Maybe in your mind, but not according to the laws of California and the United States. Tesla just publicly admitted to retaliation, which is such a legally stupid move it's baffling why they did it.
Tesla admitted to firing an employee that *wrongfully* sued it. Anti-retaliation law would kick in if the suit were justified. IANAL, but that's how it looks from where I sit.
Funny how I hear that "this isn't the time" every god damned fucking election and I'll bet I continue to hear it throughout the remainder of my life.
No! YOU ARE PERSONALLY responsible dilweed. People like you always force the issue, then look shocked. Simply shocked when it doesn't pan out.
Every single one of you that I know have always ultimately expressed regret over how things turned out but are absolutely never in favor of even making an attempt to change things. It's always which evil isn't as bad as the other evils. Not which is the best option. You guys are ALWAYS ready to sell off the next half of the light of the world to "save" the remainder. Never mind that by the time you guys are through were now down to like 0.00002% of the light of the world. Next election, it will be the same. Then it will be 0.00001% of the light of the world. But hey! Still not your fault even though you sell off half every damn time!
Say what you want. There was only one alternative to stop the Muslim ban. One.
You either tried to use your vote to stop it, or you used it to "try change things." Again, this type of thinking only comes from people who are not going to be significantly affected by The Great Orange One's bigoted policies.
The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.
Some people keep saying that this agreement doesn't cost anything because it doesn't require anything, but then complain because we are no longer a signatory to an agreement that doesn't require anything and can thus not accomplish anything.
And you are quick to assign motives that weren't actually expressed. "Didn't find the problem important enough" is your opinion. It could also be that "this agreement does nothing to accomplish the alleged goal but will cost money complying with, even if it is just 'good will' compliance." It takes an adult to look at an agreement critically and avoid the emotionalism and politics behind it, and decide that the result of agreeing isn't worth the costs. You use "warm fuzzy feelings" to get children to do things you want them to, but once they grow up you expect them to be more discerning.
This treaty is "warm fuzzy feelings" with nothing behind it. Everyone seems to admit that, even those who argue we should stay in it. The result of agreeing" is not "clean air for all and falling global temperatures", the "result of agreeing" is purely political and emotional baggage. The "result of agreeing" is handing a bludgeon to third world countries to use to browbeat the US when the US doesn't give them money to help them meet their goals. It won't be missing a required payment, it will be the court of world opinion (kinda like today) where the opinion that "the US should be paying other countries because yada yada and they agreed to it in Paris" will become the endless refrain.
It now becomes harder to get countries to work with us on just about anything if we aren't even willing to be part of a goodwill gesture that had no real consequences to us if we stayed in it.
Agreements have to have some benefits to all the parties involved. If other countries don't feel like working with the US when it will benefit them, that's called "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". It is always their choice to do that. And if an agreement brings them no benefit, I would never expect them to agree to it. But the US is expected to do so because "warm fuzzy feelings".
Or perhaps it is a lesson to other leaders of state that assumed that the US President had unilateral power to commit the US to treaties, despite the US Constitution being available to all online for their review of the actual requirements. It is lunacy to believe that any non-binding agreement with one political winner will survive a sea change in the political landscape, whether it is Angela Merkel believing it or 'ranton'. And it would be just as lunatic for Trump to believe that any non-binding promises that Angela Merkel makes on behalf of Germany would survive her replacement, especially if she is replaced by a political opposite.
Walking away from the accord because it lacks teeth or whatever amounts to "shit ain't perfect so I will do no nothing!"
The agreement is a first step to achieve quorum, a consensus that something needs attention.
You can't fix what you can measure. He'll you have to agree everybody that they need to measure CO2 emissions, somehow.
Discrepancies aside, that's the vision that needs to be agreed upon. Then you build from there.
Expecting to get an agreement where every player is on board, with enforcement mechanisms and all, you are demanding the impossible just to justify doing nothing.
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Me and everyone I know on the left is pro-weed. Maybe it's anecdotal, but I don't see any empirical numbers you're putting up.
