent neighborhoods. Furthermore most of the injuries happen when the person stopped has a gun, regardless of race.
Not great, and certainly unacceptable, but not equivalent to not being able to "simply leave the house".
if you want to deny the lived experience of african americans in the US, you're free to do so (it falls under free speech) but frankly I think making ivory tower-level statements like this ignores an extraordinary amount of evidence that african americans (and many non-caucasians) experience systemic racism that affects their economic opportunities and health.
I grew up in a majority non-white area, and am now subsequently living in another majority non-white area. I can count on one hand the number of beat cops I've seen in those cities. Seems to me if there's a higher crime rate, the amount of cops increases, and the likelihood you get stopped increases as well.
On another note, when did Caucasian become a term for white people? As an actual Caucasian, having immigrated to the US from a region near Caucasus, I don't get why people use the term so loosely. The debate is about skin color, just use skin color.
The "substantive objective measurements" don't even need to be debunked, the article does that itself. My example wasn't to illustrate "no discrimination doesn't happen" it was to illustrate the fact that maybe, the relative wealth of different geographic areas, combined with racial demographics and crime rates, could have more to do with policing practices that JUST skin color. I specifically didn't bring up any of my multicultural friends or whatever, because my argument is not "I didn't see anything therefore it isn't there" but "fewer cops mean fewer people get stopped". Urban density which means that 1 cop can cover more people, and higher crime rate which means more cops are likely out on the street instead of on traffic duty, equate to more people getting stopped by police.
Go ahead and reduce my argument to a strawman and put words into my mouth, but don't act like you're contributing to the conversation.
The data shows that income is by far the biggest factor, but also that it is not the only factor. Income is the biggest differentiator, and therefore the priority issue to tackle, but "skin color" discrimination does happen and it is a factor to explain these disparities. These are two separate things that are important to remember.
I agree. My belief is that the racial biases of the police don't come from beliefs about racial supremacy, but due to the patterns that emerge due to the income factor. If we can solve the first issue, the biases will disappear. This is supported by the fact that the race of the officer doesn't appear to be a factor in police violence cases. It seems, to me at least, that removing the root of the bias would be vastly more effective than trying to instill counter-biases.
These are just two incidents that immediately spring to mind to counter your cherry picking. White people are not free from the danger of being shot by police. In fact, there is evidence [3] that white people may be more vulnerable than black people in any given scenario, because scrutiny on police use of force has been applied disproportionately in cases of black victims.
As a white man with upper-middle class money to afford good lawyers, I can tell a cop to piss off when they're out of line and suffer fewer repercussions than others. I might go to jail for the evening (no biggie, I've traveled that road), but come Monday morning me and Ms. Pit Bull Lawyer, Esq. go smooth it over with the judge. If it even gets that far...'cuz, you know, I'm white.
This could all be in my head, but based on reporting and anecdotes from friends, I firmly believe that if a cop's being a dick and I call him/her on it, the cuffs will go on much more slowly than if I were another color or lived in a different neighborhood.
Anybody with good enough lawyers can tell a cop to piss off, you might even get the cop on a hate crime if you're non-white. I've got the same amount of anecdotes to suggest the opposite. My dad got pulled over because he didn't stop at a stop sign for the mandatory 3-mississippi in our neighborhood, and no lack of melanin in his skin would have been enough to prevent the ticket.
What I hear you saying is that in a hypothetical world where one can change race like changing a shirt, when confronted by on overbearing cop you'd choose "Black Man, size M" as soon as you'd choose "White Man, size L". And whilst telling the fine officer to piss off, you stand equal chance of living long enough to even need a lawyer no matter which race you chose that day. If I'm hearing correctly, I strongly disagree, but such are different perspectives.
Yes, watching the news these past few years we can totally see that cops get convicted for "hate crime" every single day.
They shoot innocent, unarmed men to death as a matter of course, and get off with a few months' suspension, but somehow you think you can charge a cop for a "hate crime" for getting pulled over (conveniently concluding then that it's the black folk who are "privileged").
