Why indeed? Given the pathological situation, I would however take steps to protect my free time, if changing jobs was not an option.
> if possible. Aye, there's the rub.
Makes me think of the Foo Fighters song. Wouldn't the rational thing be to turn off your phone when you take a vacation or even leave it at the office?
It's not very hard, if you have money or skills that are in demand. Top countries depend on what you are looking for.
> After all if you're salaries at a 24x7 operational company, if you want a Saturday off with guaranteed no phone calls, you need to take vacation. And people put up with this?
That's some serious WTF, unless you were the only person in the company able to do that and it was an extinction event for the company if nobody dealt with it.
I am baffled why anybody would either do or accept any of the above.
About the same according to a quick Google search. "It usually adds up to five weeks of vacation plus around nine public holidays (plus other possible company paid holidays or additional vacation time)." Source:…
Appeasement does not (always|ever) lead to progress. In civilized countries secular law trumps religious law.
>> You do not need your body after you are dead. > How do you know? Have you ever been dead? Do you know any people who have died? As soon as anybody comes back from the dead to object, I'll reconsider my opinion. Until…
> This is insane Is it? Is it really more insane than believing you need your organs after you are dead? > But please don't advocate for your contempt to be codified into laws Why not? People do it all the time :) At…
I'm good with losing state after death. It's not like people aren't maimed (involuntary) before death also. I'm also good with door number two. If you are to be cryonically preserved then you should not even need to…
Sure, but this has no relation to what happens to your body when you are dead, unless you deed your body in your will.
> Transplants don't save lives, they violate it in the worst possible way. Wait, what? I don't even know where to begin. That whole sentence does not make any sense. > And allowing the state to harvest your organs…
> From a society's perspective opt-out makes perfect sense." It's very troubling to follow that line of thought. It's also arguably in societies interest to make all your private medical data publicly available for…
You do not need your body after you are dead. This is good for society. If anything the opt out should be further restricted. You may opt out, but you'd need a valid reason. Any held superstition should not be grounds.
Why indeed? Given the pathological situation, I would however take steps to protect my free time, if changing jobs was not an option.
> if possible. Aye, there's the rub.
Makes me think of the Foo Fighters song. Wouldn't the rational thing be to turn off your phone when you take a vacation or even leave it at the office?
It's not very hard, if you have money or skills that are in demand. Top countries depend on what you are looking for.
> After all if you're salaries at a 24x7 operational company, if you want a Saturday off with guaranteed no phone calls, you need to take vacation. And people put up with this?
That's some serious WTF, unless you were the only person in the company able to do that and it was an extinction event for the company if nobody dealt with it.
I am baffled why anybody would either do or accept any of the above.
About the same according to a quick Google search. "It usually adds up to five weeks of vacation plus around nine public holidays (plus other possible company paid holidays or additional vacation time)." Source:…
Appeasement does not (always|ever) lead to progress. In civilized countries secular law trumps religious law.
>> You do not need your body after you are dead. > How do you know? Have you ever been dead? Do you know any people who have died? As soon as anybody comes back from the dead to object, I'll reconsider my opinion. Until…
> This is insane Is it? Is it really more insane than believing you need your organs after you are dead? > But please don't advocate for your contempt to be codified into laws Why not? People do it all the time :) At…
I'm good with losing state after death. It's not like people aren't maimed (involuntary) before death also. I'm also good with door number two. If you are to be cryonically preserved then you should not even need to…
Sure, but this has no relation to what happens to your body when you are dead, unless you deed your body in your will.
> Transplants don't save lives, they violate it in the worst possible way. Wait, what? I don't even know where to begin. That whole sentence does not make any sense. > And allowing the state to harvest your organs…
> From a society's perspective opt-out makes perfect sense." It's very troubling to follow that line of thought. It's also arguably in societies interest to make all your private medical data publicly available for…
You do not need your body after you are dead. This is good for society. If anything the opt out should be further restricted. You may opt out, but you'd need a valid reason. Any held superstition should not be grounds.