placatedmayhem

joined 1 year ago
[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago

It's exactly this. The policies put in place by "healthcare administrators" (MBAs and such with healthcare flavoring, not people that actually know how to care for people's health like doctors and nurses) are designed to process the most patience in the least amount of face time possible, so that each doctor and nurse can see more patients per day, meaning more office visit fees, meaning higher profit. My dad calls it the "cattle shoot" and I feel that's a pretty apt analogy. It's the same general reason that fast food restaurants and pharmacies and department stores are perpetually understaffed: fewer staff members means lower "overhead" costs.

[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 20 points 4 weeks ago

Linking outside of their website would reduce engagement, thus ad revenue. I'd put money on this is why so many news sites rarely link out anymore.

[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago (6 children)

This is called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish". Microsoft coined the term internally for their responses to open standards in the 90's and 00's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (4 children)
[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Correct. In the US, these practices are commonly not paid by employers.

[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 99 points 3 months ago (10 children)

The requirement should be that any time an employer makes a demand of an employee's time, they pay.

FA waiting on your plane to arrive that's 6 hours late? Pay up.

15 Apple store employees lined up and waiting to get searched by a single manager after a shift? Pay up.

Require an employee to respond to phone calls or issues after hours? That's not "after hours", that's hours. Pay up.

Make an employee commute to an office for a job that can be accomplished from home? Believe it or not, pay the hell up.

Making demands of a person's time for a job is part of the job. They should be compensated for it.

[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh, I totally agree -- didn't mean to give any impression otherwise. Filling the energy demand gap as quickly as possible with the least impactful generation source should be very high on societal goals, IMO. And it seems like that is what's happening, mostly. Solar, wind, and storage are the largest share of what's being brought up this year:

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/chart-nearly-all-new-us-power-plants-built-in-2024-will-be-clean-energy

[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

As I understand it, planning new, grid-scale nuclear power plants takes 10-20 years. While this isn't a reason not to start that process now, it does mean something needs to fill the demand gap until the nuke plants (and other clean sources) come online to displace the dirty generation, or demand has to be artificially held down, through usage regulation or techniques like rolling blackouts, all of which I would imagine is pretty unpalatable.

[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 86 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Second. John Barnett was the first in early March.

[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Misread, but I'm leaving it!

[–] placatedmayhem@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

"May you live in interesting times."

view more: next ›