[dupe] some more earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42051895
Ashley Gjovik also has many claims against Apple. Legal battle has been going on for years now. Stories were posted here previously.
I am going to pay these folks just because they broke this story.
Hard-paywalled unfortunately
[dead]
[flagged]
bit rich to call them beggars, when most expect their news for free
Tellingly, the propaganda and AI slop are free. The combination of democracy and capitalism has a multitude of failure modes.
Isn’t the beggar in this context the person who wants to benefit from someone else's labour for free?
I don't _need_ their news, was interested in what somebody else finds interesting and looks like that other person _needed_ this particular news source, so keep in mind that your attribution of begging is rather a symptom of trying to play smartass on the internet. By the way, that last consultancy from me is for free, without subscription; but just one time.
You guys should really thing of promoting better quality of your sources, instead of spreading cliches about who should pay for what.
[flagged]
Are you referring to Ken Paxton? That guy is terrifying. He said he wants to enforce anti-sodomy laws.
Please, please, please, don't let your country go the path of radical religion like Iran did after Iranian revolution. Keeping religion out of state business looks like really nice idea when it comes to personal liberties.
Why do you think it is solely religion behind this value? If anything, religion is only a pretext.
They want to put the bible and commandments in schools across the country. They've already done that in a few states.
> He said he wants to enforce anti-sodomy laws.
Does the US have anti-sodomy laws for him to enforce?
Yes. Found unconstitutional in 2003, but a number of states still have them on the books.
Yup! They're on the books, just not enforced.
Isn't the law to be enforced?
It is terrifying that the public want such laws in the first place, but that is the democratic right for them to choose, I guess.
Not if the courts found it to be unconstitutional, no.
The US is peculiar here in that, when laws are found to be unconstitutional, some states just kinda… keep them.
Taking it off the books takes work, either political or by testing the law in court. That does not mean the law is valid, but in practice it can sometimes require serious litigation and lost years and money to prove that it's invalid.
Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex? Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights.
> Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex?
Yes, I would equally question the logic of a population who thought that was a good idea.
> Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights.
Sure, it is not unusual for a population to instil safeguards to protect themselves should they become too focused on a particular issue without considering the bigger picture. Of course, the very same population can throw it all away at will.
But we're still talking about a population who, even if they have forgotten the bigger picture, have enacted and maintain desire to retain laws around sodomy. What is going on there?
Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex. I will not argue with you about the validity of that position as it's a tangent.
The point here is that the US and most other democracies don't work like that. Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. But I suspect that you hold this position largely because it enables you to give a cute "yes" answer to my rhetorical question :)
It's also a bit unclear what you're actually calling for here. Are you really in favor of anti-sodomy laws being enforced unless and until they are repealed? This isn't an academic question. Real people's lives would be destroyed were this to happen.
> Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives
I could, but why would I? Then I'd be among the very people I'm questioning, which would then question why I would need to question myself? You've not thought this through, have you?
> and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex
Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants. Laws are not some magical force, just agreements people have made.
> Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional.
Only if the people are willing to uphold the constitution. It too is not some magical force, just another agreement people have made.
> You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds.
Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place?
You might be right that that the USA is well on its way to having a dictator who can become the lone voice who controls all, without concern for what the public wants, but that is not the current state of affairs and that individual most certainly won't be me.
> Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place?
They don’t, generally. They did a long time ago, when those laws were enacted. Since then sentiments have changed, the laws have been found unconstitutional and are no longer enforced, but some remain on the books because it takes time, money and effort to remove them.
I agree with you that it would be neater if they were all repealed, and it would remove the (relatively minor) threat from more extreme factions who do want to enforce them again, but at some point you also need to be pragmatic.
> but some remain on the books because it takes time, money and effort to remove them.
If it takes appreciable amount of time, money, and effort to no longer agree to something everyone already agrees that they no longer want to agree to, the people really need to step back and think about they they are making it so hard on themselves for no reason. Granted, we're talking about people who did agree to outlaw sodomy, so perhaps not the sharpest tools in the shed. But, still, how did the tools end up so dull?
>> Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives
>I could, but why would I?