Your POV is anecdotal. From what I've seen, most lefties I know are pro-medical marijuana, not pro-recreational. A true pro-weed position has historically been a libertarian one. And that's the thing, we keep using simple minded labels to categorize issues that are just too fucking complex to pigeonhole like that.
It doesn't say why she was fired, but most companies won't say that.
TFA does have a statement by Tesla about the reason for firing her:
“The termination was based on Ms Vandermeyden behaving in what the evidence indicates is a fundamentally false and misleading manner, not as a result of retaliation for the lawsuit,” the spokesperson added. “It is impossible to trust anyone after they have behaved in such a manner and therefore continued employment is also impossible.”
Yeah. Launching a lawsuit like that just to be found w/o merits by a third, neutral party, that's reason enough to fire her. Or him, or whatever. The minimal trust required to keep someone on payroll has been broken.
Bad career move from her part (and if she did it with premeditated malice and dishonesty, she just fucked a whole bunch of women who might be real victims of discrimination.)
I was never really a party line liberal, and don't blame Obama 100% for the ACA failures - he was far to conciliatory and compromised too much. Overall I didn't like Obama and am now more of an independent voter despite my family earning in the top 5% every year.
My whole point is there wasn't a sane choice on either side (sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hillary), and the two party system is currently screwing the working class. Instead of only voting for the RNC or DNC candidate, vote for who you actually want like I did. If enough people do this maybe both parties will pull their heads outta their behinds.
I'm sure that was entirely satisfying, but that didn't do that much good. After all, we have a ban on refugees that has nothing to do with security and everything to do with appeasing the demographic anxieties of illiterati. Afghan and Iraqi interpreters who risked their neck for us are now facing deportation or disown past promises for legal entry. We are rolling back EPA. And so on and so on.
Hillary is putrid. She's waaay deep, embedded in the establishment. But crooked as it she was, Hillary wouldn't have pulled any of these idiotic things that have a human cost to them.
I'm sure in some ways she would have been worse than Trump, but in the totality of action and agenda, no one can make that argument with a straight face. Yeah, pat yourself on the back for your vote. There are times in history that sure you can protest your vote and make it be the ideal representation of what your views should be. This wasn't one of them.
Much of the current problem started with WWII.
The USA was lucky, not great.
Name any other large, well populated, educated, industrialised nation with large amounts of natural resources that was not bombed during WWII.
During the 1940-1970s the USA was able to build on what they already had, the rest of the world was effectively rebuilding roads, rail. schools, hospitals, and all the other infrastructure required. More to the point, they were able to build and sell the things the rest of the world needed.
During the 1950s the USA account for over 50% of the entire worlds GDP, today its about 20%.
The world is no longer reliant on the US, sure it impacts all the world, but so does China and the EU.
The US is 4% of the worlds population, so 96% of the worlds population and 80% of world trade are not US based.
China can (and will) surpass the USA, so will India and Brazil, may not happen in my life time, but it will happen, and I am not so sure the US is capable to accepting that cultural shock. I think high up in some sectors of the US government they understand this which is why they are meddling in the politics of Asian countries, they don't want as Asian Trading Bloc because that is 60% of the worlds population, and the area of greatest economic growth potential. Growth potential in the USA is almost nil, its a saturated market.
And while Trump et al keeps shouting USA USA USA and USA first, the rest of the world keeps on improving, and putting the USA further and further down the ladder. For example, the world is not longer reliant on Boeing, there is Airbus, and China is getting into the act too. ARM is doing well, Its British not US. Samsung is doing well, again not US. And there are thousands of examples where non-US products are better than US ones.
This. That 80% of the world trade happens *outside* of the US or that countries can actually survive without it, that will be a tough, bitter pill to swallow to many who bought the "bring jobs back" kool-aid. He who was stupid enough to believe it will get his Darwin reward in time.
Its not like the US has failed, it more like the rest of the world has grown up and is no longer dependant. And because of that, the natural progression is that the US will fall behind in many fields.
Exactly. Countries are simply climbing themselves up. Economies are not a zero-sum game (unless we still do nothing about the millions of effectively illiterate workers who are simply unemployable outside of grunt work.)
