These are probably functionally equivalent for most employees... and especially the low-level employees that the article is talking about.
Plus, there are real downsides to your approach. It puts the onus on the employee to collect from the employer, which is best-case arduous and worst-case more expensive than it's worth with most of the money going to a billboard lawfirm anyways.
Your approach might make sense in the mid six figures and up, but for low-wage or even low to mid middle class workers, outright nullification would be way more effective.
In that case, consider rethinking your use of the word "supposed". Most native speakers from my part of the US will interpret that use to mean something similar to "ostensible".
I.e., if you want to avoid confusion, don't ever say "supposedly X" if you actually do believe "X" is a fact.
Oxford has this to say on supposedly: "used to show that you do not believe that something you have been told is true". Hope that helps
The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be. The court's job is to enforce the actual existing text of the actual existing laws.
The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if your effort alone is not the lynchpin. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime.
>The court's job is not to enforce ryanlol's idea about what the law should be.
Ah great. Did I ever suggest that?
>The actual existing laws say that attempting to break into a computer to which you do not have access is a crime, even if you do not succeed. And that conspiring to help someone else attempt is also a crime.
This is correct, but doesn't mean that it's right.
So if someone tried to poison you to death, but failed because he mistakenly bought sugar instead of poison, there was no crime committed? Is that how it works in your country? Is that right?
You called it a "supposed criminal act". Usually "supposed" used in that way means something similar to ostensible. That's why I started my post with "It's not supposed". In fact, that's the first definition Oxford gives for supposedly...
He took specific steps (cracking a hash) with the clear intent of helping break into a government owned computer system.
I'm not sure what the gray area is supposed to be here.
If I teach you lock picking skills as a fun hobby, that's clearly okay.
If I teach you lock picking skills knowing you aspire to be a house robber, that is grayish legally and wrong ethically.
But if I break into a specific bank vault for you to help you steal stuff, and we talked about stealing the stuff before I helped you, then I'm clearly involved in a criminal conspiracy.
Assange committed a crime, and if he played the same role in helping to empty your bank account you'd want these laws to exist.
The ethical question here is about whether that crime was ethically jusified. I.e., it's about civil disobedience, not about whether blatant conspiracy should be legal.
How do you know the Administrator account wouldn't have yielded more documents compared to a user account?
Regardless, imagine two independent people trying to murder someone. The first shoots a fatal bullet and the victim is about to imminently die, even if the best medical aid were to be immediately provided. Then the second murderer comes on the scene, does not realize that the victim is fatally wounded, and shoots another bullet, instantly killing him.
Both these people would be fully responsible for the murder, not just attempted murder. Arguments from them saying "no, the other killed him, I did not", do not fly in court.
Plugging in numbers for my own degree (CS) and loan amount shows I would have paid $14k in "interest" for my $35k loans over 88 months, which is roughly double what I actually paid over 120 months.
I'm still highly suspicious of the narrative all of this is premised on.
TFA mentions the low sample size of the original study, and augments it with Twitter polls. But TFA author's Twitter follows aren't exactly a representative sample of the population...
Furthermore, monogamy and sexual activity remains strong for people in their 30s, and I expect this will continue to be true in the future. Women are having children later, but there's still a strong preference for monogamy among people who choose to have children.
> It remains to be seen what the end result will be this time around.
More men will learn how to make themselves attractive people, so that women who aren't ready to have children yet are none-the-less invested in forming a strong and lasting relationship that includes a sexual component.
Some men won't accept this and they will be celibate for a good chunk of their 20s.
Oh well.
What should not happen is a regression to the sexual and gender role "morals" of the past. Quantitatively, there are at least as many women as men in the world. Qualitatively, "celibacy during your 20s" is not even remotely similar to the level of harm experienced by the bottom third of women for most of human history.
I also think that will not happen, and fears about social stability are enormously overblown. It's exceptionally unlikely that a small subgroup of men who already refuse to adapt is large enough and motivated enough to hold the rest of society at gunpoint.
> TFA mentions the low sample size of the original study, and augments it with Twitter polls. But TFA author's Twitter follows aren't exactly a representative sample of the population...
I agree, and even if their followers were, all it takes is a single retweet by a popular user, or post in a high-traffic subreddit or Facebook share to wildly skew the results.
Offering the Twitter poll as any sort of evidence at all without major disclaimers makes me quite skeptic of the author's qualifications, to be honest...
>It's exceptionally unlikely that a small subgroup of men who already refuse to adapt is large enough and motivated enough to hold the rest of society at gunpoint.
