Most people, even well paid engineers, live paycheck to paycheck.
Sizable companies take a month to bring in a new employee in the best case.
Most hiring managers are skeptical of people fired in a mass "underperformance" firing.
Toss in the fact that most people have never been fired and it's a massive blow to the ego. And also that it's terrible to communicate to your spouse and children that you've been fired for doing a bad job at work. That's a recipe for depression. Which makes it even harder to find work again. Which exacerbates the depression. And you're living on credit. And the bills are piling up. And you are starting to get phone calls.
If you can't jump right into a new job, it's a hard situation to be in, no question about it.
Someone married with 4 children at $200,000/year earns a net pay of $10611.48 in California with a 5% deduction for retirement.
If they worked at Tesla and lived in Palo Alto, they would need a 5 bedroom house. That's an $8,000/month rental.
The average car payment in the US is $503. One car for dad, one for Mom, one for the teenager. That's $1509. That leaves $1102.48. Take $600 for electricity, water, and trash. That leaves $502.48 each month for food, gas, car insurance, parking, sports, birthdays, christmas, etc.
All of a sudden, Palo Alto doesn't seem so appealing, so the family moves to San Jose where a nice 5BR can be had for $4500. More affordable. The budget isn't so tight. The family can go out to dinner once in a while. They can save $1000/month. But it costs Dad 2-3 hours a day in commuting time. And he shows up late once every couple of weeks because the traffic is atrocious and his hours are set.
Well that pisses his Tesla manager off, so he gets cut as a low performing employee. He gets 2 weeks severance - $5k. He's saved up $5k over the last 6 months. He's not eligible for unemployment because he was fired for cause. He has 30 days to start a new job, at close to $200,000/year, or ... well... he's living on credit. So he takes a job at $150k/year because those are easier to find and he's under pressure.
Now his income is down to $8400/month. To a lot of people, that's still a lot of money. To this guy, he's treading water. It's hard for people to sympathize with this situation. Especially people out of the area with no kids and no debt who could live quite well on that kind of salary. But it's reality for a great many people. Maybe it's not 3 five-hundred dollar car payments. Maybe it's required tutoring. Or helping grandma make her house payment. Or paying for dead-beat brother-in-law's rehab.
Looking around at SV families, I see more people busting their butts to get by than I see buzzing around in sports cars. There are people that are comfortable. There are people that can get by six months without working. I don't think it's a large percentage of the population.
I think he/she should leave the gender there but add an additional field "identified as gender" or something like this. I mean it should still be possible for me to categorize people by their physical gender/sex.
For example it can be important to know whether an individual can get pregnant or not.
>For example it can be important to know whether an individual can get pregnant or not.
Out of curiosity, can you explain why you would want something like that?
You would then need a sub-item for the medical history, one can well be of the "right" gender (female) to become pregnant but be infertile nonetheless, whether from birth, due to some accident or due to the effects of another medical condition doesn't really matter.
And that would probably be the kind of information that you shouldn't be allowed to know, record and store online.
The distinction that's often used is "Sex" vs "Gender" to distinguish between the two different usages. Sex is biological Male/Female whereas Gender is the social roles a person is performing.
I don't think this would will be the case as it will only make people who know how to install an ad-blocker move to firefox. I think they target the users not having an ad-blocker installed.
The code of conduct just applies to behavior inside the community. It has nothing to do with stuff happening outside of it.
The community would not tolerate discriminating behavior against members of the community or while doing work for the community. But what you do in your private life is non of it's business.
According to your logic you are obliged to watch the ads on TV. Because by watching a film you made an agreement that watching the film is only free because you watch the ads.
What you are saying does never apply when using content for personal use. When I buy a DVD I am allowed to watch it with a filter or watch only every second frame. This would never violate your copyright.
Architects are a well known example of artists that keep a say over their products after they have been produced and 'sold'. You can't just modify 'your' building: the original artist has to approve. Even if you're the only one living in it and you shield the building from public view.
When you buy a painting, the artist may forbid you from changing it.
Why do you believe that can't be the case for a movie? Just because it is technically possible to modify only copy does not make it obvious that you should be entitled to it.
Note that I'm not asserting that this actually is the case. I'm mostly asserting it's not obviously not the case.
The difference with paintings and architecture is that there is only one. That is a sufficient justification for letting the creator control the ability to modify it. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping you from taking a photo of that painting or designing a model of that building and using it in some modern art bodily fluid exhibit or whatever.
Originals will always have inherent differences from copies in people's minds.
It's a good point but I think it does not apply to my example.
Because in my example I don't even have to modify the movie. I can apply the filter while it's playing.
And besides that your examples require the presence of a contract between me and the architect/painter where I resign from my rights to change the object. Copyright has nothing to do with it.