Canada, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, Australia, and others I'm probably forgetting. The USA was bombed in World War 2 btw. Pearl harbor? German sabotage efforts?
I'm from Latin America, and to put Mexico (and Spain) in that list is ludicrous. Spain pretty much turned itself into a backwater land, and Mexico, though far more industrialized than most other LATAM country (sans Argentina), it truly did not belong (and still doesn't) to a list of industrialized, educated countries. And I don't mean this as an act of derision (I love Mexico, I just care enough for it to point where it is lagging.)
Canada and Switzerland, though educated and industrialized, were not significant economies whose presence or absence would become pivotal. Apples and oranges.
Sure, Pearl Harbor was bombed, but the OP is specifically talking of bombing as "being bombed back to the stone age", which is pretty much what happened to most of Europe and Japan. We are talking about countries with their infrastructure and industrial base that they have to start building shit out, down to simple things like public plumbing, all the way from scratch and rubble.
Let China win. Let them innovate and develop all the hot new technology. Then copy it from them without a care in the world. China's been doing that for decades and it's worked out pretty well for them.
This is an emotional statement meant to be use as, I don't know, sarcasm maybe. Pure chest thumping that achieves nothing.
Went there with the family for the same reasons, so I feel your pain. If you ever find yourself in Portland, OR there is a ginormous bookstore that stretches for several blocks that has none of the formality of the NY public library but all of the organized chaos of a retail store, shaken and stirred. With a coffee shop, and magazines. And manga.
Nice. Thanks for the tip. At some point I'm going to make a trip across the states with my kids. Portland is one of my planned stops.
Amazon is what Barnes & Noble was dreaming of becoming--a gigantic store with all book covers showing off book cover artwork and lavish reader praises with exclamation points -- before it got eaten.
I was thinking of the same. And it is quite sad. Obviously it is a subjective position from my part. Bizness is bizness.
But I do tend to love going to B&N (or Books-A-Million or a local library close home that is embedded with a children's museum and local coffee shop.) It is nice to go there, alone, with wife and kids and/or to meet a friend, have coffee and browse/buy books and magazines. Or to listen to a writer, for example.
It was a good place to start a in-the-middle-of-theday date (when I was single).
Losing those places, I feel, it's like losing a part of history, tradition or continuity. Perhaps I would stop by an Amazon store (most likely I will if it has a coffee shop.)
In your dreams, consumers will bend over for anything and everything.
You think drone shoppers who pay thousands of dollars would take this like nothing? Funny guy. You don't seem to understand this specific type of consumer base.
I never saw that argument, maybe I missed it. He did look angry though. That said he's an entertainer, and an actor, but it seemed genuine.
The state of mind that you "see" is irrelevant to the content from that monologue (and to the fact that political satire always come from a position of anger, disapproval or discomfort.)
You were so imbued into the emotion you saw in Colbert (projecting much?) that you missed important pieces in it. In doing so, you made... brace yourself... an assumption.
Unfortunately, the jobs created by mostly solar are very low paying. The skillsets required to install solar panels is not exactly hard to find. Wind is a tad better with some reasonably well paying maintenance jobs and a little more expertise required for siting and construction. Nothing comes close to the number of high paying jobs in nuclear. Gas pays fairly well and has a decent employment base.
Better than nothing. Having lived in poverty once, I know that any job is better than none. Jobs might be low-paying, but if they are durable, that's one step in the right direction. It gets you one step, however short that it, towards climbing yourself out. It doesn't guarantee it (but what does?). But it gives you a fighting chance. Much better than flipping burgers where you barely learn anything (a type of I also did once, and which I'm grateful) or being stuck behind the counter at a mom-n-pop shop where you will never get a chance to climb up.
It's really too bad that Amazon are the only high-tech shop in the world - that workers don't have the option of taking their services to another company with better policies
My thoughts exactly. With that said, and I don't mean to dismiss what is being claimed here. I know people who work at Amazon, and none of them have reported such ludicrous work hours. I know they work hard, but to heard this claim, it defies by belief threshold.
