individually it’s very hard to do something. Unions or laws would help setting up a framework for acceptable workplace conditions. But neither of them are especially liked in the US.
I could see unions making a big comeback in the US. They are still alive and well in the healthcare world (for nursing at least - my wife is a nurse at a large hospital in the US and has been a member of multiple nursing unions).
If you compare profit margins to wage increases there's an obvious (and expected via capitalism) disconnect. It's hard to galvanize this type of activity though. And new unions would definitely need a constitutional overhaul, probably based around transparency and making sure power and decision making is distributed.
A union is simply an agreement between workers and management. Agreements can be modified to prevent such faults when both parties enter in good faith.
Maybe what would improve these companies is not pure democracy, but rather a bill of rights for workers. This can include a mutual contract over pay and benefits, depending on how well the company is doing, with a legitimate appeals process for both sides.
Personally, given 2016 and now Iowa, I would rather err on the side of allowing users to find "on the fence" content outside of Twitter, rather than letting the propaganda chips fall where they may. These are ultra-powerful tools, and our society clearly hasn't mastered them (yet).
To clarify, in 1993 or even 2000, you could see a bunch of flame wars on Usenet, and you could ignore them because they "meant nothing". You could dismiss it as a nerd argument that's not connected to your life in the real world.
That was usually accurate. (Although I should say there were very intelligent people on Usenet, and that's why I used it. I learned a lot there.)
It's harder to do that now. You can ignore certain channels, but they spill out into the "real world" quite frequently.
To give a different example, UFC fighters pick fights with each other online, often on Instagram or YouTube. So what happens online is critical to the entire sport, which has grown a tremendous amount in the past decade. It determines whether they get paid $100K or $1M. Real life happens online now.
That's a somewhat random example but there are many many subcultures / industries where what happens on social media determines what happens in the real world.
I get your point, but it doesn't seem to be a random sentence in a contract. For starter, "The PTSD statement comes at the end of the two-page acknowledgment form, and it is surrounded by a thick black border to signify its importance."
What useful science has been achieved in the last 100 years thanks to astronomy?
Meanwhile, what kind of useful science do you think can be facilitated by globally accessible high-speed internet? The value generated by such a network is clearly orders of magnitude more useful than observing the cosmos, at this juncture of human endeavor. Not too mention that Starlink will allow SpaceX to re-invest more and more money into space launches / space travel. I'd much prefer humans actually visit other celestial bodies rather than just staring at them.
In the last 100 years, advances in particle physics have been aided by our study of high-energy mechanisms in the universe (nuclear fusion in star systems, supernovae, acceleration of the expansion of the universe, etc.)..
so you have internet thanks, in part, to astronomy..
We did not discover nuclear fusion from the stars, we realized the possibility of nuclear fusion and subsequently realized that this is what must power the sun (and every other star).
Ditto for everything else on that list. We made discoveries by looking at things and performing experiments here on earth and then realized that these things must be what is causing X and Y out in the cosmos.
Part of what you say is true, we make discoveries by looking at things.. Astronomy gives us more things to look at, and in energy regimes that cost many $$ to replicate in experiments on Earth..
Your claim is not substantiated by the source, while mine actually is.
Without Einstein's E = mc^2, Arthur Eddington would not have realized that the fusing of nuclei could power the sun. In other words, he realized that fusing two atoms would release a lot of energy thanks to terrestrial research, and then hypothesized that this is what must power the sun. He did not come to this theory from staring at the sun through a telescope. Astronomy clearly did not lead to fusion - atomic theory did, which did not come from astronomy.
And neither did Einstein formulate E = mc^2 because he was an avid astronomer who wanted to understand the sun.
I am well aware this happened more than 100 years ago, not sure why you would be under the impression that I thought otherwise or needed to hear that for some reason.
The discovery and confirmation of relativistic physics has resulted in more efficient materials research and led to space technology (communications) and microprocessor improvements here on earth.
We absolutely do not have globally accessible high speed internet.
Starlink means you can be doing research in the middle of the Amazon and have good internet. Antarctica. Middle of the ocean. Wherever. Sure, population centres are all connected to the internet by now, but that's really not what I'm talking about.
Also, a good way to make internet cheaper (so that those in poverty have access) is to provide more alternatives to access / competition.
Third time I'm saying this, but starlink is not for consumers. It's not a "cheaper" alternative to your current ISP. None of your comment is based on any of the information put out by SpaceX.
None of those noble cases are actually what it's being built for though, the 100 scientists in the Amazonas aren't the reason you put up 1500 satellites in one year.
Likewise, those in poverty living far from population centres (by the way, those are the places with most of the people) are better served by being gifted 10 bricks so they can build an actual stove.
What is it being built for, if not globally available (as in, actually anywhere in the globe), high-speed, low latency, low cost internet?
It's built for whoever gets utility out of it and will pay for it, those "noble cases" included. It's not for them, but it enables them.
The internet can tell you how to build a better stove, farm better, raise animals better, discourage you from barbaric rituals that don't actually have the effect you believe them to have, etc. Arguably the poorest, most ignorant of the world are the same people that need the knowledge the internet can provide the most.
Internet access gives you access to actual knowledge. Yes, it also gives access to fake news and farmville, but I think those latter concerns are less important when you are having sex with babies to make your AIDS go away.
The discovery of the CMBR did not lead to the theory of the Big Bang. But astronomy in general certainly did, for sure.
That doesn't really answer my question though, but that's probably my fault for using a word as subjective as "useful", so let me rephrase:
How has astronomical knowledge of the CMBR/Big Bang/Black Holes/Pulsars/Galaxies/etc. fundamentally improved the human condition? What specifically have we been able to do (not "know") that we would not have been able to do without terrestrial astronomy?
The internet produced thousands of wonderful things. Your argument is 100% baseless.
Astronomy is nice too, but I will choose the internet every time, if forced to choose. We have wonderful images of the whole sky in all kinds of spectrum in incredible resolution.
