Let's also accept that many judgements on outcome are not only subjective but culturally biased. Assuming we both agreed on values and we were analyzing identical scenarios then you could argue that a difference in choice would boil down to differences in the effective use of reasoning
Most people disagreeing on most subjects have probably barely applied any sort of reasoning to get there.
Most pro-vaxxers have simply picked up the dominant opinion from the surrounding society -- not a bad heuristic in practice. Most anti-vaxxers have picked up an opinion from a persuasive single source and then read some other sources that back it up.
I admit I'm in the first category, I certainly vaccinate my own children, but I can't really claim that I've come to this decision after a thorough understanding of immunology, I have simply followed the path of least resistance.
You don't need a degree in immunology to be very skeptical of anti-vaxxers' claims. Reading a bit of history is enough to know what happens when vaccines don't exist.
The steelman version of antivaxxism isn't "vaccines shouldn't exist", it's "on an individual basis, the risk-reward ratio of certain vaccines is not worth it. I should personally not vaccinate myself or anyone I care about, and be a free rider on societal herd immunity"
That particular version of antivaxxism is the one I would have the most trouble refuting. It's especially troubling since if it were true then the powers that be would have every incentive to try to keep it quiet and attack anyone who suggests it.
I mean, I make the same judgement call every year for flu shots. Is it at least plausible that I would be better off overall making the same call for some other disease?
> (...) I should personally not vaccinate myself or anyone I care about, and be a free rider on societal herd immunity"
> That particular version of antivaxxism is the one I would have the most trouble refuting.
What's hard to refute? I mean, the exceptionalism argument only sticks with sociopaths who believe society exists only to serve their personal interests without having to contribute anything in return.
> it's "on an individual basis, the risk-reward ratio of certain vaccines is not worth it."
That's not really true though. The risks involved in getting a vaccine are much, much smaller than the risks involved in not getting the vaccine, especially with diseases like Covid.
This is not how the Prisoner's dilemma works since not getting the vaccine is not a purely dominant strategy. You are neglecting to adjust the vaccination scenario payout to account for the fact that you personally are much less likely to get Covid-19 if exposed to someone infected. This benefit largely exceeds any cost of receiving the vaccine based on current data.
He effort you have him ousted was led by Bill Gurley of Benchmark and several other VC investors in Uber. Essentially the board asked him to step down and he did.
If you look it up, there are plenty of articles of rumors saying that the VCs schemed to kick him out because they wanted to IPO and the founder didn't.
Profitability should have no bearing on whether drivers are classified as employees or contractors. If these companies can’t turn a profit while complying with the law then they don’t have a viable business model. That is entirely their problem.
Furthermore, the assumptions you make regarding future hiring practices are unfounded. Nothing stipulates that resumes or interviews, let alone in person, would be required to extend employment.
There might be no stipulations, but do you really expect Uber to be completely different to every other company when hiring actual employees? People that you are legally liable for?
>If these companies can’t turn a profit while complying with the law then they don’t have a viable business model. That is entirely their problem.
But let's completely ignore the part where companies lobby for laws that protect their market. Can't wait to go back to the old taxis.
> If these companies can’t turn a profit while complying with the law then they don’t have a viable business model
Are you seriously telling me that if people don't interact freely in the way bureaucrats want them to interact, then those people should, by law, not be allowed to interact?