Isn't it the point that it's something like 80% of men that are becoming disenfranchised? That hardly seems like a small subgroup to me.
No. It's just hetero 24-33 year olds, and only the subset of those that arent celibate for other reasons, and then only a minority (albeit growing) percentage of those. And then only a very small minority of those that blame others for their own issues. We're taking about factions of a percent of the population.
This is what I mean by overblown. People's perception on this issue is just ridiculously out of whack. Young men aren't as dangerous to civil society as a lot of people like to imagine. The violent ones get jail and the rest grow up.
>something like 80% of men that are becoming disenfranchised
Are you arguing men have a right to sex? Disenfranchisement is the taking away of rights, that's it's definition. If not, you should be more careful using that phrasing.
I wouldn't call it a right, but as others have pointed out, it's an issue that might bring heavy consequences in the future, so maybe let's do something about it, or maybe we can't do anything about it and let's just hope for the best.
> an unattractive person even if you look fine physically.
There is so much emphasis on physical appearance and status in this thread.
If this is a common mindset among young men, it's no wonder they are lonely. Who wants to spend time with someone who reduces deeply human relationships to status and sex appeal?
Attractiveness is a complicated and extremely individual thing. Appearance and status are much less important than forming an intimate emotional connection through shared experiences and values.
That's easy to say, but physical appearance is the gateway to personality based relationships. You can have the greatest personality in the world, but be unlucky in the dating world because you don't fit the physical expectations. The choice given by dating websites amplifies that too. Why would a woman settle for a friendly 165 cm guy with a good job, if a 185 cm "lumberjack" is only few swipes away (in theory, because there are many more women competing for him)?
> That's easy to say, but physical appearance is the gateway to personality based relationships.
This is really only true at the margins.
> Why would a woman settle for a friendly 165 cm guy with a good job, if a 185 cm "lumberjack" is only few swipes away (in theory, because there are many more women competing for him)?
For the same reason most people choose friends based on who they get along with instead of who has the most money/status. After all, why spend time on a friendship that only gets you a beer now and then when you could spend your time befriending people with yachts and ski lodges?
People crave closeness and belonging. Being close with someone who you actually enjoy spending time with feels better than having sex with someone you don't care about.
Note: few people enjoy the company of another person merely because that other person "has a good job" or is merely "friendly". How many of your male friends do you enjoy spending time with because they make good money and aren't assholes? Probably very few. For the rest, you have something in common that drives the friendship. The same thing is true in romantic relationships.
It's true that people would like to think that personality and emotional connection matter more than physical appearance. And I am glad that some of it is the case. Heck, I would like to believe that is the majority of cases.
But you can't deny the fact that people do make snap judgements on each other based on physical appearance alone. It's not even about dating. It's probably something wired to our brain.
Now if the above is true, why won't you care about your physical appearance? Why leave something that important on the table?
Snap judgements exist, but IMO most are non-committal. You'll notice people who are very attractive or very unattractive, but most people you simply won't immediately react to sexually (well, except when you're 15).
Of all the women I've dated, only 1 said she noticed me (either way) before first developing a reasonably close friendship.
> why won't you care about your physical appearance? Why leave something that important on the table?
Well, certainly don't be a slob. And not just because of dating! Dressing poorly and appearing unkept effects other parts of life too (e.g. career). Also, exercise is important for all sorts of reasons aside from attractiveness.
But other than being generally healthy and well-kept, I don't focus on my appearance because grooming is boring. Why spend your time grooming beyond a level of general acceptability when you could learn to play an instrument, learn a new language, read a book, or go for a hike?
If all you focus on is appearances, don't be surprised when the only people who find you even remotely interesting are other people who focus a lot on appearances.
> But other than being generally healthy and well-kept, I don't focus on my appearance because grooming is boring. Why spend your time grooming beyond a level of general acceptability when you could learn to play an instrument, learn a new language, read a book, or go for a hike?
You're right. But I never said that we should focus on appearance to the exclusivity of everything else. In that we agree.
But there are people laboring under the idea that you can neglect it by making up for it in other areas. That's what I am trying to refute.
Plus, there are real downsides to your approach. It puts the onus on the employee to collect from the employer, which is best-case arduous and worst-case more expensive than it's worth with most of the money going to a billboard lawfirm anyways.
Your approach might make sense in the mid six figures and up, but for low-wage or even low to mid middle class workers, outright nullification would be way more effective.