You botched the math here - it's about 0.6% of the population.
Yes, you are correct, my bad.
In my opinion, small businesses with less than 10 employees shouldn't be allowed to be a corporation to begin with.
How did you come to determine that the number of employees should be the guiding factor in whether or not incorporation should be allowed? Wouldn't that create huge liability issues and severely disadvantage small businesses prior to reaching 10 (or whatever number we pick) employees, stifle genuine grassroots entrepreneurship, and just further entrench the already massive corporations that do exist?
And speaking of corporations, their current legally required structure is bullshit and should be completely redone from the ground up.
What is it that you dislike about corporate structure? The owners (Shareholders) elect/appoint the Board of Directors and assign them their mandate (to run the company); the Board of Directors hires and oversees the officers of the company like the CEO and CFO, setting their priorities and direction. The officers then handle the day to day affairs as the highest on the hierarchy of full time employees. What would you prefer that can't fit into this structure?
They were political activists, nothing more.
Ultracrepidarian.
I don't use TikTok and have a limited understanding of it, but what grave national security risk does it pose if China is violating EU privacy laws almost certainly for the express purposes of being able to sell targeted advertising?
I believe the concern stems from the idea (either real or imaginary) that the data TikTok collects would be used by the CCP to create profiles on individual users that could be used to create targeted advertising... where the advertising was for a particular political candidate that is favorable to the CCP. I'm not saying this is happening, it's just my understanding that this is the fear which underpins the "tiktok dangerous" argument.
What problems could it cause that actually matter though? These are livestock and not wild animals with the possibility of some long-tail repercussions to the overall ecology down the road. As long as they can reproduce as needed, grow to the expected size, and stay healthy long enough to make it to slaughter, what else is there?
What problems could it cause? I mean, that's exactly the thing I wonder about. Maybe it will cause unforeseen problems down the line that will impact their ability to "reproduce as needed, grow to the expected size, and stay healthy long enough to make it to slaughter". I'm not saying that means it's bad, or we shouldn't do it, I just figure that when it comes to making genetic modifications there's a good chance we're not able to simulate every possible consequence beforehand.
This is a common misconception. The problem is that those were writers that used the politics to talk about a story.
I think you should go back and re-read / re-study Swift's Gulliver's Travels (as a singular example) if you think that. The idea that he used political happenings of the time to enhance his story, as opposed to using a story to critique the political happenings of the time, is simply mistaken.
Unfortunately modern writers have decided that they are no longer writers, but political activists. They don't create engaging characters. They create a podium, a sockpuppet from which to preach to the audience.
Hmm. I dunno about this take. Some of the greatest writers were also "political activists" by today's standards. Orwell, Swift, Huxley, for example. 1984 is certainly a very political work. Orwell had a message, he conveyed it through excellent writing and storytelling. Gulliver's Travels was Swift's satire of various peoples and institutions of the times. It's not the case that you have to be a writer or an activist and you can't be both, that would be a false dichotomy (not trying to put words in your mouth or say that your taking this position, just extrapolating). I don't actually think it's contentious to say that many of the best works of writing throughout history are also political; some subtly, some overtly.
It sounds more like what you dislike is bad writing. I too don't care for bad writing! There are many ham-fisted political works that try to ram a message down your throat with bad writing and they exist on all sides of the spectrum. I would say the so-called "woke" ideology just happens to be the one that is in the sharpest relief at the moment. I'm somewhat neutral on it, so I don't really understand why people get so riled up on it. To me it's just as bad as some dumb action flick purporting to be a-political but absolutely reeking of nationalism (for example).
Regardless of whether a mission expands or contracts, administrative overhead continues to grow at a steady rate.
