Is it really shooting itself in the foot, though? There are plenty of FOSS projects that companies benefit from and never contribute back to, either monetarily, or in the form of writing code. They provide an easy option to make it look more professional while helping to support the project, and you could always fork it and do what you need to with your fork. The idea that developers should do a thankless job to maintain their software in a way that complies with random corporate policies in order to be more widely adopted strikes me as setting up devs to burn out and crash from having all the joy ground out of their projects for them.

UNESCO, the Wikimedia foundation and other major organizations have already implemented it and gotten onboard, so I would suggest your coworkers are being a bit foolish in completely disregarding it because of a single mascot image that has a clear option to replace. The Dev is just saving themselves aggravation from people that were going to make endless demands of them, but most likely balk at actually supporting the project to enable features that only matter to their organization, but not to the Dev themselves or others.

Get rid of the commissioner and change things so the NYPD doesn’t get to interfere with the outcome of disciplinary issues like this. It doesn’t really matter if it goes through the the Civilian Complain Review Board process if the NYPD can just decide to downplay, if not outright ignore, their findings and recommended disciplinary action. They love to do just that, helping abusive and violent officers avoid consequences and keeping them on the streets, drawing a salary and benefit at the expense of the very people they brutalize.

Edit: Realized that source was super old, but fear not!. The NYPD are still at the same tactics.

I’ve read what you’ve written. It’s hardly my fault you’ve written a steaming load of shit. Maybe try being a better person, and not sucking up to the fascist apologists? Oh, sorry, fascism in 5 years is sooo much better than fascism in 4.9 years.

If you understood how things worked, I would expect your worldview to be somewhat less disappointing when it comes to delivering tangible results. Yet, here we are, 4 decades later, and we still don’t even have a basic right to medical care.

I have read what you’ve written perfectly well. Unfortunately for you, you write shit fascist apologia, and can’t seem to accept the existence of anyone who isn’t wholeheartedly swallowing your dumb as hell DNC talking points. Get bent, have fun continuing to lose elections because you can’t accept that your ideals are dumb as hell to anyone who considers them and happens to have two brain cells to rub together.

I hope when the fascists round you up, they personally rub it in your face how enlightened you thought you were.

And yet you still come out against people in safely Democrat districts voting against the DNC’s anointed candidate when said candidate is absolute dogshit. If your actions belie your words, it only makes you look stupid and hypocritical.

Kind of hard to learn from someone who boasts of their own ignorance. What would anyone want to learn from you? How to lose an election and be a totally toothless and ineffective opposition?

Pretty rich coming from a person who swallowed the fascist shit of Kamala’s campaign and is here asking for a second serving. You lot always want to whine that “this isn’t the time to criticize” the DNC candidate, even in the least consequential of elections. Get fucked.

Or, if someone decides to keep being the candidate of the lesser of two evils in a safe, Democrat-voting state, perhaps we could aspire to something more than merely being less of a piece of shit than the other guy? No? I guess you have your answer right there. No matter the time, you people always want to come out of the woodwork to criticize anyone who dare criticizes the Democratic establishment. We wouldn’t be in this situation if asshats like yourself spent half as much time fighting Republicans as you did fighting other Democrats that you find “too” liberal.

Or, and I realize this is a big ask for idiots captured by the Democratic machine, you could spend two minutes to read the actual article and realize that he takes into account that he’s voting in a state that so reliably swings to the Democrats that his vote is negligible when he says he didn’t vote for Kamala. You people would rather twist yourselves into knots rather than realize that you fielded a shit candidate and actually acknowledge that you should do better next time.

No, it’s not you who’s wrong when your base says they can’t vote for you, it’s your constituents who must be wrong, no matter the circumstances.

He also addresses the need to take action between presidential elections, for all the dumbasses who just go “He no vote Kamala, downvote the evil person.”

Removed by mod

Just tell me how you imagine a 13 year old opening a bank account without a guardian present, or purchasing a firearm on their own, and I’ll be happy to concede your point that minors never have their rights restricted by the government in light of them being below the age of majority and unable to fully exercise their civil rights in all circumstances an adult would. This is a settled matter legally, yet rather than citing anything to the contrary, you’ve just resorted to saying “No, you’re wrong” to my initial comment, and inventing delusions in your most recent post to try and keep anyone from noticing you have nothing of substance to back up your claims.

Quite the contrary, you’re just sticking your fingers in your ears and going “I can’t hear you” when faced with settled legal precedent that shows your claims are baseless, but it’s your business if you want to suck even at being a low effort troll.

They still do it, but in different ways now. The government has removed the incentive to reinvest in capital projects and wages to reduce your tax liability, and now companies game it in different ways that tend to just juice the compensation of the executives. Your CEO in 1955 had minimal incentive to boost their own pay above $200,000 because they could only keep 9% of what they earned past that point. It made more sense for them to just reinvest in their companies because they could ensure long-term stability and profitability, or spend money in the short term that ultimately reduced the amount of work they had to do in the future to complete all the tasks they were hired to manage for their $200,000/year salary. Nowadays, companies can just get tax exemptions up front for “creating jobs” before they even break ground on a new plant, put off maintenance and investments into the company and just chuck all that money they saved into stock options for their executives that will be taxed at a rate comparable or lower than what their lowest paid workers will have to pay on their salaries.

