> The TL;DR is that it's totally normal to have regulations, including for worker protection, that kick in only at a certain scale (say, employee head count) and that could probably work here.
OK, then that's at least a substantial comment on why you feel that HN is different, rather than the evasive ones you've been giving throughout the thread; you could have just led with that instead.
> We could even do that while exempting very small low-harm operations and cases in which that kind of work really is something resembling necessary (police work, say). There's no "gotcha" in "but what about police investigators?" or "but what about HN?" (the two I've seen in this thread) unless one ignores the reality that similar worker protection regulations deal with those sorts of edge cases, routinely. Even if the regulations couldn't have any nuance (why not? It's not been a problem any other time), I'd personally be OK losing HN over that, sure.
Couple posts up. Cut the passive aggression and read.
OK, then that's at least a substantial comment on why you feel that HN is different, rather than the evasive ones you've been giving throughout the thread; you could have just led with that instead.