That’s true but it doesn’t solve the problem now.

I like your general idea, but when you speak in broad terms and make claims that the election wasn’t rigged, when we have specific examples of ways that it was, nobody believes you except people who already did.

You could have said that nobody tampered with voting machines. I don’t think that’s true, because we have some specific evidence that people did, but we don’t have any large-scale evidence. So it’s quite possible that voting machine tampering was irrelevant.

What’s more relevant is things like disenfranchising voters after the election happened, and mailbox burning, and rules that prevent felons from voting, all of which benefit the Republicans. And gerrymandering of course. Those things all happened, and some of them were very large-scale. I think most people would say those count as rigging the election. So if you’re not talking about that, you need to be more specific.

I think what you mean to say is that we should be pressuring public officials to try to bust up Google’s monopoly on many things. And we are doing that, and it is showing some progress. But there is much more work to be done.

YouTube took down the video because of its own policies, not because of copyright law. So we should be blaming YouTube.

I think it’s easy to see exactly why if you consider how YouTube treats small content creators. If I post a video and companies claim copyright on it, the video gets demonetized and I might lose my account. I can respond and contest the claim and maybe I can win but I still lost money in the meantime, and perhaps more significantly, the companies that made their copyright claims will never face a consequence for attempting to burn my channel. In other words, if I get things wrong a few times I’ll lose my channel and my income source, but if they get things wrong a million times, they face zero consequence.

And you might be inclined to blame the media companies. But again, this is YouTube doing what YouTube wants to do of its own volition, and not something that’s required by law. If YouTube valued small-scale content creators and end users, it would create different policies.

You should have learned in driver’s ed that the speed limit is the maximum possible speed you should ever go under ideal driving conditions. If there are children on the side of the road, anyone with half a brain knows that the speed limit is probably far too fast, and you should slow the hell down.

It’s all good to say that you’re following the law, but if you don’t use basic common sense, then it is your fault when you kill a small child. The driver isn’t going to be charged, but that doesn’t mean what they did is okay, and it’s really sad that you think it is.

I read the article. Did you? Did you notice what it didn’t say? We can quickly infer that the man is local and these were local streets. What kind of crazy mother f***** would drive 25 in a 25 when there’s kids right next to them? I know what kind of crazy mother f*****, the kind who wouldn’t care if they struck those kids and killed them. The rest of us would show common sense, we would see the kids, and we would slow down to 15 miles an hour because we know that little kids might step out into the street accidentally and care about the lives of children.

Let me put it simply. If you see a kid near the road, slow the f*** down, you aggressive m***********.

It’s certainly true that the system is broken, but at the same time you’re suggesting we should forgive HR employees for the bad stuff they do, and I don’t think that’s how morality works.

Not only that, we all understand that sometimes employees don’t have control of a situation and they’re going to follow company policy or go along with their bosses. But we can see through their words and their body language how they feel about it, and we can recognize small actions that they could take to make a bad situation slightly less bad. In my experience it’s very rare that you will encounter such behavior in HR, because the vast majority of HR workers are perfectly happy to f*** us over as much as they can.

Last year I was talking with a veteran coworker who was worried about where the company was going to end up in 10 years, but my contract ends in a year and will not be renewed. I told her openly, they’re not paying me to think about 10 years from now, they’re paying me to make the next year a good year, and I don’t really care about the long-term future cuz I won’t be here. She was furious, but she wasn’t furious enough to go get me a long-term contract. I think she never saw the hypocrisy; even today she still thinks that I’m a bad worker.

Except not really. It’s a small town and from the article it sounds like the driver is an old person who has lived there for many years. They know what time kids are around, they know where kids usually hang out, and if they have half a brain they’ll drive 15 mph in those areas.

My regular commute takes me near an elementary school, and every morning when I see those kids I drop my speed very low because you never know what they’re going to do. It’s your basic moral responsibility to keep the speed down because you know that small children don’t have the experience and common sense to keep themselves out of the street.

What you just described is a system that mistreats your workers. Those temporary hires, if they lose their jobs, they can’t put food on the table. But if the company loses a temporary worker, it’s not going to be troubled, they’re just going to go hire another person.

That all being said, if you’re working under contract and your company has robust protections for retaliation by employers, some of the risk of telling them in advance goes away. That’s great, but there’s still some remaining risk. Many bosses will be vengeful, bitter, and they may sabotage your work however they can for the last few weeks or months. And you won’t be able to stop them, because you’re leaving, so even if you filed an internal complaint, it wouldn’t go anywhere.