[Silencer]

Powder, on 27 April 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

I haven't posted on these boards for a couple years now. I am back and I see most of the same people posting still, and from the same camps. Do people really change their minds that infrequently?

Have there been any significant new sources of information, or compelling evidence to support a shift from one side or other of the given issues? Religion still exists, the US political parties haven't changed much or had much change in support levels... What makes you think people would change their minds on that sort of thing here with any great frequency? Specifics might change, the occasional retreat over certain issues that get broadly decided one way or another - but the broad strokes are unlikely to change for most people. As noted above, there are a variety of cognitive fallacies people employ to avoid changing their mind - and being aware of them does little to stop yourself employing them in most cases. *shrug *

[Mentalist]

Silencer, on 28 April 2015 - 01:59 AM, said:

Powder, on 27 April 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

I haven't posted on these boards for a couple years now. I am back and I see most of the same people posting still, and from the same camps. Do people really change their minds that infrequently?

Have there been any significant new sources of information, or compelling evidence to support a shift from one side or other of the given issues? Religion still exists, the US political parties haven't changed much or had much change in support levels... What makes you think people would change their minds on that sort of thing here with any great frequency? Specifics might change, the occasional retreat over certain issues that get broadly decided one way or another - but the broad strokes are unlikely to change for most people. As noted above, there are a variety of cognitive fallacies people employ to avoid changing their mind - and being aware of them does little to stop yourself employing them in most cases. *shrug *

Well, as a personal example, I've grown A LOT less tolerant of Russian foreign policy,

But, y'know, them starting a war in my home country may have had smth to do with it, being one of those "life-changing" things I spoke of earlier...

[LinearPhilosopher]

Silencer, on 28 April 2015 - 01:59 AM, said:

Powder, on 27 April 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

I haven't posted on these boards for a couple years now. I am back and I see most of the same people posting still, and from the same camps. Do people really change their minds that infrequently?

Have there been any significant new sources of information, or compelling evidence to support a shift from one side or other of the given issues? Religion still exists, the US political parties haven't changed much or had much change in support levels... What makes you think people would change their minds on that sort of thing here with any great frequency? Specifics might change, the occasional retreat over certain issues that get broadly decided one way or another - but the broad strokes are unlikely to change for most people. As noted above, there are a variety of cognitive fallacies people employ to avoid changing their mind - and being aware of them does little to stop yourself employing them in most cases. *shrug *

its also a question of how much exposure you have to different ideas. With google and facebook altering your searches based upon certain algorithm it tends to create something of an echo chamber where ideaology is concerned. There are ways of tricking the algorithm but its something you have to work at. For example i've "liked" the pages of all of canadas political parties to try and get different opinions. However facebook thinks im a dirty communist so unless i go out of my way to reinforce the balance it gets eroded over time. I've also liked the "being conservative" page. It stimulates my curiosity, however the comments section leaves me in despair more often than not.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 28 April 2015 - 02:03 PM

[Powder]

I feel like I am constantly altering my opinions slightly over time. Little changes over the last 6 years or so have moved me to a different space now than I was in then. At least for me, I feel as though I have flip-flopped back and forth on several issues which are pertinent to me, as I am exposed intentionally to new information. I have found that the continued exposure to new ideas leaves me in sort of a moderate position on most issues, and most of the time I say things like "I don't know and scholars disagree". I do think there is something to be said for the rabid 'certainty' that people fanatically hold, it is unsettling to be uncertain most of the time, but I also find it remarkably peaceful as well.

Is this fashion of living without the compulsion of 'I MUST BE RIGHT ALL THE TIME ABOUT EVERYTHING" really that uncommon? Or are we being abnormally warped by the label on this board being "Discussion", where people come here with the explicit purpose of polarizing themselves?

[stone monkey]

So people shouldn't sound like they agree with their own opinions when stating them, yes? Which seems like an odd position to take, if you ask me, because why would you have an opinion that you think is wrong?

"I don't know, and scholars disagree" is a perfectly reasonable position to take, except of course when discussing certain topics where the scholars pretty much don't disagree (examples of such might include the efficacy and risks of vaccination, or anthropogenic climate change, or evolution; there is a fairly long list afaik). Which can lead one to indulge in false balance by giving far more credence to dissenting voices than they actually deserve on merit; moderation can itself be as much of a trap as extremism.

There is also another argument; what if the reason for lack of change in peoples' opinions over time is because they were actually correct in the first place? That's also possible

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 28 April 2015 - 09:04 PM

[Powder]

Fair points all around, but when was the last time changed their view because they were wrong? I know after doing research myself I went from Pro-vaccine, to anti-vaccine, and then back to pro again. The settling point for me was that even if small pox vaccinations killed 1% of the people it was used on immediately I would still get vaccinated if small pox was a threat. Polio is similar.

I personally am also recently (last few months or so) pro climate change. Drops in global temperature are far worse than gains. The little ice age in particular was devastating for people in northern latitudes. Seal levels have historically risen and fallen, and Would argue that a warm wet earth is better for human existence than a cold dry one (with more of earths fresh water locked up in polar ice caps).

