Community

That anybody can say nuclear energy is 100% clean energy, that's some breathtaking massaging of the message.  When Chernobyl is in the news even.  The nuclear industry's marketing slogan should be something like "it's 100% clean, until it isn't, but you know, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs ...sometimes a lot of eggs"

The vaccinated Citi employees don't necessarily believe vaccination is needed for a safe workplace.  The pressure is simply too much for a great many people, and they don't want to fight, they don't want to face the consequences of not getting vaxed.

Many vaccinated people acknowledge that vaccination has no impact on transmission.  And many don't personally see un-vaccinated poeple as any kind of risk, judging by their willingness to socialise with un-vaxed individuals in contexts where there's no official prohibition from doing so.

If pressed to justify the coercion, some vaccinated people offer the explanation that the un-vaxed are more likely to fill hospital beds when they get sick with covid.  A belief that's disputed by the medical profession, reputable and sizeable chunks of it.

Mr Fox agrees the sky is falling, hopes panicky chooks will follow him into his den so he'll soon be supping on yummy chicken, it's an old story.  Bitcoin isn't facing a 51% attack, and it reaches it's maximum supply in the year 2140, so that's somebody elses problem as far as I'm concerned, you too unless you expect to live another 120 years.  Only worth worrying about if you were literally born yesterday.

no

Yes the title is misleading.  Responsibility for production and distribution of cash may indeed be fragmented, and authorities may be failing to ensure ATMs are available and fees low or zero.  But publishing reports about who uses and holds cash, that's different.

Depend on it the conclusion of these reports will be "cash is only used by criminals" when in reality most cash use is legitimate, only a fraction is criminal, and most of the proceeds of criminal activity are held in bank accounts, only a fraction in cash, the same as the legitimate economy.

The "material implication" is that cash is a spanner in the works of negative interest rates, an obstacle to confiscation.

The bulk of the payments industry is an aspect of the traditional banking & financial sector.  Not a bunch of disruptive outsiders.  The sector as a whole has huge influence with regulators and uses that influence to raise barriers to entry and squash potential competition.  Genuine outsiders don't stand a chance.  Anti-competitive behaviour, that's a relevant moral issue for the industry.

If Coinbase operates in a competitive market, there's nothing wrong with them setting out to make money.  Nothing wrong with a company saying "our goal is to make money for our shareholders and we do that by giving value to customers."  Pretending to care isn't caring.  Refusing to pretend is an act of integrity.

The companies that are the biggest advocates of social activism are by and large companies with reason to be ashamed; companies that exploit a monopoly of one sort or another, are perpetually insecure about public perception, so are constantly looking to white-wash (or green-wash) their image.  Companies that don't say to their customers "choose to trust us, here's why" but rather "you have no choice but to trust us."

I wasn't suggesting Armstrong was an example of a bad employer, quite the opposite, he's doing the right thing, discouraging his staff from social/political proselytism in the workplace, and declaring that his company won't represent any particular package of beliefs.  An employer should keep out of social & political issues, unless they're relevant to the industry, e.g. you'd expect to hear statements from a mining company about such things as explosive hazards and heavy-metal water runoff.  Though words are just words, you'd hope the public and media, and the courts, would judge companies by their actions rather than their words.

I'd be a bad employer if I told my staff what moral & political views I expected them to hold.  I'd make a hypocrite of myself; inevitably I'd choose expedient, popular views, not views derived from personal convictions.  Sometimes the fashionable views would coincide with my own beliefs but not always. Maybe not even often.

I'd encourage and retain not just people who shared these views, but also hypocrites and liars, people willing to say anything to advance their careers.

I'd lose talented people.  I'd lose not just people who opposed those views, but also people who believe the personal and professional domains should remain separate.  People whose moral compass is strong and who don't want to be told by someone else - especially not their employer - that it should point east or west or north or south.

Armstrong believes he's making a principled stance, clearly.  Smart business if he's right in believing a good portion of his staff and customers share his view.

Is the generous severence given if people are quitting for this reason only, or for any reason ?

So it's similar to gravatar.com except for businesses not people.  Though gravatar lets anyone query the image (per email address) whereas ethoca.com appears to be upload-only, you can't query another business's logo unless you're a card issuer.