Yes, but that’s not because technology doesn’t reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.
Yes, but that’s not because technology doesn’t reduce the need for working hours, which is what I argued against.
And you think they just did it because?
They obviously thought they deserved it, because… technology reduced the need for work hours, perhaps?
In response to better technology that reduced the need for work hours.
Unions fought for it after seeing the obvious effects of better technology reducing the need for work hours.
technological advancement doesn’t allow you to work less,
It literally has (When forced by unions). How do you think we got the 40-hr workweek?
We should use them to replace workers, letting everyone work less and have more time to do what they want.
We shouldn’t let corporations use them to replace workers, because workers won’t see any of the benefits.
In more ways than one?
(I recall reading that the damage is proportional to the vehicle weight to the fourth power, probably with some more nuance)
Yes. Road damage is based on vehicle weight. To the 4th power, yes. Heavier vehicles do exponentially more damage than lighter ones. https://www.hagerty.co.uk/articles/opinion/opinion-cars-have-a-weight-problem-and-its-damaging-more-than-the-environment/
But actually it’s based on axle weight. This is why Semis have many axles, to spread the weight out.
But actually it’s based on tire weight. This is why Semis have doubled wheels on their axles.
But actually it’s based on contact pressure. This is why Semis have wider tires than your standard car.
“Deficit” spending on the governmental level isn’t the same as a family deficit spending.
How about we regulate all the other power sources as heavily as we regulate nuclear?
This is an extremely unfair comparison, because nuclear has to do things (Even leaving aside the Nuclear part of it) that no other energy source does.
You know any coal supply chains that have to track each atom that they ever dig up?
And even leaving aside cost, what about other benefits?
Then why bother putting the article here?
Because it’s interesting regardless of whether I can buy it or not?
I watch reviews on computer hardware that I definitely can’t afford, because it’s interesting.
16+44 is 60, not 70
It’s their responsibility to get product they sent wrongly back.
Never blame those in power when it’s the constituency who put them there.
We can blame both tho
Spinning it as if those elected have no blame is absurd. They know what they’re doing.
They would just stay up later if they knew they could sleep in.
A) Not infinitely
B) Not all of them
C) That doesn’t change the actual data we have that says later start times are better
we need to just shift everyones starting time back an hour so their parents can still take them to school before work.
Or… we could stop designing our cities so that that’s necessary?
We already know that doesn’t work for most teens.
But you were just posting it to feel proud of yourself, not to actually help anyone. If you wanted to help, you’d have searched why that’s not an option.
Here’s a hot tip: We already know that doesn’t work for most teens.
But you were just posting it to feel proud of yourself, not to actually help anyone. If you wanted to help, you’d have searched why that’s not an option.
Honestly better than amazon having it
Obviously I’m trying to rationalize what I already said, that’s how an argument works.
I am arguing that better technology reduces the need for working hours.
That’s it.