Uh yeah. I've been pretty vocal here in my criticisms of the Wikileaks documents and how they've been taken. You might want to click on people's comment history before assuming they're a RWNJ. (Example)
I'm going to hold off running around claiming Assange has done anything of the sort until I see respected mainstream news outlets reporting the story, and covering the points that Wikileaks and others have suggested make the story suspicious.
Assange is, for better or worse, a man with a target on his back. Part of his antipathy against Clinton is undoubtedly because of that (Clinton has joked about "droning" him - and while he almost certainly didn't know that specifically when he turned his guns on her, it's improbable he hasn't linked her to the attacks on Wikileaks, and himself, during the last few years.) Just as with the rape charges, there are reasons to doubt the allegations are legitimate. As it is, your own link suggests at least one nation state involved didn't feel it worth pressing the case. Lack of a credible case? Seems highly probable.
I'm not a fan of Assange's involvement in this election - he seems to ignore the extreme situation the US is in, though I guess from his ideological position it doesn't matter. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that especially goes for people likely to be the targets of smear campaigns.
Unlimited "data" can mean many things. The most simple definition, "You can download as much as you want and you'll never be cut off or charged overages" is one T-Mobile met.
Unlimited by all attributes, including bandwidth, is technically impossible. Bandwidth available will never be infinite, and will even vary depending upon the number of other people using the network. I doubt anyone subscribes to an unlimited mobile phone plan and expects them to be able to stream the UHD version of PBS twenty four hours a day.
I don't think it's unreasonable for use of the word "Unlimited" to describe a system where the user can download as much as they want during the month, but if they hit certain usage levels that would cause problems for other users they may find the experience less optimal than it would otherwise be.
That said, there is a legitimate debate as to what that might be. T-Mobile's current version where if you use over a certain amount of data, your service is de-prioritized seems semi-reasonable, though even there I'd expect a minimum level of service to be maintained.
This is another bogus scandal that'll backfire badly. It tries to link Clinton with something she had no involvement in, and it raises more opportunities to (correctly and responsibly) link Trump's own words to violent behavior by his supporters.
Leaving aside the source, O'Keefe's is a stupid story that has no connection with Clinton herself. Even taken at face value, it's actually not even a sign that low level Clinton campaigners are bad per se: I mean, these guys are willing to risk injury and possible death exposing behavior they consider easily displayed by their opponents. They're morons, not evil.
Here's, FWIW, a video of a highly placed Trump activist who is promising to pay the legal fees for anyone who attacks anti-Trump protestors:
Now, do you notice anything different about these two stories? In one, O'Keefe's, you have allegations that some Clinton supporters, unbeknownst to any Presidential candidate, might have tried to demonstrate that Trump supporters are actually violent.
In the other, you have a Presidential Candidate announcing, in public, he'll help out any violent supporter of his and prevent them from suffering the consequences of their violent actions.
O'Keefe has raised another opportunity for Trump's opponents to point out he is a bona fide fascist - in this case, demonstrating that he is willing to support violence against his political rivals, one of the attributes of fascism Trump displays.
I bet these guys had jobs ligned up before the "bravely" quit Apple.
Giving the timings, and what they did next, I'm guessing not. Apple announces non-involvement in something they wanted to do. Within one week they've quit. No amount of enthusiasm in job hunting gets you a job lined up in that time, still less that results in all of you collectively deciding not to bother with the jobs, in favor of starting a new business.
More likely, they had money to invest and fall back on, and decided to start the new business together before all leaving. Technically that's a "job lined up", but not in the sense (contradicting TFA) you're talking about.
I would suggest you read the statements by the numerous contractors and businesses he's signed contracts with over the last few decades where he's then stiffed them, either not paying them at all, or paying only a part of the bill.
His record is so bad when it comes to lying about what he's promised and what he intends to do, his own lawyers meet him in pairs to ensure they have witnesses.
Plus, you know, his racism. Like what the letter 'C' means to him (it means "Do not let this person become a tenant in one of my properties, as they have the wrong Color skin.) Or his dog whistles against Jews. Or his attacks on BLM. And Mexican immigrants. And Syrian Muslims.
