One more thing to add, though; once you've told them you're retiring, you can expect that you won't get any more raises or promotions. And don't expect a retention bonus, if one is in the works.
So, if you expect an upcoming raise or a bonus, that might be a reason to wait.
(particularly if you have a pension plan where your payout is proportional to your salary at retirement! But those are pretty uncommon these days.)
Since when do Americans need a visa to visit America? By definition anyone carrying a US passport should be exempt, if you believe their excuse for doing the scans.
What part of scanning everybody are you having problems with? They are scanning everybody, Americans and non-Americans alike, in order to catch the ones with expired visas.
What I don't get: these are people leaving the country. If somebody has an expired visa, what they are supposed to do is to leave the country. I don't see the point of a billion-dollar program (!) to catch the people leaving; what they're supposed to be doing is catching the people on expired visas who are not leaving the country.
Given them YEARS notice on the other hand just allows time for shenanigans like pushing you out to get the transition over on their terms rather than yours maybe before you are ready.
No, for any reasonable company, there's no reason not to let them know even years in advance. When they know you're retiring, this is an incentive for them to not lay you off, so you can train your replacement. It's an incentive for them to not make your work conditions miserable to try to force you out-- since you're on your way out anyway.
Worse I have seen crappy companies let people go before making eligibility for 30 year bonuses / increased pensions etc. That sorta thing may or may not apply to you but why invite trouble if it does.
Now, that is an important consideration. If there is some period of time such that if you are employed more than XX years you get vested in something that costs the company money, you should beware of the company wanting to terminate you to avoid having you get vested in that retirement payout, or whatever.
I'm assuming that there isn't some trigger point coming up that gives the company an incentive to get rid of you. If there is: yes, make sure you're indispensable up until you've gotten vested.
There is no reason not to tell your employer about your intent to retire in 6 months. They aren't going to lay you off when you've already told them that you're leaving in six months anyway: firing somebody is a lot of work and has a lot of bad effects, and they'd gain only six months of your salary, which would get eaten up with severance pay and lawsuits. If they did want to get rid of you, having you retire is their best case scenario.
So, go ahead, let them know, and start training your replacement.
Most diabetics dont use insulin. Full fucking stop. Dipshit.
"Diabetes" is actually two entirely different diseases, "type 1 diabetes" and "type 2 diabetes". Despite the same name, they have entirely different causes. Type 1 diabetes patients don't produce insulin. Type 2 diabetes patients are resistant to insulin.
Almost a century ago, scientists discovered insulin, and found it could be used to treat diabetes. They sold that patented idea for $1 as a goodwill gesture because they knew their discovery could save millions of lives.
Can people figure out how it discriminates against certain race or gender?
The proposal here is to do a study to understand that, yes.
You did notice that this article was about studying the problem to see if there is algorithmic discrimination, right?
However, let me also point out that since the example discussed in the text was about DNA testing, I would point out that race and gender are encoded in DNA, so "does not have race/gender input" is not applicable here.
In other cases, however, yes, it turns out that there can be race and gender encoded into input data even if it is not explicitly listed as "enter race and gender here." You could look at the articles cited earlier, such as https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... or even look at the Yale Law review article about the book on the subject http://michiganlawreview.org/w...
The links you give do not support the conclusion you state.
The link states "They concluded that police were woefully unprepared, and that leadership was sluggish in its response to escalating violence, and as a result, they failed to protect public safety"-- which has nothing to do with what you stated, that "the antifa thugs attacked them first."
You then link to "the whole report" (https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c869fb_a573de9ad4f04b0491b927ca9d48252c.pdf) -- but that doesn't support the statement you made either.
so I conclude that you gave these links to create an illusion that you have references to support your statement, on the assumption that the people reading wouldn't fact check you.
My point is that both India and China are enormous countries with large economies doing many many different things that can't really be summarized in two sentences totaling twelve words. Both of them, in fact, are doing a lot of work-- and putting in a lot of their own money-- on reducing their carbon intensity.
And they're also building coal plants. Your point is?
If we did want them to increase their focus on implementing low-carbon technologies, and reduce their focus on increasing their populations standard of living by building more coal plants, it would be useful to come to an agreement to that effect.
Yeah, maybe he'll convince the rest of the world that if they really want to do something about climate change, then they're going to have to do it on their own money, and not expect to bleed America dry.