Hmm, I do not understand your position then. To me, if you are saying that anti-sodomy laws should be enforced on democratic grounds (which I think is what you are saying, even though you obviously don't agree with such laws yourself), then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation.
Perhaps you could clarify whether you actually do think that the US should start enforcing these laws.
>Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants
And technically the Supreme Court can rule any law unconstitutional...
> Hmm, I do not understand your position then.
You don't say... What I don't understand how you ended up writing so many words without taking the time to understand. How does one end up there?
> then you are taking the position that people have no fundamental right to enjoy their sexual and romantic lives and that this area is fair game for arbitrary legislation.
If I said the sky is blue, do you think I am taking the position that nighthawks don't deserve to stay up late to see the dark night sky? I don't exactly follow your logic. Perhaps you could explain it for us? Frankly, I'm not sure why I would take a "position" in the first place. That seems like a pointless waste of time.
Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced. I understand that you don't agree with such laws, but your post is open to the interpretation that you think they should nonetheless be enforced. I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position.
> Your initial post in this thread naturally raises the question of whether or not anti-sodomy laws in the US should be enforced.
It did ask why the law wouldn't want to enforced? In other words, why would Americans have laws if they don't actually want them? I'm not of that country, so I am interested to learn about the culture. Amid the diatribe, I do think you eventually gave a reasonable answer to the question, for what it is worth.
> I think it's perfectly fair to ask you whether or not that's your position.
Again, I am not American, so I'm not sure it would be reasonable for me to even have a position. I don't have the necessary context. I did note that in a democracy the people get to choose what they want for themselves. But that is said simply as the generally accepted definition of democracy, like the sky is generally accepted as being blue.
But, even if I were American and for some reason had a position, why would I share? Let's say, for the sake of discussion, I really do believe that people shouldn't be up in the middle of the night to see the dark sky. Why would I tell you that? It would be in bad faith to subject you to it.
If relevant, I might share the fact that the sky is blue, and if based on that you also come to the conclusion that people shouldn't see the dark sky, cool, but that's for you to decide based on the known state of the world, not some evangelical nonsense sputtering out of me. There is no logical place for that.
If you really just want to know why some US states have anti-sodomy laws that aren’t enforced (and that most people don’t want to enforce), then it’s a pretty simple story. The laws were made a long time ago when attitudes were different. Then the laws were all ruled unconstitutional in 2003, meaning that there hasn’t been any strong incentive to repeal them in the time since.
See, now that is a solid, logical, good faith response (if not a duplicate of what you already said earlier, and what I already acknowledged as being reasonable). What was the reason for going down the strange rabbit hole of irrationalness earlier?
[flagged]
Which law prevents a convicted felon from running for and/or winning the presidency race and why are those currently tasked with enforcement not enforcing it?
> Which law prevents a convicted felon from running for and/or winning the presidency race and why are those currently tasked with enforcement not enforcing it?
Judicial branch, specifically in the court of NY has delayed sentencing in order to appear 'impartial' and reach a proper outcome on his legal fate [0]. Whcich is apparently a direct correlation from the Supreme Court's outcome on Presidential immunity.
People got all worked up about their rulings but did nothing that mattered, in fact if this presidential race proved anything is that they want a despot in power rather than a mediocre former DA or a nearly senile old man. Ultimately, it shows that Democratic Republics are not just capable of one-off anomalies, his first presidency, but that they tend to skew this way over time. I'm less mad about the outcome of this election then I am with the electorate that saw these people do what they did during COVID and not follow thier own laws and inside trade etc... while not demanding a better system!
I'm not sure you will get the answer you want, but this is only possible because of a complicit Supreme Court can install itself as permanent interpreters of the Law for Life and are appointed for mainly political influence and money rather than competence or merit.
The Founders (for all their wisdom) were explicit in the framing of this country for what were essentially the landed gentry, so why wouldn't it work out like this after wealth and status had been concentrated in such few hands?
0: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/judge-delays-trumps-...
There are very clear laws that if you partake in a coup to overthrow the government, as Trump has done, you don't get to be part of the government ever again.
It's all reflecting...just reflecting....