If it were Bank of America, sure. But it's Natwest, a UK bank, which has no US connections (at all, it's owned by Bank of Scotland, which in turn is a Crown property. And before you ask - no, that doesn't mean the UK government has any say in it, Crown properties like the BoS are run at arm's length from the government.)
That said, I'll be interested to follow how this pans out. Will they get another account at another bank? Will other banks in other countries pull their accounts? Is this really a political decision, or could it just be that RT is a bad customer for some reason?
James O'Keefe has "broken" a lot of stories where he's turned out to be a big fat liar. Why would you expect the media to just jump on his latest story without at the very least spending some time investigating it first?
And when there have been no hints from any other source that suggest the story is true?
And when the allegation makes little or no sense, with little reason to see any reason why the Clinton campaign would actually do what they're accused of doing?
And when the target of his hit piece is a woman whose enemies literally make stuff up about every few weeks?
I don't see her squirming, right now it looks like she's doing victory laps. Nobody gives a rat's behind what's in those emails aside from a group that frankly will never vote for her any way. It's over. Assange tried an "October surprise", and thanks to the incompetence of the Russian media and the usual gaggle of far right nutcases, it collapsed.
You're so blind to it you even repeated one without realizing it had the opposite impact - oh apparently a politician said there may be private and public reasons for supporting something. And this makes them unusually... what? Dishonest for a politician? Is that what you're trying to say? And, oh, hold on, her words were describing Abraham Lincoln's strategy for getting support for some of the most important and revered constitutional amendments in history? So they weren't even damning of general politics-as-usual?
It was stupid to make a big deal of it. You make big deals about big deals, not about minor gotchas.
The emails have done no damage to Clinton. Enough have been overhyped and subsequently laughed at that if something came in that was a serious, bona fide, scandal it wouldn't even be taken seriously. That's why it's having no affect whatsoever on Clinton's popularity. She's as high in the polls as she ever has been, she's on the verge now of breaking the 50% mark - which is remarkable considering she's a shitty campaigner, has the charisma of a wet slug, is as relatable as a Koch brother, is as enthusiastic about military interventions as her husband was unenthusiastic in the 1960s, and has a smile that would terrify a clown in a horror movie.
As far as your second paragraph goes, I'm baffled you'd make either assertion. Clinton will have had her campaign staff vetted, and will have some idea of what they're like as people, but the idea she knows the content of every single email sent and received during a specific period is ridiculous.
And even if it weren't, even if she were that big a privacy-invading nerd, as I said, we've had multiple instances of the Russian media inserting bogus versions of the Podesta emails into the public discourse. She would be wrong if she made any assertions that imply emails associated with Podesta are right.
Assange failed. Probably a good thing for him and his work anyway: Trump's on record as wanting Snowden executed. Clinton's only joked about "droning" Assange. There's little doubt Trump would kill him.
The emails aren't her's, they're from and to a friend of her's, Podesta. She has absolutely no ability to tell how many, if any, of the emails are legitimate. So actually her comments are absolutely the right thing to say, and it would have shown poor judgement to say anything else.
FWIW, once passed through the Russian media filter, at least one series of emails was attributed to her that had nothing to do with her, resulting in false allegations Clinton had used the N-word to describe her supporters. This smear was sufficiently believed by the anti-Clinton groups that I saw it posted over and over again in the comments sections of various news sites I read during that time. Again, this underscores how unwise it would have been to "confirm" jack shit.
There are plenty of fake environmental groups, even groups not funded by Russia. We have a bunch of them in Florida set up to combat a mass transit project that's unpopular with some of the people it'll pass by.
I'm not sure why you think for a second any environmentalist would deny the existence of such groups.
I'll be honest, I stopped following the Podesta emails thing when the first few "scandals" that trended on Twitter turned out to be complete BS, from Hills calling black people the N-word (uh, those emails weren't from her...) to the public/private position thing which was already overblown long before she talked about it in the debate.
The problem with the anti-Clinton mob is their insistence on making up allegations against the couple, from the string of murders they supposedly committed to the original Whitewater land deal which... was nothing.