We have absolute PROOF that intelligent life can exist in the universe. We have absolute proof that SPACEFARING life can exist in the universe. We have absolute physical proof that spacefaring life can CONSTRUCT things in space in the universe.
The absolute proof is that we're here and we've done ALL THOSE THINGS.
This does not lead logically to the conclusion that the construction of a Dyson Sphere is possible, since we have not constructed a Dyson Sphere.
This would be people before powered flight claiming that it is impossible to build a spaceship to take them to the moon, or solar panels because neither of them had been constructed at the time.
When you compare American whites with European countries the USA is equal to or better than Europe. Compare Apples to Apples, not Apples to Apples covered with feces.
The USA has a lot more minorities than the rest of "the 1st world" (read: white countries) so just wait until Merkel sends in a few million more refugees. You'll get there soon enough.
I can take you on a trip through the Rust Belt or the Appalachians to disabuse you of of that notion.
A Quarter of IT Pros Find Their Job Very Stressful
And what branch of work doesn't have a good share of stressed workers? 25%? I would find that a very low bar in stress given that 75% do not find it stressful.
Not as many but jobs ARE coming back. You also forget all of the jobs around keeping a factor running independent of the production that are good as well.
Still, we are just talking a fraction of the jobs that used to exist. Moreover, the "newer" jobs are outside the reach of those who originally lost their jobs (due to skill mismatches.)
It's not a situation where "100 people loose their jobs, but 20 get them back". It's "100 people lose their jobs, and 20 new jobs are opened and filled mostly with people."
Whether we blame the original 100 for not having the skills, that's another conversation. I'm partly in the "people should build their skills continuously" mindset, but I don't throw people under the bus either.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe in your mind, but not according to the laws of California and the United States. Tesla just publicly admitted to retaliation, which is such a legally stupid move it's baffling why they did it.
Tesla admitted to firing an employee that *wrongfully* sued it. Anti-retaliation law would kick in if the suit were justified. IANAL, but that's how it looks from where I sit.
Funny how I hear that "this isn't the time" every god damned fucking election and I'll bet I continue to hear it throughout the remainder of my life.
No! YOU ARE PERSONALLY responsible dilweed. People like you always force the issue, then look shocked. Simply shocked when it doesn't pan out.
Every single one of you that I know have always ultimately expressed regret over how things turned out but are absolutely never in favor of even making an attempt to change things. It's always which evil isn't as bad as the other evils. Not which is the best option. You guys are ALWAYS ready to sell off the next half of the light of the world to "save" the remainder. Never mind that by the time you guys are through were now down to like 0.00002% of the light of the world. Next election, it will be the same. Then it will be 0.00001% of the light of the world. But hey! Still not your fault even though you sell off half every damn time!
Say what you want. There was only one alternative to stop the Muslim ban. One.
You either tried to use your vote to stop it, or you used it to "try change things." Again, this type of thinking only comes from people who are not going to be significantly affected by The Great Orange One's bigoted policies.
The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough.
Some people keep saying that this agreement doesn't cost anything because it doesn't require anything, but then complain because we are no longer a signatory to an agreement that doesn't require anything and can thus not accomplish anything.
And you are quick to assign motives that weren't actually expressed. "Didn't find the problem important enough" is your opinion. It could also be that "this agreement does nothing to accomplish the alleged goal but will cost money complying with, even if it is just 'good will' compliance." It takes an adult to look at an agreement critically and avoid the emotionalism and politics behind it, and decide that the result of agreeing isn't worth the costs. You use "warm fuzzy feelings" to get children to do things you want them to, but once they grow up you expect them to be more discerning.
This treaty is "warm fuzzy feelings" with nothing behind it. Everyone seems to admit that, even those who argue we should stay in it. The result of agreeing" is not "clean air for all and falling global temperatures", the "result of agreeing" is purely political and emotional baggage. The "result of agreeing" is handing a bludgeon to third world countries to use to browbeat the US when the US doesn't give them money to help them meet their goals. It won't be missing a required payment, it will be the court of world opinion (kinda like today) where the opinion that "the US should be paying other countries because yada yada and they agreed to it in Paris" will become the endless refrain.