The problem with all these accords and protocols is that they're fake. None of them REQUIRE the REAL polluters, China and India, do do a damned thing.
You do know that China and India are both partners to the accord, and are both in fact doing things to reduce their carbon output, right?
https://electrek.co/2017/11/17...
Wow, a collection of completely irrelevant links. Bizarre. Not a single one of your links supports any of the statements made, although I'm amused by the link to a Swiss company selling insect-based food. At their prices they're not selling to the poor, though!
--and for the record, Montecito California has an elevation of 180 feet above sea level. It's not likely to flood any time this century. I'm no fan of Al Gore, but looks like he's smart enough to not buy property that's only a few feet above sea level.
Doubling down on the crazy "predictions" doesn't fly anymore. Sky didn't fall in two decades, and now no one but the terminally gullible will believe it's ever going to.
But nobody ever predicted the sky would fall in two decades in the first place. People did predict about two degrees of warming by 2100, though, if that's what you mean.
Hopefully that's gonna be postponed 'til I'm dead. As the Germans say, "hinter mir die Sintflut" (it loses a bit in translation, basically it means "for all I care, the deluge may follow when I'm gone"). Literally.
You do know that this is just the German translation of the well-known Louis XV quote "Après moi, le déluge", right?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the burden of proof is on Kaspersky, to prove his accusation that it was a "designed and orchestrated attack"? Or the burden of proof is on the media, in that "multiple media reports alleging that the company had helped Russian intelligence agencies spy on the US"?
and, more to the point, if the net result of the "burden of proof" is "the accusation remains unproven," meaning neither proven nor disproven... what action should you take? You personally are not a criminal court.
Yes, of course Kaspersky would say this; I'm not sure what else he could say. It may even be a "designed and orchestrated attack," for all I know, but Kaspersky would say that whether or not it was, so what he says really doesn't mean anything.
I'd like to see some actual evidence, and not speculation.
Filed an actual DNR form, properly notarized and witnessed? No, that would just be ridiculous, right?
As the summary states, he did have a proper DNR form filed with the state.
It takes time, however, before the DNR form can be located and sent to the hospital and then forwarded to the hospital social work staff to write a hospital DRN order.
This is exactly why people think libertarians are assholes.
Nope. There are other reasons.
Libertarians tend to be introverts,
I see no evidence whatsoever that libertarians tend to be introverts.
and not very good at communicating complex ideas to other people.
"Not good at communicating," maybe, but "complex ideas"-- no, the exact opposite.
The essence of libertarianism is very, very simple ideas. Unfortunately people in the real word live in a complicated real world with real world problems, and libertarian simple ideas are often too simple; they don't solve real world problems.
My view of the typical libertarian is that they took a introductory economics class, went to the first two weeks in which the ideal free market is described, shouted "eureka! that explains everything!"-- and then decided that they know everything about economics and never went back to that class again.
Some libertarian ideas are counter-intuitive, especially economics ideas.
Nope. Libertarian ideas are very simple and intuitive, especially economics ideas. That's the attraction of libertarianism. It fits that model "for every problem there is a simple solution."
When it comes to economics, people tend to trust intuition. While intuition works pretty well for small groups, it fails horribly for larger ones. A reasonable approach for a band of hunter-gatherers divvying-up the day's kill does not scale to a market economy of millions or billions of people.
Exactly!!!!! This is precisely the problem with libertarianism: it takes a simple solution that works well in the case of one farmer with a cow and another growing tomatoes who agree to exchange milk for tomatoes, and says that intuitive model solves any complicated problem with billions of people where everybody's actions have repercussions on everybody else with multiple non-intuitive effects.
The same applies to various non-economic positions, to varying degrees. Libertarians, who tend to be introverts,
Unsubstantiated.
are often not especially skilled at countering the hostile statements of others.
Yes. In fact, they are not especially skilled at even listening to the comments of others.
Those others are usually uninformed or misinformed about what libertarians actually believe.
Or, more to the point, libertarians always start with the going-in position that everybody else is uninformed or misinformed.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if you expect an upcoming raise or a bonus, that might be a reason to wait.
(particularly if you have a pension plan where your payout is proportional to your salary at retirement! But those are pretty uncommon these days.)
Since when do Americans need a visa to visit America? By definition anyone carrying a US passport should be exempt, if you believe their excuse for doing the scans.