When you lie and lie and lie and lie, it makes it impossible to take a word you're saying seriously. Right now Clinton (either of them) could murder Betty White and send an email boasting about it afterwards, and unless you had videos of it happening, nobody would take it seriously.
I've mentioned it before, but it's worth a reminder: some of us read a story called the Boy who Cried Wolf when we were kids. Perhaps it's time the Anti-Clintonites did too.
Clinton's emails aren't shocking, if they were there'd be no need to lie about them. The media isn't covering the way they're released because they're trying to cover up a scandal, there is no damned scandal - if there was one, again, there'd be no need to lie about it. The media is covering a fairly reasonable story that it appears there's covert foreign involvement in the election campaign. That's a story. It should be covered.
In fairness, while I wouldn't either, it's because I wouldn't leave my daughter with any stranger outside of an extreme emergency. It's kind of a stupid metric. "Oh, you say George W. Bush isn't a child molester, but would you leave your daughter with him?"
(Picked on Dumbya because I've never heard anyone suggest he's a danger to children, before anyone protests. That's the entire point, that he's probably totally OK.)
The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.
No they didn't. The idea was to ensure that the interests of the Federal government lined up with those of the member states. The separation of powers and rule of law is what's supposed to prevent Trump from being a problem.
When Trump and Clinton were neck and neck two or three weeks ago (gosh, has it been that long? But Arancia Mussolini's definitely definitely going to lose, right?), 538 was showing that they were also neck and neck in the electoral college.
The constitution does nothing to punish populism as long as that populism is sufficiently broad based, attractive to all of the country, not just some regions.
Not even close. It's been covered in ice for millenia. It got that name because Erik the Red was hoping to attract settlers, having found one tiny patch of habitable (probably still snow covered) land in an otherwise completely icy wasteland.
I'm guessing your version is something spouted by a global warming denier somewhere, but it doesn't make much sense given known Earth historical temperatures and the relative modernity of the words involved.
99% of Twitter users have never heard of these people, and if they had they'd probably sympathize with a company enforcing its ToS against users who, for example, are posting screenshots of forged tweets in an attempt to increase harassment of perceived "enemies".
Twitter growth has slowed (and on occasion gone into reverse) lately. The real reason it probably that the platform has changed fairly radically in the last 3-4 years, with changes that completely undermine the "read lots of quick, short, messages" selling point.
Some of the changes that have broken Twitter include:
1. Making messages take up about 1/5 of the screen, because of attached images, movies (WTF?), link summaries, etc.
2. Adding ads in a way that means the user has already read them by the time they realize they're in an ad, making them 10x as obnoxious (and, funnily enough, actually creating negative value for advertisers. Nobody trusts a Twitter advertiser, because you feel tricked when you've read their ad.)
3. Messing with the timelines. Even with their "optimized" version turned off, they frequently make the third "tweet" a pages long summary of tweets you've already read, entitled "In case you missed it", and there's no way to turn this off.
These have made Twitter change from being a nice way to keep up with your friends and the news to being an absolute chore to read.
The idea that these have had no effect on subscribers, while the banning of a self-admitted Troll and some others who have no self control, somehow has is ridiculous. Sure, a handful of people who wanted a network that made it easier to send a rape threat to a black actress or female CEO might feel that a crackdown on harassment or the banning of people who forge Tweets would turn them off, but they're not really the kinds of people who a social network wants, and they are the kinds of people who drive away more people than they attract.
I have three Twitter accounts (personal, business, product related) and I've never been forced to enter a telephone number.
I do know that accounts tempbanned or accounts showing some likelihood of being linked to someone sanctioned have been required to pony up a phone number. Was your account banned, or did something else happen?
The fact Twitter is full of people with views similar to, or more extreme than, Nero, and the fact it took two or three years before Twitter dropped the banhammer (during which time Nero had numerous tempbans for similar behavior), shows this "Poor Nero, persecuted for his opinions by eeeeeeeeevil 'SJWs' " narrative is ridiculous.
Twitter banned Nero for having a history of blatant ToS violations, and no other reasons. Twitter remains completely full of people spouting the same rhetoric as Nero et al, but none of those people felt the need to fake tweets from other Twitter users in an effort to encourage harassment against them (as one obvious example, and the last straw as far as Twitter was concerned) so they get to keep their accounts.