His impeachment and obvious attempts to gain Trump’s attention put him on the short list. Expanding the DOJ into sodomy enforcement is not surprising; he’s a surveillance prosecutor.
For those wondering, this is the reference: https://x.com/mrddmia/status/1854200785975775609
Following the rabbit hole further, this is the manifesto that inspired the comment: https://www.article3project.org/
Hmh, that's an interesting site. On the one hand it uses the time-tested playbook of "we are a silent majority beleaguered by some evil outsider and we need to act now to protect us" to create a siege mentality and a distinction between US and THEM. Then you ramp up the rhetoric to dehumanize THEM and make atrocities palatable. You never let up on the point that US are fighting for our very lives.
But that site claims US is winning. That's an unusual move in the playbook. Something doesn't add up.
THEM just won the presidential and senate election, and the house is on the fence.
That’s how words work. They are them in that context. That’s the problem, people think pronouns are woke and forget how they are used.
And just because a rapist is elected president doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do.
You could use INGROUP for US, and OUTGROUP for THEM. Not the usual distinction but makes it easier to parse. Maybe it makes is also clearer that this is a description, not an assignment.
Insane.
> It'll be a moot point soon, DoJ will be too busy dragging Democrat bodies through the streets to quote the probable future AG.
And you're not worried of the 2 trillion the future man of 'effective efficiency' [Effective altruism pun intended here as these are all of the same ilk) slashing any and all jobs that pose a threat to his fiefdoms with their pesky unions or workers rights? The guy litterly piloted the slash and burn everything in sight to cut costs and 'get lean' which every other lemming C-exec followed in tandem.
Honestly, this DoJ under Khan simply didn't go far enough to gut them and you guys were too busy gorging at the trough to unionize when you had momentum, so now you too will feel the wrath of these corpo-raiders who hallowed out midlle America to save a buck and a bonus now that 'AI can make you a rockstar programmer' and you will be expected to 10x every review or you're put on PIP.
It's hard to feel sorry for you, you did this to yourselves and didn't push back when you had the leverage.
It's funny, what I see is he will put tariff exemptions on his corps given just how much they rely on global supplies to make a Tesla and lots of stuff from SpaceX like optics are supplied by foreign companies. Because, hey if the crooks who voted for bailouts and golden parachutes did it, why can't he?
The best the 'Chief Scientist/CEO' can do is tell it's Taiwanese suppliers to go to Thailand [0],so as to not disrupt the flow of goods due to pesky things like invasion/annihilation from the CCP, which unless I'm mistaken will still be subject to those hefty tariffs they went on about throughout the campaign.
0: https://www.manufacturing.net/aerospace/news/22925817/spacex...
> It's funny, what I see is he will put tariff exemptions on his corps given just how much they rely on global supplies to make a Tesla and lots of stuff from SpaceX like optics are supplied by foreign companies.
I mean, the US's courts are somewhat compromised from Trump's previous run, but probably not compromised enough to let _that_ fly.
I know you're joking (fingers crossed) but I do assume worker organizing will get a lot tougher and less legal under Trump.
Why do you assume they’re joking? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/02/magazine/trum...
Seems many(most?) people who voted for him think he was joking ; immigrants voting for him, people who would suffer from tariffs, former democrats who wouldn't want to see their still democrat family dragged off by the military etc. So now we all hope he is just a beginner standup comedian and is working on his repertoire?
Still, the “we’ll just have to see” deflection does leave open the possibility ordinary people can accept things much worse than his rhetoric.
He didn’t use fear to its full potential in the last admin. This is the part of the stand-up routine where disloyal Republican lawmakers need an extrajudicial firing squad. See, the fear is now and still directed inward until he can purify the party.
It is all so familiar though... The 'we'll just have to see' is what everyone says now. They said that in different periods in history as well, until it was too late. Just wait and see is not what voting for a leader(s) should be about; you vote for policies and those policies might not pan out completely, however, the general gist should be there. Not spew so much random crap and then have people vote them in with a 'wait and see' attitude. Makes it somehow even worse.
