Well that's certainly a ballsy move. I think he ought to foot to bill for his client to receive competent counsel, because I don't see how the court could allow this attorney to continue with the case (or his ability to practice law) after this. His client has no reason to trust that his lawyer is capable of representing his interests going forward.

This guy has done the improbable and somehow managed to lower my opinion of lawyers. It was already a low bar, but this man is the new limbo champion. The only saving grace here is that this is a civil matter and no one will be going to jail for this man's failings. Perhaps he should though, if for no other reason that to dissuade anyone else from acting as foolishly.

I could be convinced to pay a dollar to watch something that an AI shit out that was packaged as a feature film. I can't say they would get a second dollar out of me, but it would be one dollar more than I've spend on Indonesian films otherwise, so it does represent an incredible amount of growth for the industry.

What good does a union do for them exactly? They're not in control of who can produce movies any more than Fox, CNN, ABC, et al. can prevent someone else from starting a new news station. Do you believe that if the telephone switchboard operators had formed a network union that they'd still all have jobs or even consider the notion that they might a good thing.

Is this a troll post? I can understand why a poorly programmed autocorrect would use "a union" instead of a union, but mine doesn't and I can't imagine anyone would actually type that twice intentionally if they were being at all serious.

What in modern society requires signing up for monthly payments to any service? The only thing that even comes close for the average person is renting a property to live in. Many people sign yearly leases for apartments that have some penalty for cancellation, but people can always opt for a a monthly lease if they don't want to commit for a full year. I can't think of much else a regular person actually needs aside from something like a car loan. The only penalty there is that they repossess your car.

I must admit I'm shocked to learn I'm living and participating in some past society because I don't have any of this crap. Even the streaming services I have either have month to month options or bill me for the full year at the time of purchase. I don't need to use any of them as I could always choose to rent or purchase to own any of the content on those services. What amazing things am I missing out on that I ought to be subscribing to.

You probably didn't intend for this interpretation of the government regulation business practices but I am to believe that you are on board with the government forbidding businesses to hire black employees or that would require businesses serving black customers to segregate them from white customers? Those are examples of government regulation of business that actually occurred.

What I expect you meant is that you're okay with government regulation of business that agrees with your own politics. Be careful with the powers you grant to governments less you find yourself at the mercy of one now controlled by those with the opposite politics.

The infotainment system in the car is one of the last things I would ever need an update for. It's not going to be long until some company starts pushing ads onto those things. In the future wealthy people will buy dumb products that cost more but don't shove endless advertisements down their throats.

Sort of, but not rely though. The number one cause is an infinitely recursive definition. It's toxic because it's toxic. What does that mean? Didn't I tell you, it's toxic? You may as well replace the word and claim that the majority of jobs are Morgovolactic. If you have solutions to fix a Morgovolactic workplace If like to hear them. I think they'll be equally effective at fixing a toxic one.

The second result is nothing new. Most managers are crap. The Peter Principle predicts this. Lack of growth opportunities is vague in terms of meaning, but I think it means that workers are upset that they can't be promoted to a management position they'll be awful at themselves. That there is a monkey's paw in the making if I ever saw one.

The last two are just having to deal with lazy coworkers. They're probably taking an emotional health day though, so who could fault them. It's unfortunate that everyone else is stuck shouldering the load. Perhaps they should take it up with management that probably has no power to fix anything or fire anyone. If they could it would only lead to further staff shortages.

The more I think about this, the more I think it's just young people who were fortunate enough to have a very sheltered childhood. Unfortunately for them it did not prepare them for the real world and now they don't understand why it's different. Previous generations weren't that different or magically better off, but they had a shittier childhood experience that allowed them to realize that life isn't perfect and that things could always be worse. I doubt that even with a time machine I could get my younger self to agree that that any of the shit, no matter how inconsequential, I had to deal with in my younger years was, I can now appreciate it for having prepared me to deal with worse. I'm almost old enough to wish more grief upon my younger self that I would be better prepared for the present, but I'm still young and stupid enough to not fully appreciate adversity for what it is.

