Most of the rest of the western world where there is decent employee protections there is usually a clause in the local version of the Basic Conditions of Employment act that reads something like:
"The employer shall provide the employee with all resources and materials necesary to complete the Work for which they have been employed."
I’ve learned that’s what’s the law and what’s done in practice are often quite different.
Eg. A tool belt may not be necessary to get your job done, so the company won’t provide one. However it may make the work experience a 100x better, so everyone is likely to have personally bought their own.
Yes, we need better laws and better enforcement. For some reason the modern conservative movement detests anything like this somehow suggesting this is in the employee’s interest because they now have more freedom.
One of the weirdest things for me when I moved to the USA was learning that car mechanics have their own tools... when they change workplaces they take their toolbox with them.
in some cases they do! a friend worked for a labour intensive job (X days on, Y days off) and they have a yearly use-it-or-lose-it allowance that he was allowed to claim expenses against for things like boots, jackets, safety gear, etc
the (former) employee keeps them (i imagine for a myriad of reasons like hygiene and various overheads it would take to track such)
things like tools (wrenches, drills, bits, etc) are separately supplied by the company per department/work area (sort of like hot desking in the office world) and stay with the company at all times
Guess it depends on field and where ya work. Places I've worked at will provide tools that you then keep. Only things I haven't kept are "Borrowed" tools which are your couple grand diagnostic tools, or other similar items.
All drills, anything I've bought through tool allowances, and the such, I've kept.
My dad would get a coupon for a pair of steel-toe boots every 5 years from his employer, and he got to keep the old boots after they "wore out". Now he's got a clean rack of pretty good looking boots after 25 years at the same place.
I’ve had… three separate employers provide me steel toe boots. (Well, had me buy some and reimbursed it.) All allowed me to keep them.
I think it’s mostly just a matter of people’s feet varying in size so much it’s not worth the hassle to try and provide them directly or get them back after, because I’ve had uniform shirts and pants and things taken back, washed, and given to someone else… just never shoes.
Whenever the slightest shred of pro-worker regulation, in this case even something that already exists, is being discussed, I can always count on HN’s strong US contingent to be dismissive and act like the rest of the world hasn’t solved this already.
What is rest of the world? I notice 100s of millions in Asia and Africa working in rather horrible condition compare to US at 1/10th of pay even after adjusting lower cost of living.
Who wears suits these days? I've only even interviewed at one place with so much as a dress code (Lockheed Martin, industrial year student 20 years ago, the Havant office is ridiculously close to my parent's house at the time, I didn't get the job anyway).
Yes, I briefly considered that idea and immediately discarded it. It would only make any sense at all in industries where the cubicles were a big part of the costs and margins were thin.
I'd say most industries do not match this description, and that most of the increase in the S&P500 over the last 40 years was due to real revenue growth, not cost cutting
Those will automatically not be my friends. Anyone who cares about sports (especially televised) or celebrities can go sit somewhere else. Or religion. Helps immensely with filtering as it usually is one of the first things you find out.
Talking nerd stuff is nicer and as such I only have nerds as friends and I married one, but there is no shortage of them. So far I made friends at any age (I am in my 50s).
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. This thread was bad enough already but a comment like this is an obvious degradation. We want the opposite here.
The things being discussed in these threads are valid criticism. The cars have deep flaws and the corporation has an expectation that exuberant owners will continue to do free marketing and PR for them.
Ban away if you need to but I'll continue to level valid critiques at a tech company selling an $80,000 luxury sedan without a spare tire.
"Snark or flamebait" as determined by tech bros that own the car?
On any given day there are 30 fresh topics getting lambasted by the terminally online nerds that populate this site but the second someone brings up Tesla-- Mods show up to enforce "civility" and pass out bans to anybody with 'wrong' opinions.
Hacker News being pointlessly negative is such a meme that people blackhole links coming from HN just to avoid the "free condescending advice", seems fitting these same reply guys can't handle the lightest of criticisms against their god-king or his ewaste cars.
We get called "the orange site" because name dropping Hacker News on social media causes a swarm of scavengers to attack you like a dead fish hitting the ocean floor.
I understand you have a difficult job making sense of the above + trying to prevent it from getting worse but genuinely this interaction leaves me feeling like getting my main account banned from HN would be a badge of honor.
If you want to make this kind of argument, you need a stronger basis than "So much worse than that, because they go online and simp for the company after doing it". I don't think it's a close call to refer to that as snark or flamebait.
> the second someone brings up Tesla-- Mods show up to enforce "civility" and pass out bans to anybody with 'wrong' opinions
This is illusory. It feels that way only because you have strong feelings about $topic and are more likely to notice the moderation cases that feel wrong to you (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). In reality, the distribution is more or less random. We have zero interest in moderating Tesla topics or any $topic more than any other, and we don't care what your or anyone else's $opinion is.
Literally the only thing we care about is people posting in the intended spirit of the site: thoughtful, substantive, curious conversation, as outlined in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you had expressed your opinion in that way, I'd never have replied; and if you had expressed the opposite opinion in the same way, I'd have replied the same way. As a matter of fact I have no clue what your opinion even is.
As for "civility" - we haven't used that word in many years and it doesn't reflect how we think about moderation.
"Stop making fun of my favorite billion dollar company. I just gave them 80k of my hard earned cash, therefore it must be good, and you should also buy it."
Edit: We've had to ask you this many times before. I don't want to ban you but if you keep breaking HN's rules we are going to have to. We've cut you a ton of slack already; it's not infinite, so please fix this.
I don't own a Tesla, and I'm not an apologist. But there are multiple reasons to own the car. And not all of them have to do with saving the planet, cameras, or the glovebox.
Won't someone think of the children? A whole generation of high schoolers deprived of the ability to steal their daddy's luxury sedan and bang their girlfriend in the front seat without the car narcing on them.
Body armour dissipates lots of the bullet energy in the act of breaking. Prince Rupert drop armour would mostly result in the bullet snookering a glass chunk into you instead. Even if you could make a solid glass plate that wouldn't break when shot (doubtful), the transmitted energy of a bullet would still be more damaging because it would all end up in your body, not in heating up the broken shards of a ceramic plate.
The transmitted energy does end in your body in case of normal bulletproof vest tho. Only very little is converted into heat, the main job is to spread it around. Movies as usual do a terrible job of portraying reality here.
Ceramics aren't used because they break on impact, they are used because they are harder per kg than steel so the whole thing can be lighter.
Imaginary "unbreakable plate" would still be backed by layers designed to slow down the pulse and dissipate that energy and if it was thinner and lighter than ceramics that means you can put more materials behind it and still come out ahead
Only the head of the Prince Rupert drop is tough, due to high levels of stress in the glass (its made by dripping viscous melted glass into water). Interestingly, the whole drop with shatter into glass dust if the filament like tail is broken!
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.
The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
Quite often pretty stupid, honestly. Or careless, ignorant, jaded, corrupt, etc etc