No my point was that wealth supersedes race in police interactions. Look at the Jussie Smollett case, you can definitely stir up some anti-police sentiment if you're rich enough. The conclusion isn't that black folk are privileged, it's that if you are well-off and look the part, race will play a much lower role when you get pulled over.
Yes, but there's still a pretty hard distinction between material privileges and actual constitutional rights. For instance, we don't criticize racialized police brutality because it's some maldistribution of police attention, but because it violates rights that are supposed to be inviolate.
> "Privilege" has lost all meaning in today's world. It's just a word to throw around to slow how "woke" you are.
It gets thrown around a lot, but it absolutely has a meaning.
Ever know anyone who says that "they ignore politics"? In many cases, those people come from a place that they can do that because it doesn't affect them that much, and certainly not as much as other people.
For instance: today the supreme court in the US is deciding whether it's ok to fire people for merely being gay.
Form an LLC, use a registered agent, put everything in the companies name, don't tell your employer, profit. Nothing they can do about it. The odds of them finding out are nearly non-existent unless you go around putting your name on everything
"inventions" is not used in the same context as you would use it when talking about an inventor, like Tesla or Edison.
It's legalize. It depends on the language in the contract, but it usually includes everything under the sun, including creative works like books.
Sometimes there is a clarification for anything that can be related to your work, my current employer does that, but I've seen others without that. Which basically says they own you and everything you do or even think while employed by them.
This has been my experience too. When I had my consulting practice we were very careful on the contracts and always had an attorney review any proposed changes to the MSA or SOW that had any material feel to it. It was not uncommon for startups and enterprises alike to send us things to add to our MSA or ask us to use their contract "for simplicity and speed" but when we would review their suggestions around assignment of IP/inventions it was rare to find one that wasn't overreaching. Most were pretty cool about changing it and I think didn't realize how far reaching their attorneys had made it, and that wasn't their intent. Others I think were fully aware and felt that was their right if we did any work for their company, so we never worked with those teams.
Are they? Or are the Iranian people too afraid of the Revolutionary Guard to say different? If you want to go that route, North Korea has the most popular government and leader on Earth. I don't think you can make claims about popularity of a government that can and does make people disappear who say otherwise.
Two very different cultures. there has been several protests in Tehran in the last decade with no execution.
NK has their own culture too where it's just wrong to critise their rules (or their parents). we need to stop looking at the world from a globalised western lens.
This comment seems borderline satire. But I guess you’re right. There’s the western way of approving of your government, where you’re free to make up your mind about whether you do or not, and the way that they do it in North Korea and Iran, where you have to constantly fear the consequences of not approving of your government in the appropriate government prescribed manner.
It's a hackernoon opinion blog post, not the New York Times. And you don't need a citation for something that is clearly meant to be hyperbole.
[Citation needed] has gone from a notation about checking facts to a trendy response whenever someone doesn't like something they read in a blog post or comment.
If the author is going to make such extraordinary claims, I expect to see some research to back it up. There are plenty of metrics: google trends, headline count, tweet count etc. Since he hasn't done the legwork, and the claim rings false, I'm calling him out.
As a generalist developer nearing 40, I worry about this all the time. I have extensive and valuable experience in certain areas, including management, but I have started investigating other directions I can take my career and more focused specialities I can pursue to extend my shelf life, because it's seems pretty clear that it's not really viable to continue my current path.
You can find some more data about GitLab availability after the move to GCP here https://about.gitlab.com/2018/10/11/gitlab-com-stability-pos.... As we're trying to stay transparent as always, we'll definitely let everyone know if are going/thinking about the change.
Then you've never been an athlete at a high level. I don't mean that negatively, but I can assure you that even people who love every second of what they do, like many professional and even college athletes, can suffer burnout. Exhaustion and stress can cause burnout in anybody.
80%+ of the plastic in the ocean comes from China. It's not fair to lump the US in with China.
"They recognize it and want to do something" doesn't mean shit when you're by far the worst part of the problem. Especially when "wanting to do something about it" and "doing something about it" are ridiculously different things.
