100% the American in me, but every time these bans get talked about it always feels like the true source is to remove/mitigate liability of everyone having a camera except the school(s).
Sorry for including a differing sentiment on this thrilling 5 paragraph synopsis of what is likely a well demonstrated argument. Don’t hate on me, hate on the low quality post fron OP.
No apologies needed. I wasn’t trying to attack your opinion, merely trying to explain what the discussion in the Netherlands is about and that privacy or liability isn’t an issue here :)
> Commercial use of Docker Desktop at a company of more than 250 employees OR more than $10 million in annual revenue requires a paid subscription (Pro, Team, or Business)
To be fair, if you have fewer than 250 employees and are going to stay that way for very long then you have no business worrying about automating onboarding scripts. It will take too much of your time for too little gain.
As package maintainer you are required to sign the packages with a PGP key. Maven Central also requires that you upload that PGP key (the public part only of course) to one of a few well-known key servers.
It's worse over here isn't an argument for anything. Things are terrible in America, you have my sympathy. But they're getting worse everywhere. Part of the deal in the EU is that middle class wages are (often much) lower, in return for cheap / free healthcare and affordable housing. Once side of the social contract hasn't been held up.
Just to add to that, this number is not really representative (at least for Germany when you are working). I work full time, so I pay about 700€/month for health insurance. Not that it's a competition but we are not that far away from your prices.
Whoa that's a lot! For me in Switzerland that's 370chf (less than 400eur). True we don't have dental included but still it's a huge difference - also wages are much higher in Switzerland so... Are you sure you don't mean your whole family plan???
Health and care insurance in Germany combined a bit over 1000€ per working adult. During hard times it covered whole family including all kids. With working wife it’s two times 1000€ a month. So 25000€ a year for a family. But every health measure from this century and glasses are on top. So on bad years it’s normal to pay few thousands on top. So “family plan” is 30000€ in Germany. No chance to avoid it. Private insurance is not recommended for families, because kids cost extra.
Edit: these are the maximal sums for white collar workers. One pays less when earning less.
> Are you sure you don't mean your whole family plan???
In Germany, there's no dedicated "family plan" unless you're rich enough to have private insurance. Your spouse (if they are not working full time on their own and thus have insurance from that employment) and children are by default included in your plan.
We don't have much included in terms of dental care either.
Put another way, everyone in Germany except the rich are forced to pay for a full-price family plan that includes coverage for spouse and kids, and do not even have the option to instead opt for a much cheaper individual plan that only covers themself?
That sounds like single people are indirectly subsidizing the healthcare of families by paying full price without reaping the full benefits. This sounds less fair to me than the American system where an individual can opt to pay much less in exchange for coverage only for themself.
Unless I am misunderstanding and such an option does exist in Germany?
> Put another way, everyone in Germany except the rich are forced to pay for a full-price family plan that includes coverage for spouse and kids, and do not even have the option to instead opt for a much cheaper individual plan that only covers themself?
Well, the rich have to pay far more expensive private-insurance plans, and the 88% on the government insurance scheme pay a fixed share of their wages (~15%). Each according to their ability, and everyone is paying in solidarity with everyone else. Those on unemployment benefits have their contributions paid for by the unemployment insurance (which is also mandatory and a percentage of your wages).
> That sounds like single people are indirectly subsidizing the healthcare of families by paying full price without reaping the full benefits. This sounds less fair to me than the American system where an individual can opt to pay much less in exchange for coverage only for themself.
Well, the American system may sound "fairer" on paper, but has massive downsides for society at large - it disincentivises people from having children, tying healthcare to employment leads people being trapped in toxic workplace environments, and stuff like "out of pocket thresholds" is a massive issue for low-income earners, particularly those with chronic illnesses like diabetes.
And: Something like diabetics stretching their insulin or people in obvious need of an ambulance telling bystanders to not call an ambulance because they can't afford it is completely unheard of here. In fact, we consider such reports to be unworthy of a "developed nation".
I want to point out that low income earners in the states pay far less out of pocket than the middle class - the expenses of the poor are covered by Medicaid, and that's just the tip of the spear in terms of the sheer number of social assistance programs the US provisions to those experiencing poverty.
Nah, they just threw bodies at the problem - shifts be damned. In the US people were working most if not all days of the week. We’re lucky we got where we are now with a 5 day work week brought about by union pressure.
> We’re lucky we got where we are now with a 5 day work week brought about by union pressure.
This is not backed up by any source I can find. Nearly every source says that the 5 day week was invented by unions in the 1800s, popularized by Henry Ford at the Ford motor company due to measurable improvements to productivity, and made law in the 1930s (in the US) to attempt to counter wide-spread unemployment during the Great Depression. Union pressure is not mentioned anywhere, and honestly doesn't make any sense given that unions were not particularly powerful in those time periods.
> Union pressure is not mentioned anywhere, and honestly doesn't make any sense given that unions were not particularly powerful in those time periods.
Unions were so powerful in the early 1900s that multiple revolutions occurred in part due to their pressure and actions all around the industrialised world. And the fear of strikes led to many reforms and regulations to take talking points off unions (like Bismarck enacting the first welfare state to be a step ahead of social democrats).
Specifically in the US, look at the Coal Wars and the Battle of Blair Mountain in which the US army fought with aircraft and artillery against striking miners.
