Most recent layoff, the core investors demanded more return on investment and less watering down by bringing in new money, so there was a 10% cut across the board (including execs and upper management). Just a few days prior I told someone we might be in trouble but that my job was safe because I was key to an important project for a paying customer. But they decided to just cancel that project altogether.
Previous layoff, our department as a whole had been laid off and disbanded but I stuck around with some to clean up, transfer the tech, and then try to get recruited by other departments or propose new projects, and we soon ended up in the R&D division. I was mostly on standby for when they needed a developer, so a lot of free time to play around. Finally let go for real, but it had a nice severance package and since the timing was right we also got our profit sharing and bonus and full year's payout of vacation, so I won't be complaining about that.
Last two jobs for me were due to layoffs. Previous two though I had gotten into the mood for a new job but it took someone outside that I knew and trusted to entice me to move. For me, I have a lot of inertiaI think.
Currently my salary is good (but with current cost of living and on a single salary it's hard to tell from the outside). I consider leaving but then there's a change in upper leadership so I stick around to see how things go, or I get an interesting project. So this is the longest place I've worked by far.
When you're younger, you suck it up and go to work with assholes. Later on, you have more experience and skills and can afford to be more picky, taking off to greener pastures rather than stick around with the assholes.
Giving a new name of "microaggressions" doesn't change this, it just means that by trying to filter this out in college the new generation will delay an important part of their education by not encountering the real world until after college.
UBI when tried (on a small scale) doesn't pay enough to be the only means of support. It's supplemental income. For instance, if you're working two full time minimum wage jobs you still aren't making enough to keep the family fed in many places, you can't afford to get a car that works so you can commute to a better job, you can't afford to get daycare so that both spouses can work, etc. So the UBI supplements that.
In the past, you could sometimes provide for a family with just one low paying job. That's not true today. Cost of living goes up much faster than minimum wage does.
It was't free labor. It wasn't much money, but they didn't work for "free". And when there were no jobs available those work programs were an important safety net. However most of them required someone to be able bodied since it was strenuous manual labor.
Guaranteed income means income even when you don't have a job. Guaranteed work only lasts so long and then you are too ill to continue, or you have to work a few decades past normal retirement, etc. Guaranteed work is find if the person is able bodied and there are jobs - the snag comes when there aren't the jobs out there for people without skills. You can't easily just create jobs out of nothing. There are the occasional work programs, conservation corps, etc, but those have never been tried on a large scale.
Basic income means not a lot of money. It helps fill in the gaps even when someone who is working can't afford things like child care. It's small enough that the recipient still has a large incentive to get a job, and a better job over time. A guaranteed income should be the same way. Like the pitifully small social security allowance, not large enough to retire on but is a smalls supplement to help fill in the gaps.
There are rules of course, if the company lies on their statements and you lose money that way then a lawsuit is suitable. But many of these stockholder advocates who sue are doing so very frequently, to the point that they've become annoyances to the legal system.
If Chgarter did fulfill the obligations then it can present this in court. If the court decides that they broke the agreement though then tough luck for them.
Trump's foreign policy seems to be all about picking friends and enemy's randomly. Someone whispers in his ear "it's so sad the embassy isn't in Jerusalem" and the next minute the tweets start flying. I honestly believe that Trump usually has no opinion on so many issues but instead pays attention to whoever whispered in his ear last or whatever late night show he watched. That why he seems to flip flop so much and do unexpected things (like pointing out a non-existent crisis in Sweden that left Swedes scratching their heads in confusion).
In reality, the tribes do indeed have an amount of sovereignty and autonomy. I didn't say that it should be that way or not, just that this is the way it is in practice today in law.
So, less than ten years of support. But most buyers of medical capital equipment expect them to last 10 years or more. So XP should have been a bad choice for that equipment.
They really aren't. When it comes to getting funding from the DNC, they are reluctant to support candidates that they don't see as viable.
Remember awhile back when Gore lost the elections, the Democrats unfairly blamed the Green party and Nader for spoiling the election. The truth is, the Democrats expected the the Green party voters to end up voting for them by default and so they failed to do significant work to attract those voters.
A free market has been proven through history to not function without regulation. A free market cannot exist without it also being a fair market, and companies have rarely offered the "fair" part voluntarily. The goal of corporations is to maximize profits by any means necessary that they can get away with, and laws step in to make sure that they can't get get away anything.
When left to their own devices we have seen in the past the common sale of unsafe and dangerous products including products that have caused injury and death, products that did not perform as described, rampant pollution, child labor, mistreatment of workers, bullying of smaller market players, etc.
Non-repairable products can cause harm, thus a government has a vested interest in paying attention. Non-repairable means you have to buy new products, and increased economic burden. If a consumer has purchased a product, then that product belongs to the consumer and all rights by the manufacturer have ceased in this regard; preventing the consumer from repairing is an attempt by the manufacturer to continue owning the product. Being unable to replace batteries, the most commonly needed repairs, causes unnecessary waste and disposal of hazardous materials. Being made the way they are it is nearly impossible to recycle or separate the batteries from many of these products which will inevitably end up in landfill. Recycling is generally not done because it costs too much to do so effectively, and the problem is often exported to third world countries.
There are some cases where owner repair should be prohibited, such as in the cases of safety. However independent repair shops should be allowed the right to do the repairs.
Slashdot Mirror
Most recent layoff, the core investors demanded more return on investment and less watering down by bringing in new money, so there was a 10% cut across the board (including execs and upper management). Just a few days prior I told someone we might be in trouble but that my job was safe because I was key to an important project for a paying customer. But they decided to just cancel that project altogether.