What part of scanning everybody are you having problems with? They are scanning everybody, Americans and non-Americans alike, in order to catch the ones with expired visas.
What I don't get: these are people leaving the country. If somebody has an expired visa, what they are supposed to do is to leave the country. I don't see the point of a billion-dollar program (!) to catch the people leaving; what they're supposed to be doing is catching the people on expired visas who are not leaving the country.
Given them YEARS notice on the other hand just allows time for shenanigans like pushing you out to get the transition over on their terms rather than yours maybe before you are ready.
No, for any reasonable company, there's no reason not to let them know even years in advance. When they know you're retiring, this is an incentive for them to not lay you off, so you can train your replacement. It's an incentive for them to not make your work conditions miserable to try to force you out-- since you're on your way out anyway.
Worse I have seen crappy companies let people go before making eligibility for 30 year bonuses / increased pensions etc. That sorta thing may or may not apply to you but why invite trouble if it does.
Now, that is an important consideration. If there is some period of time such that if you are employed more than XX years you get vested in something that costs the company money, you should beware of the company wanting to terminate you to avoid having you get vested in that retirement payout, or whatever.
I'm assuming that there isn't some trigger point coming up that gives the company an incentive to get rid of you. If there is: yes, make sure you're indispensable up until you've gotten vested.
So, go ahead, let them know, and start training your replacement.
The main question is why: why in the world would you want to wear your computer?
Most diabetics dont use insulin. Full fucking stop. Dipshit.
"Diabetes" is actually two entirely different diseases, "type 1 diabetes" and "type 2 diabetes". Despite the same name, they have entirely different causes. Type 1 diabetes patients don't produce insulin. Type 2 diabetes patients are resistant to insulin.
Type 1 diabetes was fatal before insulin.
Almost a century ago, scientists discovered insulin, and found it could be used to treat diabetes. They sold that patented idea for $1 as a goodwill gesture because they knew their discovery could save millions of lives.
Fact-checking this one, and it turns out to be true. The researchers who discovered insulin, Banting, Collip and Best, did sell the patent for one dollar.
https://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7Bb3848683-e962-43ac-b23b-5b2c10f711a8%7D/frederick-banting-discovered-insulin-in-1921
Can people figure out how it discriminates against certain race or gender?
The proposal here is to do a study to understand that, yes.
You did notice that this article was about studying the problem to see if there is algorithmic discrimination, right?
However, let me also point out that since the example discussed in the text was about DNA testing, I would point out that race and gender are encoded in DNA, so "does not have race/gender input" is not applicable here.
In other cases, however, yes, it turns out that there can be race and gender encoded into input data even if it is not explicitly listed as "enter race and gender here." You could look at the articles cited earlier, such as https://www.theatlantic.com/bu... or even look at the Yale Law review article about the book on the subject http://michiganlawreview.org/w...
Exactly, they even gave BLM an emoji. If twitter were to enforce their rules properly, they'd be deleting their platform!
I hate the Bureau of Land Management too, but I don't think that they use twitter very much
The links you give do not support the conclusion you state.
The link states "They concluded that police were woefully unprepared, and that leadership was sluggish in its response to escalating violence, and as a result, they failed to protect public safety"-- which has nothing to do with what you stated, that "the antifa thugs attacked them first."
You then link to "the whole report" (https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/c869fb_a573de9ad4f04b0491b927ca9d48252c.pdf) -- but that doesn't support the statement you made either.
so I conclude that you gave these links to create an illusion that you have references to support your statement, on the assumption that the people reading wouldn't fact check you.
Your point is?
My point is that both India and China are enormous countries with large economies doing many many different things that can't really be summarized in two sentences totaling twelve words. Both of them, in fact, are doing a lot of work-- and putting in a lot of their own money-- on reducing their carbon intensity.
And they're also building coal plants. Your point is?
If we did want them to increase their focus on implementing low-carbon technologies, and reduce their focus on increasing their populations standard of living by building more coal plants, it would be useful to come to an agreement to that effect.
Yeah, maybe he'll convince the rest of the world that if they really want to do something about climate change, then they're going to have to do it on their own money, and not expect to bleed America dry.
The problem with all these accords and protocols is that they're fake. None of them REQUIRE the REAL polluters, China and India, do do a damned thing.
