That money you could be making, yeah we don't like you getting it instead of us, so cough it up!
Also, while we're at it, cool idea...thanks for the work! Here's nice thankful lawsuit for your hard work.
We'll go ahead and privately fork that repo and totally not rip your functionality off and somehow manage to mess it up while overcharging for it! :)
I'm sure the various autocratic, dystopian states around the world that would love to see functioning democracies be smouldering piles of rubble are hoping that we think this way...because they certainly aren't thinking that way.
Most of the most important innovations in history (especially in the hardware and electronics space) were motivated by increasing defense capabilities, so although its great to pretend that humans can coexist peacefully, that is not the reality...and this also ignores the fact that many of these technologies can have positive impact on the world outside of the defense space, once they mature.
> "In its complaint, X Corp. argued that AB 587 violates the First Amendment..."
How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?
While we're at it, maybe we should also find corporations liable for damages done on the communities they serve, with the chief executives being the proxy humans for those damages, including murder (ahem chemical, oil companies)? That would be highly satisfactory.
If a corporation doesn't have speech, nonprofits like museums and schools and abortion clinics and lobbyists wouldn't be able to say stuff without censorship. (The press and churches are separately protected, but the 1A applies more broadly to organizations other than them via corporate personhood).
That said, I think Citizens United (money is also speech, go ahead and corrupt the political process even more with dirty invisible money) is pretty fucked up, and yes, corporate liabilities should also include executive criminal prosecutions for crimes against society (and humanity!).
Freedom of speech should only be given to those people and/or collections of people the parent already agrees with, of course.
And only the good guys should have guns (as determined by an Expert’s “mental health” assessment).
And of course the state is free to seize funds from criminals.
Oh and while “our guys” are in federal power we’d better create a bunch of new rules and regulations, that way we can coerce all those states filled with idiots into our hightened moral ground.
Corporations are not just collections of people. If that's all they were you wouldn't have to incorporate and there would be no concept of "piercing the corporate veil".
Because they are not "just collections of people", corporations are a legal fiction meant to be a handout to a group of people for investing in the economy.
It's insane. If you just get five people in a group and start selling lemonade that hurts someone, you do not get limited liability protection! You only do that if you file some legal paperwork. That legal entity, separate from any of the individuals involved, is what a "Corporation" is.
> How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?
"Corporations are people" when it comes to rights and privileges, but when it comes to damages and criminality, they are vague, amorphous entities that cannot possibly be held liable for anything. Very convenient for them.
> How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?
Barring superseding reasons to the contrary, in general US legal structure ascribes to corporations the same rights ascribed to individuals. This is a new construct (about 1970s) but it is the law of the land as interpreted by the Courts. https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/freedom-of-speec...
> How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?
14th amendment.
> No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>> How in the hell can a corporation claim that it has free speech?
Because they do. It is written in the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
It doesn't say only for natural persons. Nobody has ever interpreted it that way. The constitution limits government power, and this particular limitation is right up at the top for good reason.
As a non-US, I sometimes get the feeling that for everything that a citizen / company does not like, he / it can just cite the first ammendment. It feels like half of a "get out of jail card" in monopoly. I do not know all the content of the first ammendment, but there must be a lot of text in.
It's short but dense: 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.
Because of all those 'or's it outlines quite a wide swath of protected activities. Because of the 14th amendment, it directly applies to not only the federal government, but also state governments.
> 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.
That's it. But it's caused centuries of back and forth arguments and mountains of case law and supreme court opinions.
The US has a sort of Stockholm syndrome relationship with our Constitution... it's really hard to interpret or change and basically it's read however a given generation of politicized judges wants it to be. A decade or two later that will change, somewhat, and then be reversed again. Public will has little impact on it, and the supremes have no accountability. It's a mess.
We worship it as sacred but it creates a lot of problems in modern society the the ancients didn't foresee. It's an entirely undemocratic piece of paper holding the country and its future hostage, IMO.
Greater San Francisco would mean that San Franciscans would have to give up their beloved polarized politics in favor of more moderate (for the Bay Area) and functional takes. I don't think this will ever happen - some people take too much pride in calling themselves a San Francisco Progressive to allow real progress for the greater metro area to take place.
Unclear which way it would go. I hope that would happen. But either way it would solve a major incentive misalignment. Even if SF stays just as progressive it will be much more functional.
I think the last several years have clearly proven that SF's polarized politics are absolutely no good at solving any problems and quite good at creating countless new ones, so it would be ridiculous for the rest of the Bay Area to follow them.
Clearly you've not been in a job search and can compare the software job market in 2016-2021 vs now. The market is not 'hot'. Warm, maybe. Lukewarm, definitely.
I don't believe in anecdotes. I believe in data. According to the BLS, "Computing infrastructure providers, data processing, web hosting, and related services" sector added 6000 jobs last month and > 30k jobs in the past year. Unemployment among educated professionals stands at 2.2% which is ridiculous.
Feeling bad for the the folks? That's high-grade levels of naivete. The definition of crocodile tears.
He's been on the board during his whole 'leave from the company' (read : very long vacation) and had pull to make sure this doesn't happen. But he made sure that he did nothing. It's just a convenient narrative to pull now that he's 'back' as CEO (although he never really left the company).
Or, imagine smart, young Americans trying to make a living in a high cost of living area like the Bay Area, having their life FUBAR'd by a selfish exec. Most likely as they just told their previous employer that they're leaving that company.
I'm convinced that the main reasoning behind this is that it implicitly keeps employee retention higher than with WFH, where employees are free to learn skills that are beneficial to THEM in their free time, and interview much more easily for new/better roles.
This is one of the primary contributors to the decision, not only the free time/etc. contribute to the higher retention but also the sense of beloning, and friendships that are made in workplaces.
That money you could be making, yeah we don't like you getting it instead of us, so cough it up! Also, while we're at it, cool idea...thanks for the work! Here's nice thankful lawsuit for your hard work. We'll go ahead and privately fork that repo and totally not rip your functionality off and somehow manage to mess it up while overcharging for it! :)
Worst regards, thx for the moneys and screw you,
Mazda