Nero is a piece of shit. He may be popular, but he makes his money from lying about people and siccing his supporters on them. No social network worth its salt wants people like that sucking the humanity out of their systems, whatever their opinions.
Also, it seems absurd to remove the mouse functionality replacing it with something touch screen like when the trend is to add a f---ing touch screen anyway. I want two touch screens? No! I want a friggin' mouse for when that's the most optimal UI and a touch screen for when a touch screen is.
What next? Replace the keyboard with a massive capacitive panel too?
After this election is over, we need a serious review of how WW-II and the causes thereof are taught in schools. The fact any American would write the above, and fail to recognize what it means and what it implies is horrifying.
It's utterly tragic, and an indictment of the US education system, that the only major group of Trump supporters who really understand what scapegoating minorities implies, what dehumanizing and smearing minorities implies, what advocating violence against political opponents implies, and so on, are the Neo-Nazis groups themselves.
I'm impressed with the fact that there are multiple angry responses to my original throwaway comment about the different jurisdictions involved, none of which acknowledge that the throwaway was about where the employer was, and all of which imply that it's somehow easy to tell which country has the right jurisdiction while simultaneously giving a slightly different answer to the others.
The difference is that a UK company was downsizing and decided to close a US office. If it had been an Indian company downsizing and deciding to close a US office, the situation wouldn't have been any different. I'm struggling to figure out how you brought racism or H1Bs into this discussion as neither are relevant.
Well, I was employed by a US company owned by a UK company, and to make matters even more confusing, the UK company had been bought and is owned by a US corporation, so I don't know where the legalities would have laid!
That said, large businesses tend to try to be fair with severances, because of the affect it'll have on those who remain if they start shitting on those they make redundant...
I suspect we don't hear horror stories about US companies outsourcing to UK companies because it isn't that common, UK wages are lower than US wages but they're not dramatically lower and overall costs are probably not orders of magnitude different. It's not like India.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh yeah. I've been pretty vocal here in my criticisms of the Wikileaks documents and how they've been taken. You might want to click on people's comment history before assuming they're a RWNJ. (Example)
I'm going to hold off running around claiming Assange has done anything of the sort until I see respected mainstream news outlets reporting the story, and covering the points that Wikileaks and others have suggested make the story suspicious.
Assange is, for better or worse, a man with a target on his back. Part of his antipathy against Clinton is undoubtedly because of that (Clinton has joked about "droning" him - and while he almost certainly didn't know that specifically when he turned his guns on her, it's improbable he hasn't linked her to the attacks on Wikileaks, and himself, during the last few years.) Just as with the rape charges, there are reasons to doubt the allegations are legitimate. As it is, your own link suggests at least one nation state involved didn't feel it worth pressing the case. Lack of a credible case? Seems highly probable.
I'm not a fan of Assange's involvement in this election - he seems to ignore the extreme situation the US is in, though I guess from his ideological position it doesn't matter. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that especially goes for people likely to be the targets of smear campaigns.
Unlimited "data" can mean many things. The most simple definition, "You can download as much as you want and you'll never be cut off or charged overages" is one T-Mobile met.
Unlimited by all attributes, including bandwidth, is technically impossible. Bandwidth available will never be infinite, and will even vary depending upon the number of other people using the network. I doubt anyone subscribes to an unlimited mobile phone plan and expects them to be able to stream the UHD version of PBS twenty four hours a day.
I don't think it's unreasonable for use of the word "Unlimited" to describe a system where the user can download as much as they want during the month, but if they hit certain usage levels that would cause problems for other users they may find the experience less optimal than it would otherwise be.
That said, there is a legitimate debate as to what that might be. T-Mobile's current version where if you use over a certain amount of data, your service is de-prioritized seems semi-reasonable, though even there I'd expect a minimum level of service to be maintained.
This is another bogus scandal that'll backfire badly. It tries to link Clinton with something she had no involvement in, and it raises more opportunities to (correctly and responsibly) link Trump's own words to violent behavior by his supporters.
