Yeah, it was just harder under previous Presidents. (Well, depending on how far back you go.) I mean, under Reagan, social media didn't exist. Did the Russians not want Reagan elected? Sure. They wanted a second Carter term. Not because they liked Carter. They just thought he would be a weaker President.
Same deal going on here. It's not necessarily that the Russians liked Clinton. But given the choice between Clinton and Trump, hell yes, they were going to try and swing voters towards Trump. He's an easily manipulated President with no governing experience, prone to running his mouth off on topics he doesn't have the slightest clue about.
Plus, you know, maybe the Russians have blackmail material on him.
From the article, it would appear that they're citing Uber's own employee evaluation process. (Which, also, at most companies, you're not supposed to discuss with other employees, but it still happens.)
Most businesses frown on employees discussing their compensation. So, until you find out that you're making less than someone who has been there less time/is less experienced/is less knowledgeable/all of the above, how are you supposed to know that you're undervalued?
At my previous job (which, admittedly was a retail job), I found out at one point, I was making less per hour than someone who was recently hired, and that was at the point where I'd been there a decade.
Regardless of whether this lawsuit has merit or not, this is why most businesses tell their employees not to discuss salaries/compensation. Even when it isn't discrimination (and yes, you better believe it still happens), there's literally no upside for the company.
Oh yeah - and if you have a home delivery scheduled that day, they recommend you leave your home alarm unarmed.
.... what.
So, anyone in the neighborhood who realizes that you've signed up for this thing now knows that your alarm is likely to be turned off on any day you receive a delivery. BRILLIANT!
Okay, first off, the one thing that they do right in this whole thing is that it's literally "buy in" (rather than opt in), because you have to purchase the lock/camera/scanner tech-package. If you don't want this service, don't buy the damn thing.
But I don't think they've really thought this out in terms of how the public is going to respond. I mean, I don't like rushing home to sign for a package, but then, I live in an apartment building, so they're supposed to be leaving the packages at the front office anyway.
But you know what else I don't like? People being in my apartment at all without my knowledge. And here's the thing... Amazon contracts out their deliveries. Who's delivering the package? Are _they_ fully trained on this system? And what time constraints are they already under?
Let me explain that last one. FedEx Ground drivers get paid based on the number of packages they deliver. They are under time crunches to deliver as many packages as possible in their day. So, what's going to happen?
Ground driver shows up, sees you have the scanner/camera thing, scans the bar code, waits for the response (hope the internet connection is good), waits for the door to unlock, puts the package inside, close the door (and make sure it locks?), and go on to the next delivery...
--- OR ----
Ground driver shows up, rings bell, ignores scanner, leaves package on front stoop or takes it back with him.
Does the lock package for the door automatically close and lock the door? If it doesn't, is the driver liable for not locking the door and anything that results because of that?
One wonder if Gowdy will manage to show up for more than 20% of the witness testimony this time. Or is he just going to implicitly acknowledge that this is a gigantic waste of time and money, and serves as nothing other than a distraction from what a colossal clusterfuck the Trump presidency has been thus far?
"Greetings {insert government here}, I work for {large social media company} that collects truly grotesque amounts of information on people, some of whom don't even use our service. I would like security clearance please, so {large social media company} can have access to information that they are normally prohibited from learning."
Yeah, no idea why various governments would have a problem with that.....
Yeah, I'm sure as an alternative to immediately putting the ashes in a resting spot, so as to not dishonor the spirit, turning the departed into a paving brick is completely acceptable to the family of the deceased.
Okay, I work for a small company, right? We have one HR guy. To the best of my knowledge, he does not have a college degree in a field that would lend itself to HR.
The previous HR person we had was an Anthropology major. The HR person we had before that was... I'm not actually sure what qualifications they had.
Now, yes, it's unlikely that a company as large as Tesla would have a bone-stupid, incompetent HR department. That is, the entire department. But it's possible that in an otherwise competent HR department, they have one guy who is shit at his job. Or maybe he just said the wrong thing. Because, clearly, no intelligent person has ever stuck their foot in their mouth.
Now, if they're smart, they'll settle these cases. Continued bad press scares investors.
Well, just offhand, I would say it's because the story submission validation does not rely on pleasing a random Anonymous Coward.
Also, that this involves a Tesla factory, and a huge discrimination lawsuit, coming on the heels of other discrimination lawsuits might have an adverse effect on the company's bottom line, stock value, and ability to produce electric cars.
That's still better than telling them your previous salary.
I mean, let's say you're interviewing for a position that pays $65k - $80k (and it was advertised as such), depending on experience. If you tell them that at your last job, you were making $60k, they're going to start negotiating at $65k.
