My view on this is very different from most commenters. I love work, and early in my career really thrived in a "996" job. I wrote more about it here as a response to this post, "In defense of 996": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152608
The first comment on my post was "fuck off". I'm not trying to push my working style on anyone else, I simply like to work hard. What's wrong with that?
You're welcome to work hard, and take the 996 positions if they please you. America largely adheres to at-will employment, the more overtime you clock is the less I have to deal with.
After a certain point though, you're laundering the idea of mistreatment through your own identity. For example, maybe 1 in a million Chinese textile workers really does feel like stitching together Disney branded tee shirts is their life's calling. That doesn't mean that everyone else should subsist below the poverty line because they won't step up to meet that person's 996 dedication. Many people will scorn your eagerness to work, especially if you're not producing anything revolutionary or novel with your effort.
It's all about what you have at the end of the day. If you put in 10 years at companies that underpaid you, mistreated you and never gave you significant equity, you were simply taken advantage-of and refuse to admit it. If you really are a 10x engineer then yeah, I'd argue you wasted your time and haphazardly threw away your talent for a zero-net lifestyle.
Unsurprisingly, this title grossly misleads. RTFA. The journos didn’t leave the area after they were ordered to by police and that is why they were “rounded up”.
I believe your reading is incorrect. The police are not allowed to order journalists to leave the area or to "round them up." The police were given a legal order by a judge not to do this. They did it anyway, issuing an unlawful order as applied to journalists.
If the police can't themselves operate within the law they're sworn to uphold, why do they deserve any deference or respect?
I’m saying the conversation should focus on whether or not the police were allowed to do this, not colorful language like “journalists being rounded up.”
This is ultimately the question though. The Press is the so-called 4th estate of government. They provide information to the people about how the government (and it’s agents) operate. The police didn’t tell the press to disperse, they told the protest to do so.
So are the Press part of the protest? Are they impartial and there in an objective observer capacity only (can they be?)
I don’t know the answers to those, but it’s not hard to see police using this tactic to prevent press from observing and reporting.
"And if these people stop, the world burns. Most people don't even know what sysadmins do, but trust me, if they all took a lunch break at the same time they wouldn't make it to the deli before you ran out of bullets protecting your canned goods from roving bands of mutants."[1]
> Who said it’s a crime for businesses to keep their own interests in mind
Nobody? Certainly, not the person you're responding to. This comment _almost_ feels like a non-sequitor to me. Someone saying to "keep something in mind" is _not_ them calling it a crime.
Some would argue that that shouldn't mean Amazon gets to impose conditions that cause a non-trivial amount of workers to be forced to do things like pee in bottles, or fight for their right to not endure such conditions (amongst other harsh conditions like extremely high quotas).
The first comment on my post was "fuck off". I'm not trying to push my working style on anyone else, I simply like to work hard. What's wrong with that?