Previous layoff, our department as a whole had been laid off and disbanded but I stuck around with some to clean up, transfer the tech, and then try to get recruited by other departments or propose new projects, and we soon ended up in the R&D division. I was mostly on standby for when they needed a developer, so a lot of free time to play around. Finally let go for real, but it had a nice severance package and since the timing was right we also got our profit sharing and bonus and full year's payout of vacation, so I won't be complaining about that.
Last two jobs for me were due to layoffs. Previous two though I had gotten into the mood for a new job but it took someone outside that I knew and trusted to entice me to move. For me, I have a lot of inertiaI think.
Currently my salary is good (but with current cost of living and on a single salary it's hard to tell from the outside). I consider leaving but then there's a change in upper leadership so I stick around to see how things go, or I get an interesting project. So this is the longest place I've worked by far.
When you're younger, you suck it up and go to work with assholes. Later on, you have more experience and skills and can afford to be more picky, taking off to greener pastures rather than stick around with the assholes.
Giving a new name of "microaggressions" doesn't change this, it just means that by trying to filter this out in college the new generation will delay an important part of their education by not encountering the real world until after college.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-...
Same day delivery for nukes.
Right, because the whole world is exactly like you.
This is unlikely to happen though. The stock was overpriced due to stockholder exuberance, not because Zuckerberg was lying.
UBI when tried (on a small scale) doesn't pay enough to be the only means of support. It's supplemental income. For instance, if you're working two full time minimum wage jobs you still aren't making enough to keep the family fed in many places, you can't afford to get a car that works so you can commute to a better job, you can't afford to get daycare so that both spouses can work, etc. So the UBI supplements that.
In the past, you could sometimes provide for a family with just one low paying job. That's not true today. Cost of living goes up much faster than minimum wage does.
A guaranteed job would still pay significantly less that most real jobs I would think. There would be incentive to find something better to do.
It was't free labor. It wasn't much money, but they didn't work for "free". And when there were no jobs available those work programs were an important safety net. However most of them required someone to be able bodied since it was strenuous manual labor.
Guaranteed income means income even when you don't have a job. Guaranteed work only lasts so long and then you are too ill to continue, or you have to work a few decades past normal retirement, etc. Guaranteed work is find if the person is able bodied and there are jobs - the snag comes when there aren't the jobs out there for people without skills. You can't easily just create jobs out of nothing. There are the occasional work programs, conservation corps, etc, but those have never been tried on a large scale.
Basic income means not a lot of money. It helps fill in the gaps even when someone who is working can't afford things like child care. It's small enough that the recipient still has a large incentive to get a job, and a better job over time. A guaranteed income should be the same way. Like the pitifully small social security allowance, not large enough to retire on but is a smalls supplement to help fill in the gaps.
There are rules of course, if the company lies on their statements and you lose money that way then a lawsuit is suitable. But many of these stockholder advocates who sue are doing so very frequently, to the point that they've become annoyances to the legal system.
Well, my advice would be to not be a day trader.
More ironic, is that the plunge was in a great part due to shareholder panic. The "disappointing" earnings were still very good earnings.
If Chgarter did fulfill the obligations then it can present this in court. If the court decides that they broke the agreement though then tough luck for them.
You sign an agreement then either you abide by it or you get hit with the hammer.
While it may be legal to shoot someone, that does not always mean it is the right thing to do.
Trump's foreign policy seems to be all about picking friends and enemy's randomly. Someone whispers in his ear "it's so sad the embassy isn't in Jerusalem" and the next minute the tweets start flying. I honestly believe that Trump usually has no opinion on so many issues but instead pays attention to whoever whispered in his ear last or whatever late night show he watched. That why he seems to flip flop so much and do unexpected things (like pointing out a non-existent crisis in Sweden that left Swedes scratching their heads in confusion).
They don't order the company to divest, but they order the company to stop operating in the state. The divestiture occurs naturally at that point.
In reality, the tribes do indeed have an amount of sovereignty and autonomy. I didn't say that it should be that way or not, just that this is the way it is in practice today in law.
So, less than ten years of support. But most buyers of medical capital equipment expect them to last 10 years or more. So XP should have been a bad choice for that equipment.
There really are a lot of conservative farmers that are unhappy with subsidies, as they see it akin to welfare.
They really aren't. When it comes to getting funding from the DNC, they are reluctant to support candidates that they don't see as viable.
Remember awhile back when Gore lost the elections, the Democrats unfairly blamed the Green party and Nader for spoiling the election. The truth is, the Democrats expected the the Green party voters to end up voting for them by default and so they failed to do significant work to attract those voters.
A free market has been proven through history to not function without regulation. A free market cannot exist without it also being a fair market, and companies have rarely offered the "fair" part voluntarily. The goal of corporations is to maximize profits by any means necessary that they can get away with, and laws step in to make sure that they can't get get away anything.
When left to their own devices we have seen in the past the common sale of unsafe and dangerous products including products that have caused injury and death, products that did not perform as described, rampant pollution, child labor, mistreatment of workers, bullying of smaller market players, etc.
Non-repairable products can cause harm, thus a government has a vested interest in paying attention. Non-repairable means you have to buy new products, and increased economic burden. If a consumer has purchased a product, then that product belongs to the consumer and all rights by the manufacturer have ceased in this regard; preventing the consumer from repairing is an attempt by the manufacturer to continue owning the product. Being unable to replace batteries, the most commonly needed repairs, causes unnecessary waste and disposal of hazardous materials. Being made the way they are it is nearly impossible to recycle or separate the batteries from many of these products which will inevitably end up in landfill. Recycling is generally not done because it costs too much to do so effectively, and the problem is often exported to third world countries.
There are some cases where owner repair should be prohibited, such as in the cases of safety. However independent repair shops should be allowed the right to do the repairs.