It now becomes harder to get countries to work with us on just about anything if we aren't even willing to be part of a goodwill gesture that had no real consequences to us if we stayed in it.
Agreements have to have some benefits to all the parties involved. If other countries don't feel like working with the US when it will benefit them, that's called "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". It is always their choice to do that. And if an agreement brings them no benefit, I would never expect them to agree to it. But the US is expected to do so because "warm fuzzy feelings".
Or perhaps it is a lesson to other leaders of state that assumed that the US President had unilateral power to commit the US to treaties, despite the US Constitution being available to all online for their review of the actual requirements. It is lunacy to believe that any non-binding agreement with one political winner will survive a sea change in the political landscape, whether it is Angela Merkel believing it or 'ranton'. And it would be just as lunatic for Trump to believe that any non-binding promises that Angela Merkel makes on behalf of Germany would survive her replacement, especially if she is replaced by a political opposite.
Walking away from the accord because it lacks teeth or whatever amounts to "shit ain't perfect so I will do no nothing!"
The agreement is a first step to achieve quorum, a consensus that something needs attention.
You can't fix what you can measure. He'll you have to agree everybody that they need to measure CO2 emissions, somehow.
Discrepancies aside, that's the vision that needs to be agreed upon. Then you build from there.
Expecting to get an agreement where every player is on board, with enforcement mechanisms and all, you are demanding the impossible just to justify doing nothing.
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Me and everyone I know on the left is pro-weed. Maybe it's anecdotal, but I don't see any empirical numbers you're putting up.
Your POV is anecdotal. From what I've seen, most lefties I know are pro-medical marijuana, not pro-recreational. A true pro-weed position has historically been a libertarian one. And that's the thing, we keep using simple minded labels to categorize issues that are just too fucking complex to pigeonhole like that.
It doesn't say why she was fired, but most companies won't say that.
TFA does have a statement by Tesla about the reason for firing her:
“The termination was based on Ms Vandermeyden behaving in what the evidence indicates is a fundamentally false and misleading manner, not as a result of retaliation for the lawsuit,” the spokesperson added. “It is impossible to trust anyone after they have behaved in such a manner and therefore continued employment is also impossible.”
Yeah. Launching a lawsuit like that just to be found w/o merits by a third, neutral party, that's reason enough to fire her. Or him, or whatever. The minimal trust required to keep someone on payroll has been broken.
Bad career move from her part (and if she did it with premeditated malice and dishonesty, she just fucked a whole bunch of women who might be real victims of discrimination.)
I was never really a party line liberal, and don't blame Obama 100% for the ACA failures - he was far to conciliatory and compromised too much. Overall I didn't like Obama and am now more of an independent voter despite my family earning in the top 5% every year. My whole point is there wasn't a sane choice on either side (sure as hell wouldn't vote for Hillary), and the two party system is currently screwing the working class. Instead of only voting for the RNC or DNC candidate, vote for who you actually want like I did. If enough people do this maybe both parties will pull their heads outta their behinds.
I'm sure that was entirely satisfying, but that didn't do that much good. After all, we have a ban on refugees that has nothing to do with security and everything to do with appeasing the demographic anxieties of illiterati. Afghan and Iraqi interpreters who risked their neck for us are now facing deportation or disown past promises for legal entry. We are rolling back EPA. And so on and so on.
Hillary is putrid. She's waaay deep, embedded in the establishment. But crooked as it she was, Hillary wouldn't have pulled any of these idiotic things that have a human cost to them.
I'm sure in some ways she would have been worse than Trump, but in the totality of action and agenda, no one can make that argument with a straight face. Yeah, pat yourself on the back for your vote. There are times in history that sure you can protest your vote and make it be the ideal representation of what your views should be. This wasn't one of them.