Leaving aside the source, O'Keefe's is a stupid story that has no connection with Clinton herself. Even taken at face value, it's actually not even a sign that low level Clinton campaigners are bad per se: I mean, these guys are willing to risk injury and possible death exposing behavior they consider easily displayed by their opponents. They're morons, not evil.
Here's, FWIW, a video of a highly placed Trump activist who is promising to pay the legal fees for anyone who attacks anti-Trump protestors:
Video
Now, do you notice anything different about these two stories? In one, O'Keefe's, you have allegations that some Clinton supporters, unbeknownst to any Presidential candidate, might have tried to demonstrate that Trump supporters are actually violent.
In the other, you have a Presidential Candidate announcing, in public, he'll help out any violent supporter of his and prevent them from suffering the consequences of their violent actions.
O'Keefe has raised another opportunity for Trump's opponents to point out he is a bona fide fascist - in this case, demonstrating that he is willing to support violence against his political rivals, one of the attributes of fascism Trump displays.
Giving the timings, and what they did next, I'm guessing not. Apple announces non-involvement in something they wanted to do. Within one week they've quit. No amount of enthusiasm in job hunting gets you a job lined up in that time, still less that results in all of you collectively deciding not to bother with the jobs, in favor of starting a new business.
More likely, they had money to invest and fall back on, and decided to start the new business together before all leaving. Technically that's a "job lined up", but not in the sense (contradicting TFA) you're talking about.
I would suggest you read the statements by the numerous contractors and businesses he's signed contracts with over the last few decades where he's then stiffed them, either not paying them at all, or paying only a part of the bill.
His record is so bad when it comes to lying about what he's promised and what he intends to do, his own lawyers meet him in pairs to ensure they have witnesses.
Plus, you know, his racism. Like what the letter 'C' means to him (it means "Do not let this person become a tenant in one of my properties, as they have the wrong C olor skin.) Or his dog whistles against Jews. Or his attacks on BLM. And Mexican immigrants. And Syrian Muslims.
If it were Bank of America, sure. But it's Natwest, a UK bank, which has no US connections (at all, it's owned by Bank of Scotland, which in turn is a Crown property. And before you ask - no, that doesn't mean the UK government has any say in it, Crown properties like the BoS are run at arm's length from the government.)
That said, I'll be interested to follow how this pans out. Will they get another account at another bank? Will other banks in other countries pull their accounts? Is this really a political decision, or could it just be that RT is a bad customer for some reason?
James O'Keefe has "broken" a lot of stories where he's turned out to be a big fat liar. Why would you expect the media to just jump on his latest story without at the very least spending some time investigating it first?
And when there have been no hints from any other source that suggest the story is true?
And when the allegation makes little or no sense, with little reason to see any reason why the Clinton campaign would actually do what they're accused of doing?
And when the target of his hit piece is a woman whose enemies literally make stuff up about every few weeks?
I don't see her squirming, right now it looks like she's doing victory laps. Nobody gives a rat's behind what's in those emails aside from a group that frankly will never vote for her any way. It's over. Assange tried an "October surprise", and thanks to the incompetence of the Russian media and the usual gaggle of far right nutcases, it collapsed.
You're so blind to it you even repeated one without realizing it had the opposite impact - oh apparently a politician said there may be private and public reasons for supporting something. And this makes them unusually... what? Dishonest for a politician? Is that what you're trying to say? And, oh, hold on, her words were describing Abraham Lincoln's strategy for getting support for some of the most important and revered constitutional amendments in history? So they weren't even damning of general politics-as-usual?
It was stupid to make a big deal of it. You make big deals about big deals, not about minor gotchas.
The emails have done no damage to Clinton. Enough have been overhyped and subsequently laughed at that if something came in that was a serious, bona fide, scandal it wouldn't even be taken seriously. That's why it's having no affect whatsoever on Clinton's popularity. She's as high in the polls as she ever has been, she's on the verge now of breaking the 50% mark - which is remarkable considering she's a shitty campaigner, has the charisma of a wet slug, is as relatable as a Koch brother, is as enthusiastic about military interventions as her husband was unenthusiastic in the 1960s, and has a smile that would terrify a clown in a horror movie.