Is this a recent phenomenon? Did sociopaths of the past not seek positions of power or were they somehow kept from the reigns of it? Were Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Hitler, et al. misunderstood nice guys?

The people who want it more will tend to win on average because they'll try harder, even if they're less talented, qualified, or unsuitable for the position. It might even be beneficial at a societal level. God forbid some other company or country has a better sociopath in charge than we do. We'd be screwed if that happened.

The lack of peaceful hippie tribes across time and region seems to prove that not having a better sociopath than the next tribe over isn't a viable long term strategy for your civilization. Reality sucks like that, but there's no escaping it.

A brick through the window of an Amazon executive may help them discover representative shops in their area that they may be interested in.

You'd be doing them a service really. Think of the experience they'll have.

It's probably as you state to some degree. There are certainly people I've worked with over the years that I felt made my own work experience worse for myself or those around me. Sometimes you just have to learn to deal with a shitty boss or how to look for a new job. I think I've learned more about working with other people and successful management strategies from horrible bosses and their mistakes than anything else. If my own experiences were perfect I'd only make all the same mistakes later and make others miserable as a result. But

I also think there are a lot of people who consider everyone they work with to be an asshole without a single bit of reflection. I also think there's been a shift in what younger generations are expecting out of work. I've noticed that some of them expect everyone to be their friend and think there's something wrong if that's not happening. Most people will likely make friends with some of their co-workers, but the expectation that this is required is absurd to me. I'm paid to work with you, not to be buddies. Whatever is causing this should be addressed because sparing a child some discomfort that leads to them being emotionally stunted and miserable in later life isn't doing them any favors.

Music would survive without the music industry. What put an end to Napster was Apple and Amazon being able to sell music. I find it strange that Spotify is as successful as it is when Apple rode the idea of owning rather than renting music to its success. The grandparent poster has the right of it, if artists don't like Spotify's terms or business model then don't do business with them. Cut a deal with Amazon or Apple and sell digital copies of an album for $5 and people will buy it. Or just go the Radiohead route and let people pay whatever they think it's worth. It will balance out and the real money has always been made by getting more people to come to a live show and buy a shirt on their way out.

35% is a good start, but nowhere near where it should be at. Middle management is the gutter where corporate detritus collects. Upper management that claims to need middle management are good candidates for replacement or redundancy themselves.

I've found that about fifteen to twenty years is good enough to give noticeable improvements. I bought a 4K LED-based TV a few years ago to replace the Plasma TV that I had for over a decade and there was a considerable difference. Adjust for inflation I paid less for a larger display with higher resolution and better picture quality. Anything I could buy now would only be marginally better in one of those dimensions and would cost more for it. In another decade or so I'll likely be able to get the same kind of upgrade where it's a larger display with a higher resolution and better image quality (though my eyes may not be able to discern the differences as they age) for less money again. I'm anticipating that I will have what can be considered a home theater setup by that point. Maybe I'll need to upgrade my house to be able to fit the display in it.

This sounds like giving guns to monkeys at the local zoo. I'm sure nothing will go horribly wrong.

How is this different than any other society precisely? Those that are wealthy generally have some form of public assistance to keep people from dying outright. Even in the U.S. there's little risk of anyone starving or going homeless unless they're a drug addict and even then there are programs to help those people.

It's often reported that upwards of 60% of the population is living paycheck to paycheck. Other reports put the percentage of the population below the poverty line at around 12% and generally trending down since we first started measuring it. By definition this must include some people earning above median household income. That suggests that there is a serious problem with people trying to live beyond their means and includes many who could be saving more money, but choose not to for whatever reason.

There is no magic society where this problem does not exist regardless of economic system. Are the poor in Venezuela better off because the country is less capitalist? Was Soviet Russia less happy to let its poor die or scratch out some meager existence? The only thing different under capitalism is that some enterprising people have managed to turn the poor decision making of some people into a business. Humans by and large value the future much less than the present. There's no fixing that. You could outlaw those payday loan companies and it would not make any of the people who do business with them less poor.