Much of the current problem started with WWII. The USA was lucky, not great. Name any other large, well populated, educated, industrialised nation with large amounts of natural resources that was not bombed during WWII. During the 1940-1970s the USA was able to build on what they already had, the rest of the world was effectively rebuilding roads, rail. schools, hospitals, and all the other infrastructure required. More to the point, they were able to build and sell the things the rest of the world needed. During the 1950s the USA account for over 50% of the entire worlds GDP, today its about 20%. The world is no longer reliant on the US, sure it impacts all the world, but so does China and the EU. The US is 4% of the worlds population, so 96% of the worlds population and 80% of world trade are not US based. China can (and will) surpass the USA, so will India and Brazil, may not happen in my life time, but it will happen, and I am not so sure the US is capable to accepting that cultural shock. I think high up in some sectors of the US government they understand this which is why they are meddling in the politics of Asian countries, they don't want as Asian Trading Bloc because that is 60% of the worlds population, and the area of greatest economic growth potential. Growth potential in the USA is almost nil, its a saturated market. And while Trump et al keeps shouting USA USA USA and USA first, the rest of the world keeps on improving, and putting the USA further and further down the ladder. For example, the world is not longer reliant on Boeing, there is Airbus, and China is getting into the act too. ARM is doing well, Its British not US. Samsung is doing well, again not US. And there are thousands of examples where non-US products are better than US ones.
This. That 80% of the world trade happens *outside* of the US or that countries can actually survive without it, that will be a tough, bitter pill to swallow to many who bought the "bring jobs back" kool-aid. He who was stupid enough to believe it will get his Darwin reward in time.
Its not like the US has failed, it more like the rest of the world has grown up and is no longer dependant. And because of that, the natural progression is that the US will fall behind in many fields .
Exactly. Countries are simply climbing themselves up. Economies are not a zero-sum game (unless we still do nothing about the millions of effectively illiterate workers who are simply unemployable outside of grunt work.)
Canada, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, Australia, and others I'm probably forgetting. The USA was bombed in World War 2 btw. Pearl harbor? German sabotage efforts?
I'm from Latin America, and to put Mexico (and Spain) in that list is ludicrous. Spain pretty much turned itself into a backwater land, and Mexico, though far more industrialized than most other LATAM country (sans Argentina), it truly did not belong (and still doesn't) to a list of industrialized, educated countries. And I don't mean this as an act of derision (I love Mexico, I just care enough for it to point where it is lagging.)
Canada and Switzerland, though educated and industrialized, were not significant economies whose presence or absence would become pivotal. Apples and oranges.
Sure, Pearl Harbor was bombed, but the OP is specifically talking of bombing as "being bombed back to the stone age", which is pretty much what happened to most of Europe and Japan. We are talking about countries with their infrastructure and industrial base that they have to start building shit out, down to simple things like public plumbing, all the way from scratch and rubble.
Let China win. Let them innovate and develop all the hot new technology. Then copy it from them without a care in the world. China's been doing that for decades and it's worked out pretty well for them.
This is an emotional statement meant to be use as, I don't know, sarcasm maybe. Pure chest thumping that achieves nothing.
Entitled bratty assholes? I don't want to understand them.
Emotional response.
Went there with the family for the same reasons, so I feel your pain. If you ever find yourself in Portland, OR there is a ginormous bookstore that stretches for several blocks that has none of the formality of the NY public library but all of the organized chaos of a retail store, shaken and stirred. With a coffee shop, and magazines. And manga.
Nice. Thanks for the tip. At some point I'm going to make a trip across the states with my kids. Portland is one of my planned stops.
Amazon is what Barnes & Noble was dreaming of becoming--a gigantic store with all book covers showing off book cover artwork and lavish reader praises with exclamation points -- before it got eaten.
I was thinking of the same. And it is quite sad. Obviously it is a subjective position from my part. Bizness is bizness.
But I do tend to love going to B&N (or Books-A-Million or a local library close home that is embedded with a children's museum and local coffee shop.) It is nice to go there, alone, with wife and kids and/or to meet a friend, have coffee and browse/buy books and magazines. Or to listen to a writer, for example.
It was a good place to start a in-the-middle-of-theday date (when I was single).
Losing those places, I feel, it's like losing a part of history, tradition or continuity. Perhaps I would stop by an Amazon store (most likely I will if it has a coffee shop.)
In your dreams, consumers will bend over for anything and everything.
