themurphy

Big if, because you expect a US company to win.

These numbers are like proclaiming you won an "election" with 90% votes.

Yeah... There goes my subscription. I'm casting everything to Chromecast on my older TV.

That's the thing. They wont pay you more. Maybe some people would get the extra money, but all new employees would get the same salary for more hours.

Exactly this. Streaming was a thing long time before Netflix, but they made it so damn easy.

Now Netflix fucked it, and streaming piracy became so damn easy that more people did it than before.

If they close down piracy streaming/download, guess what. Dark web access, or i2p maybe, will be so damn easy.

People are willing to do it, if there's no service that's worth it's money.

Piracy is a service issue. Most of us would pay, if the service is good enough.

Maybe, just maybe, MAGA supporters will one day realize that the reason there's so many foreign bots making propaganda about Trump, is because he weakens the US.

That's a good point. But The Führer is not something positive, and I wouldnt think much about it.

I'm don't think this was an intentional way to make him sound better. I think we should be much more aware of fact checking what it says, than overusing a historical word to describe Hitler. That might just be an AI thing.

Tbh, from a historical point of view, The Führer was used to describe Hitler. Now in Germany, it's basically only used to refer to him.

I'm not for deleting history, and I think the context is important. People needs to know why The Führer or "der Führer" is bad.

A context which I think would have helped in another example would be the N-word. If everyone was really taught the history around that word, I think/hope alot of people would think twice before using it today.

Or is that only me?

Jesus would've hated America. I think according to the bible he lost his shit twice - both because of capitalism.

Should be illegal for a company to comment on the stock market. It's basically manipulation.

Exactly my point, which means you missed it.

The things you quoted pointed to the things making CEOs less important, while other points the opposite.

So just to be very clear about my point: CEOs are very different jobs. Some can be cut, some cant, because CEO doesnt really mean anything other than "person in charge".

If we need to make good arguments against CEOs, at least try a little.

Wouldnt it be possible that "CEO" is different things in different companies?

Would it be possible that CEOs have people employed to take some of their tasks? Some CEOs, all their tasks?

Is a CEOs job the same when theres 50 people under him/her or 5000? Which do you think could run itself the best?

I also want the CEO job to be handle by someone who actually has a function, and is a good leader with morale and empathy.

But just saying "muuuh CEO bad because!!" is killing the discussion.