That is again reiterating their point that it is favorable only to the small portion of insanely wealthy shareholders and does not even favor the overwhelming majority of shareholders too who are not insanely wealthy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variar
Is a caste who have traditionally rendered temple services. it is not related to the english word or meaning warrior.
The caste name also differs from region to region. I am not sure if the person you mentioned is the same caste or a different one.
Caste does not say your ancestors did that job, caste meant a person from a particular caste could only do that job and could not take up other jobs, people from other castes could not take their jobs and were disqualified because you were not born in a particular list of families.
Some castes were prohibited from getting an education and were killed for this.
If they have used resources to block password sharing by checking and comparing location , devices and network the resources and cost for this edge case must me a high enough percentage.
Else they should just be ignoring password sharing as a concern altogether rather than causing negative press.
The number is 100 million accounts that they are blaming for stalled subscriber growth[1]. That is 100m out of 231m total subscribers[2]. So they are going to war with 43% of their existing subscriber base. That said, they have backed down on rolling this policy out in the US meaning the number of actual password sharers they are going to potentially monetize is very small relative to the ongoing damage they are doing to their brand. I don’t even share my netflix password but am currently actively looking at alternatives as a result of this policy because it just seems scummy enough to motivate me to move. Especially when password sharing was something they used to actively encourage as a means of growing their active users[3]
It’s always an interesting moment when a company stalls out on organic growth and decides its strategy should be to start to blackmail existing customers and try to grow revenue that way. This is how you get to a situation where enterprise IT leaders live in fear of being audited by Oracle and actively seek to replace what was once a key part of their IT strategy just because the vendor is so aggressive about leaping on any license infringement however unintentional.
I see the usual exercise and other self improvement activities listed which are all good for your physical and mental health. What I see is among the self improvement and tasks most forget to take time to enjoy the day or reward themselves, this mostly comes as an afterthought or compensation for some heavy task done.
I would suggest to add this to your list of tasks and make sure you take a certain amount of time everyday to indulge in any activity that brings you pleasure or makes you happy. This is often neglected, so make this a priority equal to the other things. Make sure you don't miss out on this more than a few days.
This may be listening to music which you enjoy, watching some funny show, enjoy some great food on some days, if you enjoy trekking or other physical activity ; just make sure you make time in your schedule to indulge in something that makes you feel happy or satisfied.
>Not really, because I saw too many software companies go out of business because not enough people wound up upgrading to the next major version -- the ownership model of software can be awfully feast-or-famine for developers' income, it's a very tough/risky business model.
If the Monthly Recurring Revenue is a make or break for companies that provide the software, then inversely the Monthly Recurring Expense would also be a make or break factor for customers or business using the service.
Buy once may reduce the overall cost for customers and allow them to invest in upgrades only when their revenue is better.
There has to be balance and empathy for the customer too..
All or nothing approach to quitting leads to quitting completely or going back to the same state, When I quit smoking I used to quit for a week then a month, later I quit for a long time and I did smoke once after a year, I did not treat it as a failure and just a break in my quitting, have not smoked since, I may some time if there is a special occasion ,but I don't think that would get me back to regular smoking. I have seen some quit and then once they smoke or have a drink resign thinking their attempt to quit has failed and then going back to the habit.
You may have breaks in your quitting , but that's ok get back to the quitting state as soon as possible.
I have the same question.
Definition from Wikipedia "Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded."
If your actions and decisions are a result of chemical and electrical activity in your brain, it does still mean that you are in control and unimpeded.
Free will seems to exist in a middle state where you do not think of yourself as a soul separate from your physical form and where you accept yourself as a carbon based organism reacting to processes.
I see this as a chicken and egg situation. Even within any country if you see the salaries are higher in cities where you also have most job opportunities. This attracts workers who seek more opportunities and higher rewards. Those who are not able to compete or not interested to compete would not migrate to the city. Companies that operate in these places have to offer more to get the best among those available. Companies that need to get the best talent have to be ready to bear these higher costs to operate from these cities.