But if the question is, how much do you expect to earn here, it puts you in a better position for negotiation. Maybe you have enough experience to flat out say "$80k". Or maybe, you want to give them a little wiggle room for negotiation so you don't come across as a hard-ass, and you say "$75k".
But you still have a better starting point for the salary negotiation.
I worked a retail job for over a decade. I honesty don't recall how much I made per hour when I started that job. I mean, I know it was above minimum wage, but I can't recall how much above.
We were regularly told that we couldn't discuss how much we made. Didn't stop anyone, but we didn't do it within earshot of management. And that's how I found out that a brand-new hire, with no experience at all, was making just as much as I was, when I had 10 years at the job.
it's because I don't want to be distracted while I'm driving that I leave my phone in my pocket while I'm driving. I've had to tell my friends on multiple occasions not to expect me to answer the phone if they call me when I'm driving.
Look, the only way that, realistically, they are going to catch someone stream sniping is if the sniper is dumb enough to be streaming at the same time or bragging about it.
Back when the original DOOM and it's sequel were popular, I played that a decent amount. (Yes, I know, I'm old.) But sometimes when playing single-player, I would cheat to go into "god mode" because I wanted to blow off some steam, and mow through all the enemies without having to worry about taking damage.
Now, that probably doesn't apply to these cheaters. I mean, maybe they want to blow off some steam after a hard day at work, but most of the heavy PvP games these days have rewards for being really good at it. And until you're caught cheating, a lot of people are not going to realize the difference between "that guy is good" and "that guy is cheating".
I'm certainly not excusing their behavior. But I think I understand it a bit in our current "I want my reward and I want it now, even if I haven't earned it" culture.
"People who have jobs but weren't paid during the survey period don't count as "employed" in the BLS statistics. That would include, for instance, a restaurant worker who is paid hourly and could not work for an extended period because of a storm."
But depending on any number of things, TransUnion and Experian might not meet some qualification to run this program. But through the magic of government bureaucracy and loopholes, Equifax does.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Just because you don't use Facebook doesn't mean that they don't have any information on you. And it doesn't mean that Google doesn't indirectly or directly shape your search results.
Slashdot Mirror
You really haven't been paying attention to the Trump administration, have you?
Yeah, it was just harder under previous Presidents. (Well, depending on how far back you go.) I mean, under Reagan, social media didn't exist. Did the Russians not want Reagan elected? Sure. They wanted a second Carter term. Not because they liked Carter. They just thought he would be a weaker President.
Same deal going on here. It's not necessarily that the Russians liked Clinton. But given the choice between Clinton and Trump, hell yes, they were going to try and swing voters towards Trump. He's an easily manipulated President with no governing experience, prone to running his mouth off on topics he doesn't have the slightest clue about.
Plus, you know, maybe the Russians have blackmail material on him.
Well, yes, but the companies are relying on their employees not knowing that.
From the article, it would appear that they're citing Uber's own employee evaluation process. (Which, also, at most companies, you're not supposed to discuss with other employees, but it still happens.)
Most businesses frown on employees discussing their compensation. So, until you find out that you're making less than someone who has been there less time/is less experienced/is less knowledgeable/all of the above, how are you supposed to know that you're undervalued?
At my previous job (which, admittedly was a retail job), I found out at one point, I was making less per hour than someone who was recently hired, and that was at the point where I'd been there a decade.
Regardless of whether this lawsuit has merit or not, this is why most businesses tell their employees not to discuss salaries/compensation. Even when it isn't discrimination (and yes, you better believe it still happens), there's literally no upside for the company.
So, anyone in the neighborhood who realizes that you've signed up for this thing now knows that your alarm is likely to be turned off on any day you receive a delivery. BRILLIANT!
Okay, first off, the one thing that they do right in this whole thing is that it's literally "buy in" (rather than opt in), because you have to purchase the lock/camera/scanner tech-package. If you don't want this service, don't buy the damn thing.
But I don't think they've really thought this out in terms of how the public is going to respond. I mean, I don't like rushing home to sign for a package, but then, I live in an apartment building, so they're supposed to be leaving the packages at the front office anyway.
But you know what else I don't like? People being in my apartment at all without my knowledge. And here's the thing... Amazon contracts out their deliveries. Who's delivering the package? Are _they_ fully trained on this system? And what time constraints are they already under?
Let me explain that last one. FedEx Ground drivers get paid based on the number of packages they deliver. They are under time crunches to deliver as many packages as possible in their day. So, what's going to happen?
Ground driver shows up, sees you have the scanner/camera thing, scans the bar code, waits for the response (hope the internet connection is good), waits for the door to unlock, puts the package inside, close the door (and make sure it locks?), and go on to the next delivery...
