Time and time again this happens and people simply don't understand that banning will only make something more attractive and create more radicals. People are naturally empathetic, so of fucking course they will side with the side being oppressed.

I have. I know for a fact that it is a gross manipulation of the facts. The research authors just blindly gathers all women and all men and see that there is a difference in income, while completely ignoring underlying factors like job areas, occupational risks, hours worked, willingness to move, willingness to humor unreasonable requests, life priorities, etc. And this is true even in Scandinavian countries, where they supposedly have more equality. But this is already digressing from the original topic of the post. I suggest you take your own advice and do a little search around the topic.

Listen, the labor is cheap by your standards. It's definitely good enough for us. And those children end up in factories not because companies want to profit more with cheap labor, after all they're not nearly as smart or strong as adults and they get involved in more accidents. The reason there were children in factories was that their parents' income was not enough. Also pay gap? Really? Debunked at every turn and people still have the gall to use that argument.

Companies exporting labor is a direct consequence of the cost of labor laws. There comes a point where it just becomes a lot cheaper to bring the whole production chain to another country and ship the result back home. That is not by any stretch detrimental to said country, in fact it's quite the opposite. It is only indirectly detrimental to US workers, who will find it harder to find jobs. Then comes the government to apply tax on the shipping to try and make the outsourcing more expensive, and thus encourage companies to stay in the US. This is called protectionism. This is a bad thing because it artificially inflates prices in trade for saving US job positions.

It's not exporting exploitation, it's just that US standards are way too high for underdeveloped countries. So much so that your minimum wage would already place someone on the top 10% earners in their respective countries.

Really. We would like to earn more? Sure, who doesn't. But the salaries they offer are already high by our standards, so I'm very thankful. If they can also profit from that, good for them.

It's very hard to make them perfectly recyclable because of how the materials are used, to begin with. A computer is the most cutting edge device you have in your house, with very sensitive parts that need to fulfill a wide array of tasks, and thus need a series of different parts that each require different materials. Even if you only take one component into consideration, there are still several subcomponents in there that need different materials to fulfill their roles. And the more different materials you need, the harder it is to recycle.

Brexit was stupid from the beginning, you can't expect to separate your economy from the EU after several decades of partnership and not expect severe economic backlash. Just imagine the amount of small business owners who were fucked over because of the reduced market and increased requirements for migration and visiting. People's lives and finances got worse because of it and for what?

Brazilian northern coast, in a moderately sized city of about 400k inhabitants. Local ISP called Proxxima. My plan is for a 100Mbps fiber connection, costs about $20 monthly. I only actually tested speeds once, and got around 90Mbps download, and 40Mbps upload. I get about 120ms latency when playing games on American servers (completely bearable to me), doesn't matter if it's west or east coast. Never had such a stable connection before, and uptime should be around 97%. I literally don't see the need for better speeds, though I guess I could reduce latency if I lived closer to big urban centers.

Bruh, i live in the middle of nowhere in South America and I've had fiber for several years, now

1.84 petabits/second - speed

230 terabytes - total size of the experiment

Basically they transferred it all in a fraction of a second, so the title shouldn't say (in a single second) because it's inaccurate, but it's otherwise correct.