"The government needs to stop people from doing a capitalism, but it had better not stop anyone from doing a capitalism, that would be tyranny."

Musk <-------------------------------- LYs -----------------------------------> Self-Driving car

Any questions?

Oh fun. Who is Elon going to just haphazardly drop the ISS on top of?

Ugh. I feel dirty for defending economists, but...

Laws are just commonly observed relationships, and observed relationships always exist within a given set of boundaries and assumptions.

Change the boundaries or the context, and the law may no longer apply.

Consider Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation:

F ~ Mm/r^2

This observed relationship doesn't hold under very large M or very small r. In those contexts, a different relationship is required. That doesn't invalidate this one, though. It just maks it situationally useful.

Which all of these laws are.

Eh. Little People is a toy line for toddlers with a long history, that kids from the 50s through at least the 80s are going to have some core memories around. This seems like a bit of a no-brainer limited licensing deal.

Yes, but a long ass time ago. What's happening here is that he's not getting his way over something, or he's gone and done something that we haven't heard about that will stain the company and he was removed, or he was told his farts still smelled, and he threw a tantrum.

This has all of the hallmarks of a billionaire baby being told "no" over something for the first time in a while.

"Capital flight"? Are they tired of being laughed at for "brain drain" already?

The fact that they're both spectrums is exactly the point, and why it's a good example. Notice how the character on the right immediately and firmly deny being at all gay, even though sexuality is a spectrum.

"Gay" and "autistic" are both social constructs layered over top of a spectrum of fluid differences and preferences from plastic brains. Yet the "we're all a little bit" folks have no issue using that underlying spectrum to invalidate the needs of groups who need them to behave differently while vehemently denying the fuzzy nature of other other spectra that would logically necessitate giving respect to people they don't want to humanize.

Classes higher up the social hegemony ladder are choosing how they view the fuzzy nature of human behaviour and needs so they can wield it as a weapon.

My mom's employer calls the department "human capital".

Somehow, being more open about it makes it feel even worse.

The VCs were in the same industry both times, though: Making money by selling property.

They're not interested in selling do-dads, or softwhizzles. They want to sell the company, and that's making the same play in the same game every time.

No. No, it didn't.

I think you're not paying attention to who you're replying to or what they're saying/doing.

Ontario requires employers of a certain size (>= 25, IIRC) to have a written policy on remote employee tracking. This has been a great bit of transparency, and has helped ward employers against actually tracking remote workers. I hope the rest of the country follows suit.

Something that may also end up putting pressure on these paranoid tin-pot dictators, too, is asking during job interviews whether the company monitors keystrokes, and, if they do, why they don't trust their employees to be professionals.