You do know that China and India are both partners to the accord, and are both in fact doing things to reduce their carbon output, right? https://electrek.co/2017/11/17...
This is a solvable problem.
--and for the record, Montecito California has an elevation of 180 feet above sea level. It's not likely to flood any time this century. I'm no fan of Al Gore, but looks like he's smart enough to not buy property that's only a few feet above sea level.
Doubling down on the crazy "predictions" doesn't fly anymore. Sky didn't fall in two decades, and now no one but the terminally gullible will believe it's ever going to.
But nobody ever predicted the sky would fall in two decades in the first place. People did predict about two degrees of warming by 2100, though, if that's what you mean.
Hopefully that's gonna be postponed 'til I'm dead. As the Germans say, "hinter mir die Sintflut" (it loses a bit in translation, basically it means "for all I care, the deluge may follow when I'm gone"). Literally.
You do know that this is just the German translation of the well-known Louis XV quote "Après moi, le déluge", right?
(Wikipedia tells me that is probably better attributed to Madame de Pompadou: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki... )
The burden of proof lies on the accuser.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the burden of proof is on Kaspersky, to prove his accusation that it was a "designed and orchestrated attack"? Or the burden of proof is on the media, in that "multiple media reports alleging that the company had helped Russian intelligence agencies spy on the US"?
and, more to the point, if the net result of the "burden of proof" is "the accusation remains unproven," meaning neither proven nor disproven... what action should you take? You personally are not a criminal court.
When their mouths are moving!
Actually, they use ventriloquism a lot, so even that isn't a good sign.
Speaking through ventriloquist's dummies is their most common trick
I'd like to see some actual evidence, and not speculation.
Filed an actual DNR form, properly notarized and witnessed? No, that would just be ridiculous, right?
As the summary states, he did have a proper DNR form filed with the state.
It takes time, however, before the DNR form can be located and sent to the hospital and then forwarded to the hospital social work staff to write a hospital DRN order.
This just means that the dog's motive isn't getting food, the dog's motive is getting you to do her bidding.
When do you think bitcoin bubble will burst and why it is before Nasdaq bitcoin futures market open?
As John Maynard Keynes is quoted as saying, "The markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent."
(* no evidence that he actually did say this, though. The earliest use is A. Gary Schilling.
Google is not evil....I know Google is not evil, because Google says so. Their motto is "don't be evil".
Yes, but the corporation Google no longer exists. The new corporation is "Alphabet". And Alphabet doesn't have that motto....
All bugs are also features. Depends on what you want them for.
This is exactly why people think libertarians are assholes.
Nope. There are other reasons. Libertarians tend to be introverts,
I see no evidence whatsoever that libertarians tend to be introverts.
and not very good at communicating complex ideas to other people.
"Not good at communicating," maybe, but "complex ideas"-- no, the exact opposite.
The essence of libertarianism is very, very simple ideas. Unfortunately people in the real word live in a complicated real world with real world problems, and libertarian simple ideas are often too simple; they don't solve real world problems.
My view of the typical libertarian is that they took a introductory economics class, went to the first two weeks in which the ideal free market is described, shouted "eureka! that explains everything!"-- and then decided that they know everything about economics and never went back to that class again.
Some libertarian ideas are counter-intuitive, especially economics ideas.
Nope. Libertarian ideas are very simple and intuitive, especially economics ideas. That's the attraction of libertarianism. It fits that model "for every problem there is a simple solution."
When it comes to economics, people tend to trust intuition. While intuition works pretty well for small groups, it fails horribly for larger ones. A reasonable approach for a band of hunter-gatherers divvying-up the day's kill does not scale to a market economy of millions or billions of people.
Exactly!!!!! This is precisely the problem with libertarianism: it takes a simple solution that works well in the case of one farmer with a cow and another growing tomatoes who agree to exchange milk for tomatoes, and says that intuitive model solves any complicated problem with billions of people where everybody's actions have repercussions on everybody else with multiple non-intuitive effects.
The same applies to various non-economic positions, to varying degrees. Libertarians, who tend to be introverts,
Unsubstantiated.
are often not especially skilled at countering the hostile statements of others.
Yes. In fact, they are not especially skilled at even listening to the comments of others.
Those others are usually uninformed or misinformed about what libertarians actually believe.
Or, more to the point, libertarians always start with the going-in position that everybody else is uninformed or misinformed.
...