I am also for having cleaner energy and environment, the reduction of the use of plastic (new idea for me in how radically a single person can reduce their plastic output), for alternative forms of energy, space exploration, and a host of other things which have come about in the last few years.

[Illuyankas]

Wait, wait, are you pro climate change as in you're for recognising and working to stop or slow it, or are you pro climate change as in you're for increasing emissions, rising sea levels and millions of coastal dwelling refugees fleeing their underwater homes? Cause it looks like the latter but surely no one is that misinformed?


Incidentally Nico I had a question for you, would you like companies to have less regulations regarding pollution, or dumping waste wherever?

[Silencer]

Alright, I think we're derailed enough discussing Powders thoughts on changing opinions - a new thread can be started on that topic if you want to discuss it further.

[Nicodimas]

Illuyankas, on 29 April 2015 - 07:21 PM, said:

Incidentally Nico I had a question for you, would you like companies to have less regulations regarding pollution, or dumping waste wherever?

The goal is to get companies to invest in sustainable solutions for the environmental impacts..Theirs 7 billion people in world and we produce all sorts of waste.

looking around you..you as a individual leave a huge carbon imprint, should we punish a individual for making these choices, why apply the same logic to a corporation?

http://www.theguardi...arbon-footprint
http://www.theguardi...otprint-new-car


Alcoa comes to mind when you ask this...as Alumninum frames probably will be the future..correct? Are you talking about the waste water from aluminum going into drinking wells? Instead of punishing a company--by introducing more corporate regulation and hurting said corporation...find ways to reward companies for making the smart/intelligent choices of sustainability projects. Use the money pools to enforce the law...

http://www.alcoa.com...n&newsYear=2013

[stone monkey]

So the answer is not fewer regulations but different regulations?

Which would probably be fine if the positive reinforcement of offering corporations rewards for behaving responsibly outweighed the incentive they have to behave badly (i.e. greater profits), but it does not. Corporations are not moral; they exist to make money any way they can.

And once you add regulatory capture to the mix, where corporations literally get to write the legislation that governs their behaviour, what we actually end up doing is rewarding companies for behaving badly.


And we do punish individuals for making similar choices; you dump illegally, you're fined; you harm others, you're fined and/or go to prison. Why should a corporation be any different?

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 05 May 2015 - 08:56 PM

[Nicodimas]

This is news to me...

http://www.autoblog....ds-car-repairs/

Quote

Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles.

In comments filed with a federal agency that will determine whether tinkering with a car constitutes a copyright violation, OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.

[Gnaw]

Nicodimas, on 12 May 2015 - 12:45 AM, said:

This is news to me...

http://www.autoblog....ds-car-repairs/

Quote

Automakers are supporting provisions in copyright law that could prohibit home mechanics and car enthusiasts from repairing and modifying their own vehicles.

In comments filed with a federal agency that will determine whether tinkering with a car constitutes a copyright violation, OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.

I didn't know it either. But it surprises me none at all. Ever read Stallman's "The Right to Read"?

[Silencer]

Ugh. Again, this is born of the "every drop off profit" mentality. Probably by people whose lives and hobbies are curiously unaffected by such legislation.

[Shinrei]

Powder, on 27 April 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

I haven't posted on these boards for a couple years now. I am back and I see most of the same people posting still, and from the same camps. Do people really change their minds that infrequently?

I can think of 2 opinions immediately where this board helped shaped my views:

White Privilage (which I probably would have denied a few years ago)

and more recently

An excellent description/explanation of the concept of "Rape Culture" which was particularly enlightening.

As for this topic, I find myself increasingly believing that the large corporations are almost ghost-writing government policy. One example being a recent Wall Street Journal OP-ED that highlighted how the Dodd-Frank legislation has served in many ways to forced small banks and other lenders out of certain markets. The big boys can afford to wade through the redtape and because they can, they have further cornered certain markets.

I am very pro-business, and very anti monopolies, which I think we have more of than we care to admit.

[HiddenOne]

We are willfully blind and complacent, some ancient herding instinct that we cannot ignore. Put down your face and allow the caress of authority to take away the fear, the questions...It will be over soon enough.

[Gust Hubb]

Speaking of money owning the world: http://www.bbc.com/n...europe-32937639

[Tsundoku]

This could also be in the Covid thread maybe, but since it's about corporations ...

Nice to see Google decided to go all in after ditching their very-much-former "Don't be evil" slogan.

https://www.news.com...f7155ac54985ee5

Google to cut employee pay 25 per cent for working from home
Google has released a calculator that shows employees who continue working from home face cuts of 25 per cent from their salary.

Theo Wayt, NY Post

AUGUST 11, 20217:34PM

COVID19 has pushed corporations like Facebook and Twitter to lead the way on permanent remote working.
Google has rolled out a new internal calculator to explain potential pay cuts to employees who choose to work remotely — and the early results suggests it will penalise its suburban staffers.