As far as your second paragraph goes, I'm baffled you'd make either assertion. Clinton will have had her campaign staff vetted, and will have some idea of what they're like as people, but the idea she knows the content of every single email sent and received during a specific period is ridiculous.
And even if it weren't, even if she were that big a privacy-invading nerd, as I said, we've had multiple instances of the Russian media inserting bogus versions of the Podesta emails into the public discourse. She would be wrong if she made any assertions that imply emails associated with Podesta are right.
Assange failed. Probably a good thing for him and his work anyway: Trump's on record as wanting Snowden executed. Clinton's only joked about "droning" Assange. There's little doubt Trump would kill him.
The emails aren't her's, they're from and to a friend of her's, Podesta. She has absolutely no ability to tell how many, if any, of the emails are legitimate. So actually her comments are absolutely the right thing to say, and it would have shown poor judgement to say anything else.
FWIW, once passed through the Russian media filter, at least one series of emails was attributed to her that had nothing to do with her, resulting in false allegations Clinton had used the N-word to describe her supporters. This smear was sufficiently believed by the anti-Clinton groups that I saw it posted over and over again in the comments sections of various news sites I read during that time. Again, this underscores how unwise it would have been to "confirm" jack shit.
There are plenty of fake environmental groups, even groups not funded by Russia. We have a bunch of them in Florida set up to combat a mass transit project that's unpopular with some of the people it'll pass by.
I'm not sure why you think for a second any environmentalist would deny the existence of such groups.
I'll be honest, I stopped following the Podesta emails thing when the first few "scandals" that trended on Twitter turned out to be complete BS, from Hills calling black people the N-word (uh, those emails weren't from her...) to the public/private position thing which was already overblown long before she talked about it in the debate.
The problem with the anti-Clinton mob is their insistence on making up allegations against the couple, from the string of murders they supposedly committed to the original Whitewater land deal which... was nothing.
When you lie and lie and lie and lie, it makes it impossible to take a word you're saying seriously. Right now Clinton (either of them) could murder Betty White and send an email boasting about it afterwards, and unless you had videos of it happening, nobody would take it seriously.
I've mentioned it before, but it's worth a reminder: some of us read a story called the Boy who Cried Wolf when we were kids. Perhaps it's time the Anti-Clintonites did too.
Clinton's emails aren't shocking, if they were there'd be no need to lie about them. The media isn't covering the way they're released because they're trying to cover up a scandal, there is no damned scandal - if there was one, again, there'd be no need to lie about it. The media is covering a fairly reasonable story that it appears there's covert foreign involvement in the election campaign. That's a story. It should be covered.
In fairness, while I wouldn't either, it's because I wouldn't leave my daughter with any stranger outside of an extreme emergency. It's kind of a stupid metric. "Oh, you say George W. Bush isn't a child molester, but would you leave your daughter with him?"
(Picked on Dumbya because I've never heard anyone suggest he's a danger to children, before anyone protests. That's the entire point, that he's probably totally OK.)
No they didn't. The idea was to ensure that the interests of the Federal government lined up with those of the member states. The separation of powers and rule of law is what's supposed to prevent Trump from being a problem.
When Trump and Clinton were neck and neck two or three weeks ago (gosh, has it been that long? But Arancia Mussolini's definitely definitely going to lose, right?), 538 was showing that they were also neck and neck in the electoral college.
The constitution does nothing to punish populism as long as that populism is sufficiently broad based, attractive to all of the country, not just some regions.
Not even close. It's been covered in ice for millenia. It got that name because Erik the Red was hoping to attract settlers, having found one tiny patch of habitable (probably still snow covered) land in an otherwise completely icy wasteland.
I'm guessing your version is something spouted by a global warming denier somewhere, but it doesn't make much sense given known Earth historical temperatures and the relative modernity of the words involved.
99% of Twitter users have never heard of these people, and if they had they'd probably sympathize with a company enforcing its ToS against users who, for example, are posting screenshots of forged tweets in an attempt to increase harassment of perceived "enemies".