But once you’ve seen the history, you are compelled to be a “this was not inevitable” person. Already, I’m seeing people deny that Project 2025 was organized and released last year by the Heritage Foundation.
https://archive.org/details/project-2025-mandate-for-leaders...
The misinformation is off the charts. Fear of losing democracy was a big exit poll issue, yet those voters broke towards Trump. The same person who incited an insurrection in 2020 and refused to accept the vote last time. Odd how until votes started coming in this time Trump was already crying about cheating.
We can put the hallucinatory vote tampering narrative to bed. Anyone concerned with it must now look across 2016, 2020, and 2024 or risk legitimacy.
Musk did a lot there; he was the shouter with the most reach who said that we are voting to prevent democracy collapse. While Trump already hinted to intentions to collapse democracy (wether serious or not is not very relevant; he was going for president, so you would assume he is not joking really...).
What I’m hearing, in a very rural area, is Trump supporters are hesitant to connect Elon on stage with Elon as treasury sec. They thought he was some Internet guy happy to just be on stage, rather than the richest man in the world presaging economic hardship (Nov 1). Musk doesn’t seem close enough to the movement for his rhetoric to be taken casually.
On the tariff thing, I think it's more a Brexit-esque "people have had enough of experts" sort of situation; complete magical thinking on the economic side.
Think everything about the vote was; many of those youtube videos with guys going out to rallies asking 'so why are you for trump?' 'because x y z' 'but he never did that and actually said he will do the opposite' 'oh, ok' 'so does that change your mind?' 'no i don't care, as long as the current frauds lose and leave! trump is chosen by jesus!'.
It happened/happens in other countries too; people don't care (well, they think they don't) as long as the current 'experts', who they don't believe anymore since covid, are gone.
The Brexit "people have had enough of experts" stuff was long before covid; the vote, and pretty much the peak of Brexit support, was in 2016. By covid, with Brexit looming large, and some impact echoing back in time from Brexit itself (by 2020, supply problems relating to the Brexit that hadn't happened yet were just starting to appear, as companies had difficulty with long-term contracts due to uncertainty), there was some indication that people were actually falling back in love with experts a bit, but by then it was far too late, of course.
I think the extremity of the resentment over covid found in the US is actually a bit of an outlier; views on the response are often more mixed elsewhere.
Populism, the strategy of appealing to the lowest common denominator with magic and happy thoughts. Wouldn't it be nice if economic issues were so simplistic?
I think of my two rules.
Rule 1: If you see someone do something shitty to someone else, stick around and they'll do it to you to.
Rule 2: When people tell you they are a bastard believe them.
The problem with saying a thing and then assuming that people know you really mean another thing, is that some people will believe you the first time (because it's what they wanted to hear) and not be happy until you've delivered it.
See Brexit for how that all pans out.
You don't have to assume. Trump and Elon joked about firing workers on strike. They are absolutely against workers organizing.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-and-musk-discuss...
it's gross
Some variation of “don’t take him literally, you silly goose, but take him seriously” is basically what the portion of my family who voted for him (i.e., most of them) have told me over the years.
This time, I’ll take him at his better-educated, clearer-thinking allies’ words, and prepare for the worst of what they publicly dream of while still hoping for better.
I mean the current Attorney General had no problems dragging opposition through the streets and breaking the rules of his own office by appointing sweetheart special counsels - so payback is a bitch, I guess.
But I keep getting told by Trump voters that he doesn't mean anything he says. /s
It was a metaphor, and the target is not "Democrats" but those who the MAGA crowd perceive as usurping law enforcement powers of government to support political aims.
But I agree. That kind of talk is scary, polarizing, and unbecoming of leadership.
Maybe people who expect to have the power to absolutely destroy people’s lives should speak soberly and with clear intent instead of hyperbolically when referring to exactly how excited they are to destroy people’s lives.
Agreed. He should not be AG. If he is appointed, I predict he will flame out quickly and be replaced.
Why will he flame out?
A full third of the US are just fine with him and his ilk. And another third of the US are perfectly willing to stand and watch while he puts people to the torch.