Reading up on the history of California, I see from a long time back since the times of the gold rush it has been a place which attracted people seeking more opportunities and the best people would stay there when they are rewarded for moving there. There may be multiple such cities and locations in the US , but even within the US salaries would differ in different cities.
I think the best answer may have to come from an economist who would understand these better.
I think the negative content about the employer was the fact that her employer was monitoring their employees through the webcam, anything directly said about the company I see is other users reacting to the employer's surveillance.
The employee is just stating a fact about their employer which everyone feels is scandalous or negative including the employer themselves.
I usually see this argument about the utopian company which shields employees from the losses in debates. In the real world a company making losses cuts down on employees, wages, increases working hours for same pay ; all negatively affecting the employees in a desperate attempt to survive, failing which the company shuts down causing loss to all employees.
They are however not sharing the increased profits with the employees when they are highly profitable, they don't hire more people than required because profits are more.
I see there is a market value that the company has to pay for labor. The additional profits are generated due to the performance of the employees, they should get a share in the profits for their contribution, the investors putting in the capital are currently taking 100% of the profits. There should be a share in this for those putting in their sweat and brains.
> In the real world a company making losses cuts down on employees, wages, increases working hours for same pay…
All of that only affects future earnings. The employees' wealth (savings) is not tied up in the success of the company—they can quit at any time and go work somewhere else. Everything they've earned up to that point is theirs to keep, along with intangibles like training and job experience they've received along the way. This is their share for "putting in their sweat and brains".
For the shareholders, on the other hand, a company taking losses doesn't just impact future income. Their entire investment is at stake.
If an employee prefers equity rather than income they are free to purchase shares in the company with their earnings; as a rule, though, employees just want to put in their hours and get a steady paycheck which they can spend or invest as they please. They don't want to be forced to invest in their employer such that the prospect of their employer going bankrupt threatens both their paycheck and their savings.
The investment of shareholders is at stake irrespective of whether they share the profit with the employees, success of the company is a different function altogether.
>For the shareholders, on the other hand, a company taking losses doesn't just impact future income. Their entire investment is at stake.
Investors who do not get more returns in the companies compared to a debt instrument will take their investments to companies which can offer better returns, that is how they should manage their risk without getting bankrupt.
There is a chart above where some companies have profit/employee close to a million dollars, intellectual property of the employees is not valued enough, value is only attributed to the capital invested , which if you look at companies which are overvalued is not the rarest commodity; employees are not a rare commodity but good employees are.
> Investors who do not get more returns in the companies compared to a debt instrument will take their investments to companies which can offer better returns….
Of course, but to do that you first have to find another investor willing to take your place by buying your shares. An individual shareholder might leave but the shareholders, as a group, are just as invested in the fate of the company as before.
I agree, the company in total loses value when it shuts down, the employees are left without any jobs causing loss of livelihood , investors are left with a loss in share value.
Employees can get another job , investors can diversify and manage their portfolio better, there usually higher risk inherent when higher growth and dividends are expected.
What I am saying is everyone is affected when a business shuts down, its not something which affects only investors, employees are also affected, but when the company has record profits in most cases it is provided exclusively to investors and no portion on the profits are shared with employees.
I see salary as a way of booking the employees time, a share in profits is what they should get for how productive they are in the booked time.
> Employees can get another job, investors can diversify and manage their portfolio better...
Employees can get another job after the fact. Their skills and experience are mostly transferable. I'm not saying it isn't disruptive, but they haven't lost any principal or equity, just the opportunity to sell more labor to that particular employer in the future.
For the shareholders at the time to business goes bankrupt it's too late to try to diversify. Their shares are worthless and they are out whatever they paid for them. (BTW, telling them to diversify ahead of time is equivalent to telling them not to invest as much into this company... which isn't great for the company or its employees.)
> ... no portion on the profits are shared with employees.
The employees' fair share of the profits is their salary or wages (plus performance bonuses where applicable). If they want equity they can buy it with their earnings, but in general it's a bad idea to hold too much equity in your employer. The trade-off for sharing in "record profits" is sharing in the losses when the company doesn't do as well.