You think drone shoppers who pay thousands of dollars would take this like nothing? Funny guy. You don't seem to understand this specific type of consumer base.
I never saw that argument, maybe I missed it. He did look angry though. That said he's an entertainer, and an actor, but it seemed genuine.
The state of mind that you "see" is irrelevant to the content from that monologue (and to the fact that political satire always come from a position of anger, disapproval or discomfort.)
You were so imbued into the emotion you saw in Colbert (projecting much?) that you missed important pieces in it. In doing so, you made... brace yourself... an assumption.
Unfortunately, the jobs created by mostly solar are very low paying. The skillsets required to install solar panels is not exactly hard to find. Wind is a tad better with some reasonably well paying maintenance jobs and a little more expertise required for siting and construction. Nothing comes close to the number of high paying jobs in nuclear. Gas pays fairly well and has a decent employment base.
Better than nothing. Having lived in poverty once, I know that any job is better than none. Jobs might be low-paying, but if they are durable, that's one step in the right direction. It gets you one step, however short that it, towards climbing yourself out. It doesn't guarantee it (but what does?). But it gives you a fighting chance. Much better than flipping burgers where you barely learn anything (a type of I also did once, and which I'm grateful) or being stuck behind the counter at a mom-n-pop shop where you will never get a chance to climb up.
Just because AWS is powered by Java does not negate the fact AWS is utter fucking horse shit, and no one in their right mind would ever use it.
You are emotional, not factual.
Only trendy fagot balls riders who *really* don't understand network and computing architectures use that shit.
Emergency! Emergency! "No true Scotsman" detected in the vicinity.
Do you not realize that AWS is already largely powered by Java microservices?
Indeed. That tells you everything you need to know the technical quality of posters in /.
It's really too bad that Amazon are the only high-tech shop in the world - that workers don't have the option of taking their services to another company with better policies
My thoughts exactly. With that said, and I don't mean to dismiss what is being claimed here. I know people who work at Amazon, and none of them have reported such ludicrous work hours. I know they work hard, but to heard this claim, it defies by belief threshold.
We have absolute PROOF that intelligent life can exist in the universe. We have absolute proof that SPACEFARING life can exist in the universe. We have absolute physical proof that spacefaring life can CONSTRUCT things in space in the universe.
The absolute proof is that we're here and we've done ALL THOSE THINGS.
This does not lead logically to the conclusion that the construction of a Dyson Sphere is possible, since we have not constructed a Dyson Sphere.
This would be people before powered flight claiming that it is impossible to build a spaceship to take them to the moon, or solar panels because neither of them had been constructed at the time.
It's not a law, it's an observation
Well he should have called it the Betteridge Observation of Headlines then, shouldn't he?
DS9: Body Parts: Gint: "Would you buy a book called Suggestions of Acquisition?"
Citation please
Sure. Betteridge's law of headlines
When you compare American whites with European countries the USA is equal to or better than Europe. Compare Apples to Apples, not Apples to Apples covered with feces.
The USA has a lot more minorities than the rest of "the 1st world" (read: white countries) so just wait until Merkel sends in a few million more refugees. You'll get there soon enough.
I can take you on a trip through the Rust Belt or the Appalachians to disabuse you of of that notion.
How can the Supreme Court crack down on anything? Technically it interprets existing law based on cases brought before it.
I guess "Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)" and the crackdown against anti-miscegenation laws never happened.
A Quarter of IT Pros Find Their Job Very Stressful
And what branch of work doesn't have a good share of stressed workers? 25%? I would find that a very low bar in stress given that 75% do not find it stressful.
Not as many but jobs ARE coming back. You also forget all of the jobs around keeping a factor running independent of the production that are good as well.
Still, we are just talking a fraction of the jobs that used to exist. Moreover, the "newer" jobs are outside the reach of those who originally lost their jobs (due to skill mismatches.)
It's not a situation where "100 people loose their jobs, but 20 get them back". It's "100 people lose their jobs, and 20 new jobs are opened and filled mostly with people."
Whether we blame the original 100 for not having the skills, that's another conversation. I'm partly in the "people should build their skills continuously" mindset, but I don't throw people under the bus either.