Twitter growth has slowed (and on occasion gone into reverse) lately. The real reason it probably that the platform has changed fairly radically in the last 3-4 years, with changes that completely undermine the "read lots of quick, short, messages" selling point.
Some of the changes that have broken Twitter include:
1. Making messages take up about 1/5 of the screen, because of attached images, movies (WTF?), link summaries, etc.
2. Adding ads in a way that means the user has already read them by the time they realize they're in an ad, making them 10x as obnoxious (and, funnily enough, actually creating negative value for advertisers. Nobody trusts a Twitter advertiser, because you feel tricked when you've read their ad.)
3. Messing with the timelines. Even with their "optimized" version turned off, they frequently make the third "tweet" a pages long summary of tweets you've already read, entitled "In case you missed it", and there's no way to turn this off.
These have made Twitter change from being a nice way to keep up with your friends and the news to being an absolute chore to read.
The idea that these have had no effect on subscribers, while the banning of a self-admitted Troll and some others who have no self control, somehow has is ridiculous. Sure, a handful of people who wanted a network that made it easier to send a rape threat to a black actress or female CEO might feel that a crackdown on harassment or the banning of people who forge Tweets would turn them off, but they're not really the kinds of people who a social network wants, and they are the kinds of people who drive away more people than they attract.
I have three Twitter accounts (personal, business, product related) and I've never been forced to enter a telephone number.
I do know that accounts tempbanned or accounts showing some likelihood of being linked to someone sanctioned have been required to pony up a phone number. Was your account banned, or did something else happen?
The fact Twitter is full of people with views similar to, or more extreme than, Nero, and the fact it took two or three years before Twitter dropped the banhammer (during which time Nero had numerous tempbans for similar behavior), shows this "Poor Nero, persecuted for his opinions by eeeeeeeeevil 'SJWs' " narrative is ridiculous.
Twitter banned Nero for having a history of blatant ToS violations, and no other reasons. Twitter remains completely full of people spouting the same rhetoric as Nero et al, but none of those people felt the need to fake tweets from other Twitter users in an effort to encourage harassment against them (as one obvious example, and the last straw as far as Twitter was concerned) so they get to keep their accounts.
Nero is a piece of shit. He may be popular, but he makes his money from lying about people and siccing his supporters on them. No social network worth its salt wants people like that sucking the humanity out of their systems, whatever their opinions.
Also, it seems absurd to remove the mouse functionality replacing it with something touch screen like when the trend is to add a f---ing touch screen anyway. I want two touch screens? No! I want a friggin' mouse for when that's the most optimal UI and a touch screen for when a touch screen is.
What next? Replace the keyboard with a massive capacitive panel too?
After this election is over, we need a serious review of how WW-II and the causes thereof are taught in schools. The fact any American would write the above, and fail to recognize what it means and what it implies is horrifying.
It's utterly tragic, and an indictment of the US education system, that the only major group of Trump supporters who really understand what scapegoating minorities implies, what dehumanizing and smearing minorities implies, what advocating violence against political opponents implies, and so on, are the Neo-Nazis groups themselves.
I'm impressed with the fact that there are multiple angry responses to my original throwaway comment about the different jurisdictions involved, none of which acknowledge that the throwaway was about where the employer was, and all of which imply that it's somehow easy to tell which country has the right jurisdiction while simultaneously giving a slightly different answer to the others.
Slashdot Kruger-Dunning at its finest...
It'd be nice for a "backdoor" to actually be a boon to consumers for once.
The difference is that a UK company was downsizing and decided to close a US office. If it had been an Indian company downsizing and deciding to close a US office, the situation wouldn't have been any different. I'm struggling to figure out how you brought racism or H1Bs into this discussion as neither are relevant.
Well, I was employed by a US company owned by a UK company, and to make matters even more confusing, the UK company had been bought and is owned by a US corporation, so I don't know where the legalities would have laid!
That said, large businesses tend to try to be fair with severances, because of the affect it'll have on those who remain if they start shitting on those they make redundant...
I suspect we don't hear horror stories about US companies outsourcing to UK companies because it isn't that common, UK wages are lower than US wages but they're not dramatically lower and overall costs are probably not orders of magnitude different. It's not like India.