Screenshots obtained by Reuters show that Google employees who previously commuted an hour to Google’s Manhattan offices from nearby Stamford, Connecticut, for example, would see their salaries slashed by 15 percent if they choose to continue working from home.

By contrast, “Googlers” who live within NYC’s five boroughs and choose to work from home permanently would not see their pay slashed at all.

The screenshots also showed 5 per cent and 10 per cent differences for commuters living in the Seattle, Boston and San Francisco areas.

Google employees who move even farther away from the company’s offices have been warned they could face even harsher pay cuts.

A worker who left San Francisco for Lake Tahoe, another expensive area of California, would have their pay cut by a whopping 25 percent.

That would mean an employee with a $US150,000 ($204,000) salary would suddenly make less than $US112,000 ($152,000) per year.

The calculator states it uses US Census Bureau metropolitan statistical areas. Stamford in Connecticut for example, is not in New York City’s metro, even though many people who live there work in New York.

A Google employee who previously commuted the hour from Stamford to Manhattan before the pandemic would see their salary slashed by 15 percent if they choose to continue working from home after the pandemic.

News of the Google tool comes amid a broader debate at tech companies about remote work and compensation.

Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin have all warned employees who plan to leave expensive cities like New York and San Francisco that their pay will be slashed — while smaller tech companies like Reddit and Zillow say they’ll pay the same regardless of where employees live.

Jake Rosenfeld, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis who researches pay determination, said Google’s pay structure raises alarms about who will feel the impacts most acutely, including families.

Google, which has about 140,000 employees worldwide, took in $US61.9 billion ($84 billion) in revenue during the second quarter of this year alone.

A Google spokesperson said compensation packages have always been determined by location.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Tsundoku, on 11 August 2021 - 12:03 PM, said:

This could also be in the Covid thread maybe, but since it's about corporations ...

Nice to see Google decided to go all in after ditching their very-much-former "Don't be evil" slogan.

https://www.news.com...f7155ac54985ee5

Google to cut employee pay 25 per cent for working from home
Google has released a calculator that shows employees who continue working from home face cuts of 25 per cent from their salary.

Theo Wayt, NY Post

AUGUST 11, 20217:34PM

COVID19 has pushed corporations like Facebook and Twitter to lead the way on permanent remote working.
Google has rolled out a new internal calculator to explain potential pay cuts to employees who choose to work remotely — and the early results suggests it will penalise its suburban staffers.

Screenshots obtained by Reuters show that Google employees who previously commuted an hour to Google's Manhattan offices from nearby Stamford, Connecticut, for example, would see their salaries slashed by 15 percent if they choose to continue working from home.

By contrast, "Googlers" who live within NYC's five boroughs and choose to work from home permanently would not see their pay slashed at all.

The screenshots also showed 5 per cent and 10 per cent differences for commuters living in the Seattle, Boston and San Francisco areas.

Google employees who move even farther away from the company's offices have been warned they could face even harsher pay cuts.

A worker who left San Francisco for Lake Tahoe, another expensive area of California, would have their pay cut by a whopping 25 percent.

That would mean an employee with a $US150,000 ($204,000) salary would suddenly make less than $US112,000 ($152,000) per year.

The calculator states it uses US Census Bureau metropolitan statistical areas. Stamford in Connecticut for example, is not in New York City's metro, even though many people who live there work in New York.

A Google employee who previously commuted the hour from Stamford to Manhattan before the pandemic would see their salary slashed by 15 percent if they choose to continue working from home after the pandemic.

News of the Google tool comes amid a broader debate at tech companies about remote work and compensation.

Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin have all warned employees who plan to leave expensive cities like New York and San Francisco that their pay will be slashed — while smaller tech companies like Reddit and Zillow say they'll pay the same regardless of where employees live.

Jake Rosenfeld, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis who researches pay determination, said Google's pay structure raises alarms about who will feel the impacts most acutely, including families.

Google, which has about 140,000 employees worldwide, took in $US61.9 billion ($84 billion) in revenue during the second quarter of this year alone.

A Google spokesperson said compensation packages have always been determined by location.

IDK, cost of living varies drastically in different parts of the US, and even more drastically in the world as a whole... if they're living off their salary, someone living in San Francisco (or New York, or Tokyo) will require more compensation than someone living in Mississippi (or rural India, etc.). Wonder if they'll actually pay employees more if they do remote work from Ashgabat or Hong Kong (#1 and 2 on 2021 list of cities with highest cost of living in the world) or Tokyo or Zurich (4 and 5).

https://www.timeout....ight-now-112520

[Edit: then again, at Google they're being paid more than enough to live (almost?) anywhere, and employees should have the choice of how to spend their money. OTOH people should also be free to live anywhere they want without being financially penalized.]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 11 August 2021 - 04:09 PM

[Morgoth]

I suppose the US isn't much for worker rights and all. Here it would be very illegal to require a pay cut in this way.

[Maark Abbott]

If only workers' rights benefited the capitalist!