There was little point in burning the candle at both ends as a CEO in 1951 to get a $50,000 quarterly bonus for hitting targets if you only got to keep $4,500 of it. Why go nuts trying to juice your income by a measly 2.25% a year when you’re already at the very peak of US incomes? In contrast, a CEO today can go full MBA corporate raider mode, run a company into the ground so it’s shuttering its doors within 5 years, and then screw off to wreck another business after collecting a few quarters’ worth of multi-million dollar stock option bonuses that they’ll only have to pay some modest capital gains tax on. The incentives for good corporate leadership have been completely dismantled and replaced with an entirely perverse set of incentives that are now causing everything to be run into the ground.

Until and unless you have a rebuttal to the concept of In loco parentis, you may as well just shut up, unless your aim is to continue making a fool of yourself. This is broadly applied through the compulsory levels of education in the US, and while it doesn’t automatically invalidate students’ rights, it does give schools broad authority to limit those rights in the place of students’ guardians, who are unable to constantly be present and assent to the school’s every decision, and upper courts have already held that this is sufficient in cases where there exists a compelling interest to do so in order to further the school’s basic purpose as an educational institution.

This is entirely in line with the way minors cannot sign legally binding contracts without their parents co-signing, in most instances. Similarly, see curfew laws and local rules aimed at minors, they’re inability to legally consent until they reach the age of majority, and any other number of situations in which the rights of minors are temporarily curtailed in the name of their own best interests. The notion that minors have the same full civil rights as adults do in all circumstances is entirely devoid of any basis in reality. Indeed, even adults can have their rights abrogated in certain circumstances. You can argue whether it’s right or wrong that someone can lose their right to vote or to bear arms as a consequence of a felony conviction, but absent new laws (such as some of the efforts recently to restore the right to vote to felons in several states), this is a fairly settled matter in law. To act as though this doesn’t occur with full legal sanction in schools on a regular basis in the US is disingenuous, at the very least.

I suspect the bigger cause is just people constantly being told straight-up lies founded on misunderstandings of how tax brackets work from a young age. I got my work permit to be able to get part time jobs when I was 14, and even when I was legally barred from working anywhere close to 40 hours a week, my father was already warning me “be careful if you take extra work, because if you do too much overtime, you could wind up in a different tax bracket and have to pay so much in taxes, you wind up with less money than if you kept working.” Which, now that I think about it, in light of you bringing up corporate taxes and how they work, I believe could just be clever propaganda from business owners misapplied by workers. During that time period, it was a perfectly valid tax strategy for companies to take extra profits and chuck them into capital improvements and similar projects to raise their costs. If they had just kept it as profits, they would have paid substantially more taxes on profits past a certain threshold, and they would make more money in the long term by avoiding those taxes than they would have if they just “made too much in profit” in the one year, to begin with. So, there would be a grain of truth to it in that specific instance, but it’s wholly inapplicable to a worker who believes their check will be smaller after working 50 hours a week than if they had just worked 40.

Is it fake viral posts, or just people not understanding how marginal tax rates work or how they differ from your effective tax rate again? The highest tax rate did cross over 90% at the tail end of WWII, but very few people actually had to pay taxes at that rate, and even then, their effective tax rate would have been much lower.

Edit: Just to illustrate, this site has historical tax rates for the period in question. For the sake of simplifying then math, I’m doing this assuming you only paid 3% income tax on income up to $100,000/year, and 94% on earnings above that with the surtax. Source for the income numbers is straight out of my ass, but it doesn’t really matter, as it’s only to illustrate the point. So, say that year, you managed to make $110,000. You would pay 3% on your first $100,000 in taxable income, and 94% on the remaining $10,000 you earned above that, making your effective rate 11.27% across your whole income, with a tax liability of $12,400. You can have both lower effective tax rates and higher marginal tax rates for your highest earners without either one negating the truth of the other.

Ah, yes, my mighty average of .608 comments per day (including this one), versus your 21.92/day, you’ve really got me with your brilliant wit there. Go learn to troll better.

Wow, you lack the attention span to read two small paragraphs, so that means anyone functionally literate is must be going and dipping into that AI well, too? Projection skills like that could probably land you a fine job at Imax, buddy.

Probably because you publish a sheer volume of comments that rivals a coked up Stephen King’s output trying to browbeat people into not believing their eyes and ears when establishment Democratic figures are being as blatant as they can be in demonstrating they are not on the side of the people and will not be coming to help us, but fighting against us when it comes to down to it.

It’s fucking exhausting to have every thread be full of you guys going “But see, he said he’d only break one of your arms and legs if he wins, not both of them!” as if that’s supposed to make people suddenly say, “You know what, that’s great, he’s got my vote.” when folks simply point out he’s said these things and wish that he would commit to not breaking any of our limbs if elected instead. “Ah, but harm reduction! The republicans will break both your arms and legs if they win.” Yeah, and assholes like Hakeem Jeffries will be holding you down while they do it to make sure they don’t miss while you squirm, thanks a lot.