Technology
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
"Right to Work" refers to the concept that companies don't need a valid reason to fire someone without notice or severance benefits.
It's marketed as employees not needing a reason to quit or change jobs, but that's not really true anyway considering most of the states allow binding non-compete agreements and your health insurance is tied to your employment and usually impossible to get at similar cost outside of the employer group market due to "stop loss" policies and other risk sharing plans.
And there aren't many laws anyway that prevent employees from leaving a job without a reason in non-binary"right to work" states, so the only real advantage is to companies.
I know what Right To Work is. I just thought literally almost all states had Right To Work legislation on the books
A little over half have them. But several other states do have anti-union laws that are similar to that part of the right to work laws. So that's not all that different across states anymore even though that's what the laws were originally supposed to be for.
The other smaller part of the laws that's actually usually more impactful these days especially for bigger cities, is that local governments can't make laws to limit firings and without unions to make agreements around what kind of things people can be fired for, it effectively allows businesses to fire people "with cause" (i.e. they can't get unemployment) for things that wouldn't be fireable offenses in many other places. This causes large cities to end up with having to support a lot more unemployed people when big companies use these kinds of tactics to fire a lot of people.
For example, often "insubordination" doesn't require that the thing you were told to do and didn't do was in your employment contract. Like a salaried employee who's contractually obligated to work a minimum of 35-40 hours refusing to work an 18hr day when they've already worked 18hr days all week is generally easier to fire someone for "insubordination" for than in some other states that treat employment contracts as actual contracts.