Why? This is asserted throughout this HN thread as an obvious truism, but it seems precipiced on some dramatic right wing free market concept of how the world works that I can't tell is coming from the libertarians of hacker news, or is some kind of USA concept.
Why should society let the concept of a company exist if it is actively detrimental to society at large, for the gain of a very few?
Allowing something isn't the same as enforcing it to be allowed. If there's regulation, like with ending roaming charges between countries, then it's required to be followed simultaneously across the EU. If there's a directive, like the Working Time Directive, goals of legislation are set out and each member state is required to introduce legislation that implements it. There's also decisions (for one country for one issue), recommendations and opinions (obviously non binding).
There's also the Court of Justice which is the highest court, but only in EU matters. National courts can refer cases to it, or the commission/member states can bring cases against other member states, if they believe they are not following EU law. This would mean either they are not following a regulation, or that the state has not fully/correctly implemented a directive into their own national laws.
As I understand it, there's no specific regulation or directive aimed at gambling itself. There's things tangentially related (data protection, anti money laundering etc). But since there's no regulation or directive saying "gambling must be allowed", there's nothing stopping a member state banning it completely if they so wish.
The only point in which the EU might step in would be if the law was somehow discriminatory or inconsistent (e.g. we ban all foreign gambling sites, but not our own, we ban lottery tickets but not state run casinos, etc).
Good thing then that there's a range of options between being let go immediately for no reason and companies being forced to employ bad employees for life.
Yes and that's basically what we have in most of Europe.
Only France really has a bit of the latter.
You can get rid of employees. You just have to show to the court that is necessary. Circumstances depend on whether it's individual performance or business need etc.
But the at will is very harsh and we don't want this here.
In NL I guess that is similar to France; in our case we always started a binder on a new employee so after their trial period/temp contract, we continue collecting info. If that person just waited for the trial to be over to just do nothing, we go to the court with the binder and get them out. We stopped after a certain period depending on what we collected so far: most binders are empty anyway. Also, you can fire someone without that if you have economic cause (which should be the reason for firing someone good) or you can fire them without that by paying them some months in the future.
The most annoying people, which we didnt have many but still a few, are the ones who, right after the trial period, or when they smell a rat, will go 'oh no, i feel something behind my eye and in my wrist, your work made me ill' and then go home. you would have to pay them and be nice about it (not threaten them with a beating).
AUstria (and especially Switzerland) has virtually at-will employment. No need to show anything to any court, just the notice period. Job security is virtually non existent.
> If you're not American, then you may not understand the way the American voting system works.
This is incredibly unlikely, given how pervasive American politics is, and how much the results of the American elections affects the rest of the world. Additionally, having a two party system is unfortunately pretty common.
I've seen plenty of comments from people outside the US that clearly don't understand how the US system works. For that matter, that's not limited to people outside the US.
As a german, i can assure you, GPs comment was spot on and is very transferable to germany, no matter how many serious parties are listed on the ballots. Its is the elites, slowly undermining democracies and public/private institutions all over the western world in similar ways.
I've talked with a number of people online from Europe (particularly the UK) who came in with the assumption that a parliamentary system was the default. (I don't consider this a mark against them: everyone is likely to start out with the assumption that the first thing they learn about is the default. They were just part of that day's lucky 10,000.)
There are a great many reasons why people might misunderstand why so many people voted for Trump, and most of them start with assuming your own experience is universal, at least in certain realms. I suspect that, for people outside the US, not really understanding our voting/electoral system is one of the top ones, and it's a very understandable one. I prefer to go for it first, because the one I consider next most likely is a bit less charitable: assuming that everyone shares your privileges. (ie, "surely no one could possibly be so uneducated as to think that Trump was anything but a liar and a fascist." Buddy, you can't even imagine how bad the American education system can be, or how hard it is to care about anything other than the bare necessities when you're poor...)
I feel I just need to run a slightly too large LLM with too much context on a MBP, and it's enough to slow it down irreparably until it suddenly hard resets. Maybe the memory pressure it does that at is much higher though compared to Linux?
reply