--- OR ----
Ground driver shows up, rings bell, ignores scanner, leaves package on front stoop or takes it back with him.
Does the lock package for the door automatically close and lock the door? If it doesn't, is the driver liable for not locking the door and anything that results because of that?
One wonder if Gowdy will manage to show up for more than 20% of the witness testimony this time. Or is he just going to implicitly acknowledge that this is a gigantic waste of time and money, and serves as nothing other than a distraction from what a colossal clusterfuck the Trump presidency has been thus far?
"Greetings {insert government here}, I work for {large social media company} that collects truly grotesque amounts of information on people, some of whom don't even use our service. I would like security clearance please, so {large social media company} can have access to information that they are normally prohibited from learning."
Yeah, no idea why various governments would have a problem with that.....
Yeah, I'm sure as an alternative to immediately putting the ashes in a resting spot, so as to not dishonor the spirit, turning the departed into a paving brick is completely acceptable to the family of the deceased.
Depends on the HR droid in question.
Okay, I work for a small company, right? We have one HR guy. To the best of my knowledge, he does not have a college degree in a field that would lend itself to HR.
The previous HR person we had was an Anthropology major. The HR person we had before that was... I'm not actually sure what qualifications they had.
Now, yes, it's unlikely that a company as large as Tesla would have a bone-stupid, incompetent HR department. That is, the entire department. But it's possible that in an otherwise competent HR department, they have one guy who is shit at his job. Or maybe he just said the wrong thing. Because, clearly, no intelligent person has ever stuck their foot in their mouth.
Now, if they're smart, they'll settle these cases. Continued bad press scares investors.
Well, just offhand, I would say it's because the story submission validation does not rely on pleasing a random Anonymous Coward.
Also, that this involves a Tesla factory, and a huge discrimination lawsuit, coming on the heels of other discrimination lawsuits might have an adverse effect on the company's bottom line, stock value, and ability to produce electric cars.
But hey, whatever floats your boat.
If the company HR was stupid enough to fire him because he was "handicapped", that's a different lawsuit entirely.
That's still better than telling them your previous salary.
I mean, let's say you're interviewing for a position that pays $65k - $80k (and it was advertised as such), depending on experience. If you tell them that at your last job, you were making $60k, they're going to start negotiating at $65k.
But if the question is, how much do you expect to earn here, it puts you in a better position for negotiation. Maybe you have enough experience to flat out say "$80k". Or maybe, you want to give them a little wiggle room for negotiation so you don't come across as a hard-ass, and you say "$75k".
But you still have a better starting point for the salary negotiation.
I worked a retail job for over a decade. I honesty don't recall how much I made per hour when I started that job. I mean, I know it was above minimum wage, but I can't recall how much above.
We were regularly told that we couldn't discuss how much we made. Didn't stop anyone, but we didn't do it within earshot of management. And that's how I found out that a brand-new hire, with no experience at all, was making just as much as I was, when I had 10 years at the job.
Needless to say, I don't work there any more.
Well, I'm a bit of a politics nerd, so......
Bang on about the user interface, though.
can you put the tabs below the address bar?
Yes. Because non-white people are profiting from it.
I wish I could say that was entirely sarcastic.
it's because I don't want to be distracted while I'm driving that I leave my phone in my pocket while I'm driving. I've had to tell my friends on multiple occasions not to expect me to answer the phone if they call me when I'm driving.
Their game, their rules.
Look, the only way that, realistically, they are going to catch someone stream sniping is if the sniper is dumb enough to be streaming at the same time or bragging about it.
Back when the original DOOM and it's sequel were popular, I played that a decent amount. (Yes, I know, I'm old.) But sometimes when playing single-player, I would cheat to go into "god mode" because I wanted to blow off some steam, and mow through all the enemies without having to worry about taking damage.
Now, that probably doesn't apply to these cheaters. I mean, maybe they want to blow off some steam after a hard day at work, but most of the heavy PvP games these days have rewards for being really good at it. And until you're caught cheating, a lot of people are not going to realize the difference between "that guy is good" and "that guy is cheating".
I'm certainly not excusing their behavior. But I think I understand it a bit in our current "I want my reward and I want it now, even if I haven't earned it" culture.
I'm guessing from this:
"People who have jobs but weren't paid during the survey period don't count as "employed" in the BLS statistics. That would include, for instance, a restaurant worker who is paid hourly and could not work for an extended period because of a storm."
Experian is the the third big one.
But depending on any number of things, TransUnion and Experian might not meet some qualification to run this program. But through the magic of government bureaucracy and loopholes, Equifax does.
Go figure.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Just because you don't use Facebook doesn't mean that they don't have any information on you. And it doesn't mean that Google doesn't indirectly or directly shape your search results.