There was a Biff question on Jeopardy yesterday (I think, I’m in a weird time zone), and my first thought was the response would be “what is Trum- er Biff! I mean Biff!”

Sort of. Managers still get in a room and decide how the bonus pool should be distributed by ranking people.

Having a more aggressive manager is important for getting a better bonus.

I could see this factoring into layoff decisions.

Thanks for clarifying your view - I get where you’re coming from now. I’m not conflating society and government so much as recognizing that in most real-world societies, the line between the two isn’t always so clean. Governments often represent collective values, even imperfectly, and they’re the mechanism through which rights are codified and enforced.

You might believe in total free speech, but I’d argue that most societies - even the most liberal democracies - accept some limits to protect others’ rights or prevent harm. If speech truly had zero consequences beyond social disapproval, that could leave vulnerable groups exposed to abuse. So, societies have a right to draw those lines differently, based on their own values.

Anyways, since you can’t be civil (i.e. you’re a fucking asshole who can’t argue without ad hominem attacks), I’m done communicating with you.

Also also, if you were Canadian, what trouble could you possibly get in being critical of Thailand? You’re either an insane coward or a liar for that one

Perhaps I’m not in Canada right now. Maybe think outside your tiny little box and stop being a numb skull (see, I can insult you, too.)

Do you agree with any limits on free speech in a society?

I won’t give my opinion because I don’t want it to lead to me getting in any kind of trouble, if that makes you feel any better.

But in any case, my point is you can’t project your beliefs onto others.

I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I’m saying you can’t project your beliefs on others.

They should make three, and they all have to agree, but if only one disagrees then maybe they can ignore it, call it the “minority account” or something like that.

Sure, but freedom of speech should be protected from government prosecution or suppression…

Why? That’s not fundamental to a functioning society. Its not an inalienable right.

In Thailand, a monarchy, the monarchy is sacrosanct. Who are you to tell them that’s wrong?

…to the extent possible*…

…or to the extent that society/community desires… FTFY

Don’t get me wrong, in Canada, I think speech absolutely needs to be protected. But there are still limits to that. For example, hate speech should be prohibited.

Did you know “obscenity” is not protected by the first amendment in the US? What does that even mean? It really depends on how society views things. https://uwm.edu/freespeech/faqs/what-is-obscenity/#%3A~%3Atext=Speech+about+sex+and+sexuality%2Cprotected+by+the+First+Amendment

In Thailand, they put limits on speech that include not insulting the monarchy. It really doesn’t seem that different. (And I won’t give you my opinion on it.)

Archive: https://archive.is/9ITeH

Does this mean the other products they ship aren’t hit with tariffs? Are they somehow wholly made in the US vs the ones that were dropped?

Edit: found my own answer:

“We priced our laptops when tariffs on imports from Taiwan were 0%. At a 10% tariff, we would have to sell the lowest-end SKUs at a loss.”

Name

We need to make this @cheese_greater@lemmy.world’s top comment of all time.