James Watt was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior 1981-1983. The political climate was similar: conservative Washington Outsiders considered to be barbarians in the gate by the political establishment. Watt pushed hard for resource development on public lands, which was an outrageously outré position at the time, with anger about it stoked by the media in a very similar way as today. As a public figure he was not charismatic. His public career ended when he said his advisory panel was diverse because it had "a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple." It was intended to be an ironic joke, but Americans don't like that kind of joking around, not by public figures. Despite Reagan having a similar upset victory and clear mandate, he was eventually forced to let Watt go. So I don't think someone who is joking (or not) about dragging American bodies through the streets is going to last very long.
I wasn't around in 1981 so can't really compare, but many of the People seem to like these jokes now.
Not sure why it's necessary to mention you weren't around in 1981. I wasn't around when lots of things happened, but I don't feel it necessary to mention it every time something before I existed is brought up.
Well, historically, what's the median lifespan of a senior Trump appointee? They _mostly_ flared out.
The situation is different now, though. It could be that the new ones will be more deferring and so able to stay longer.
Considering how freely “Hitler” was casually thrown about during the election, I think we’re well past that point.
It wasn’t casual, we meant it in the form of Trump becoming a despot, it’s yet to be proven that we’re wrong or right, but we’ll know in 0.2 to 4 years.
There are far better word choices that could have been made that would have gotten the point across without the hyperbolic language.
It's not hyperbolic if you believe it, and I do believe he told us exactly what he wanted to do in many different ways and acts. That's all I'll say here, I believe my own words, and from my perspective they weren't hyperbolic.
That's fine and you're entitled to your opinion, but using the word "Hitler" is going to be hyperbolic in all situations.
[flagged]
If you get on twitter tell me the ratio of death threats coming from the left vs coming from the right; or basically any social media. Certainly both sides are doing it but it was far more common from the right. Far far more. I do not rule out the possibility of Russian/CCP bots being the majority of that though
[flagged]
I am done with maniiuplative out-of-context quotes, like the other one about "you will not have to vote again". I've seen too much outright deception from the left, which were supposed to be the good guys, I am done.
There was no deception. He said those words exactly: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/30/dona...
Days later, he explained them. Knowing him, he could have meant them literally. He said he did not. Again, after the fact and after the global uproar.
Those are the facts.
I no longer care. I cought the left lying to me too often in the last 4 years. I am done. All I want is maximum distance to all of that.
I genuinely struggle to understand a mindset that is done with “the left” having lied to them but which remains wholly unconcerned by the unending torrent of lies coming directly from the mouth of our President elect. Up to and including lies about his election defeat which resulted in supporters literally storming the Capitol to overturn those election results.
They both simultaneously support Trump as a monarch, elected by God himself, and consider him a bumbling fool prone to lying, and as such never to be listened to. If I wanted to find the best evidence of Trump's deception, I wouldn't ask democrats, I'd ask his supporters. But they are not ashamed, they actually adore his deception and use it as a tool to dodge accountability.
It's bizarre, almost a type of political self-hatred or shame.
It's just a metaphor. Unless...?
This stuff is how the Overton Window moves. It starts out as jokes and metaphors, and once people are used to hearing it, it starts to become real.
Employees are free to speak to each other about pay and work issues. Apple isn't obligated to help facilitate that over company-owned channels that are for work communications.
edit: I'm not going to delete this idea just because people who want a thing to go their way disagree with it. And it's not right that this opinion has been flagged.
“Not facilitating” isn't exactly the same as threatening with retaliation though.
This is the correct take. In the US, workers discussing issues like wages is a protected right (NLRB stuff). Nowhere does that imply a company has to act on that talk. That's up to the company.
However, it is quite clearly stated by the NLRB that the company cannot threaten or retaliate. In my former position, I had this come up twice, much to my surprise. In both cases, I advised the company of the employee's rights, then recommended a discussion to determine why the employee was dissatisfied. In both cases (though one was much more stubborn than the other), we ended up with favorable outcomes for both company and employee.
It can be done, but orgs the size of Apple are more likely to just buy the ability to do whatever they want, anyway. No fine will stop that behavior.
Yes they are. This is a legal right workers have.
Did you read the decision? The company must provide some means of doing this. They’re allowed to say “ok email is for work only” but if they have a platform that is used for non-work communication then it must be able to host union and pay-related communication. Apple has one: Slack.
