I'm just explaining how the real world works. For instance, I supervise other employees. Their hourly rate is lower than mine, however, the real cost of many of the employees I supervise far exceeds my real cost. How? Well, some have dependants and they are included on their health insurance. Beyond that, some have chosen different providers or higher option plans than I have. There are other benefits that can increase their real cost to the employer. Does that mean my employer owes me the difference in cash or other tangible rewards based on how I choose to take advantage of the benefits offered? What if I chose not to contribute to my retirement, do they owe me that match percentage, even though that's not his it's outlined? This is absurd. There are problems with capitalism and corporations in this country, but expecting people to follow simple guidelines regarding a meal voucher isn't one of them, especially for well compensated employees. Realistically, meta could probably refer this to the local police as fraud if they chose to.
Letstakealook
This was for sites that didn't have a cafeteria. They offered this as a way to provide food, while on-site, if the employee would like to. This childish notion that "sOmBoDy GoT mOrE tHaN mE!" is ridiculous. This wasn't supposed to be for personal monetary gain. Employees with sites that had cafeteria are not handed cash or allowed to select household goods if they choose not to eat at the cafeteria. This isn't something that should really have to be explained to grown-ass adults making 400k a year. This is just an extreme level of entitlement and I can't believe people are making me defend a company who's products I refuse to use.
Right? I promise not to scheme on $10 worth of toothpaste.
That would make it more plausible. I don't think you're an idiot, I was asking because I was curious if there was precedent for a jackass conspiracy minded employee handing out medical advice causing liability for a business. I wouldn't think it is right, but I also don't agree with other legal standards, lol.
Would a court find Walmart liable for your decision to take medical advice from a random employee? I'm sure Walmart could demonstrate that the employee was not acting in the capacity of their role and any reasonable person would not consider drinking bleach because an unqualified walmart employee told them so.
I could definitely see this having an impact, how great that impact is would depend on technological advancements and social factors. Populations are already on a decline in many countries for myriad reasons. The only arguments I've seen about this being a bad thing are primarily focused on the ruling classes concerns, i.e. "the economy." There maybe some mild concerns for the average person, but if we survive what we've done to the planet, overall I think it will be beneficial in the long term for the world population to decrease. Marriages are also in decline, but if all that a marriage is based on is sex, that probably isn't a marriage worth being in. IMO, our species going quietly into the night isn't the worst future, lol.
I wasn't trying to imply there wasn't issues women face around sex, just that issues with sex toys and preferences (the sex toys have "unrealistic standards" for women) mentioned in the article are specific to men.
If somebody wants to have an "AI" sexbot, whether physical or digital, this isn't anybody else's concern. Ideally, these should not be connected to the internet, but updated through USB or done other offline method to protect users. But at the end, if this is what an individual would prefer over an actual relationship, then so be it, you probably don't want to be in a relationship with this person anyway. The outcry seems to come from this idea that men (let's face it, there's no stigma around women and their sexual preferences or toys) who are undesirable to others should just be lonely and mocked for even using the most basic of sex toys/services. Let these folks have their sex toys and leave them alone, it doesn't bother you.
If you legitimately believe llms "understand" anything at all, I really don't believe there's anything to discuss with you. That is a completely absurd notion at this stage.
That's just true believer talk. It really is trash.
I'll give you that, but that other commenter seemed to think it wouldn't be "fair" if another employee used it, and they didn't, which is a very childish notion. Depending on severity and duration, I could even see it being a talking to. I do also see not being able to find this employee suitable for a position of trust, which they may have been in given their salary. If the employer can't trust you to self-regulate on something as simple as a meal voucher, I don't see how they could trust you at large.