It might be good to follow your own advice and read legal judgements more carefully.
The company doesn't have to do anything. And certainly not actively provide employees with tools to engage in union organizing communications amongst themselves. That's laughable, I'm surprised you believe it.
The ruling is that companies can restrict employees from using the company's assets to communicate about union activities, if they have other means to do so. Employees generally have other means to do so. That is light years different from "the company must provide some means of doing this".
I don't know why you are so surprised given this decision actually overturns a previous one that basically ruled that not only must there be some means of this communication, but that the employer can't choose what it is (Purple Communications as mentioned in the post). So at one point the rules were actually stronger than they are now.
The decision requires that there must be some way for employees to communicate and organize among themselves. Generally courts take a dim view of things like "yes you could technically do it if you broke our policies to grab people's numbers and then started a Signal group". So I don't actually agree with your interpretation of what the ruling says that employers don't have to do anything. I will also note that, while unrelated, employers must provide employees with tools to organize in the physical space (e.g. by putting up posters in common areas). Your shock at the existence of these rules is unwarranted. I would definitely not use company resources to organize if I could avoid it just because it seems like a lot of trouble that is probably not worth it, but there definitely are protections around this kind of thing.
I'm not really going to spend any more time coming back here for discussion, as it has become uninteresting.
You're clearly an advocate for a side of the argument, not an objective analyst interested in finding out truth. And btw nothing "surprises" or "shocks" me, I have been watching this issue for quite a while and have some expertise in the matter.
You live in past rulings hoping that it means that your position is correct in the present. It is not, and that colors your analysis, which as a result isn't credible or interesting to discuss.
Discussions about pay and work issues ARE WORK RELATED COMMUNICATIONS. You had to say its work issues on the same sentence. Thats the law as well because it makes sense.
Just because you feel it is and you want it to be true, doesn't make it so. It's important to learn to separate advocacy of a position from your analysis of facts. Work-related communications are generally at the decision of the employer, not the employee.
https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/employment-law-compliance/...
Salary discussion is protected, is not a feeling. https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...
Union organisation should also be part of those protections but the US is still in the 1800 of labour rights for the time being.
You need to gain a more educated understanding of the law and what your rights are, and are not.
A right to do something does not extend to taking over someone else's means to do it. You are free to talk to someone in person about your wages. You are not free to use my equipment to do it. Or to bill me for your time spent discussing it. By your logic, a union organizer should be entitled to photocopy union organizing fliers on a company copy machine.
But you are not.
I am well educated on the subject. You just want me to side with the company not only against data that shows unions are beneficial to society in general but against my own self interest that would benefit me as an employee.
Notice that I would say that printing union fliers on company printers is fine to not allow, we can have different areas where we draw lines. I think sending an email to employees that a discussion is happening about union is fine. You seem to be on the camp of since the line can be drawn anywhere it should be drawn on the extreme that benefits the employer.
As if me asking Jenna over slack what her bonus was is incredibly taxing on the company for some reason. The only reason that you don't want this to happen over email or company slack/messaging is to prevent this communications to happen at all.
You seem a bit lost within your advocacy / desire for something to be true, and unable to discern fact from hope. You would be more credible if you could separate your wishes from what is the law.
I'm stating facts within the law. You are stating wishes, made unbelievably clear by your saying that I'm trying to get you to side against your data and interests.
Laws don't operate by saying that "unions are beneficial to society and to me" and so therefore it must mean that you're allowed to use other people's equipment to do what you want. Once you bring in that argument, it's clear you've lost.
I guess it's true: "don't argue facts against a man whose livelihood depends on ignoring them."
In the same way you aren’t obligated to spend your free time running around defending the world’s richest company’s quest to limit workers rights but yet here you are.
but nvidia is the richest
Earnings, Apple is quite higher
Read the law
Is that a statement about morality or about legality?
[flagged]
It's a non-sequitur though, since the complaints include Apple telling employees to take down social media posts and not to participate on online surveys.
No, it's not right!
And I agree with you!
I truly don't understand why this is contentious.