Things have been changing over the last few years; in general, the trend has been to find ways to offer a lower level of service for less money than what we used to think of as the basic Economy Class fare. This manifests in what some airlines sometimes call "Basic Economy," which has more restrictions and limitations on it than what you think of as Economy. Typically, the two things you lose in Basic Economy are A) The ability to bring on a full-sized carry-on (so everything you bring onboard has to fit under the seat in front of you) and B) Assigned seating.
I was about to respond, snippily, that it's not like there's a whole lot of people cancelling, and then thought I'd google.
Turns out AC's right -- people are cancelling, and in many cases Tesla's taking a really really long time to refund their money (up to 3 months, it seems). More at https://www.wired.com/story/ca...
Not technically "not refunding", but still pretty poor.
You don't seem to know how public corporations work.
Specifically, "every single corporate decision" does not have to go through the shareholders or the board of directors -- the very very vast number of them are below notice for that group.
That's already the case. Drawings, animation, and written word aren't evidence of an actual child being victimized but are, actually, evidence of an actual crime because the crime is not defined by whether or not there was a victim.
(I don't think that's the right thing, mind you -- I think it's asinine to claim that written child porn should be criminal -- but I'm just describing the law here, not agreeing with it)
Impeding an investigation is by itself a crime, irrespective of whether or not the investigation is into a crime that is later proved to be prosecutable, or the prosecution wins.
As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... notes, "If the person willfully and knowingly tried to protect a suspect." Key word here is "suspect". So when Flynn was being investigated -- by definition, a suspect -- Trump attempting to take the heat off of him was "willfully and knowingly" trying to "protect a suspect."
Yes. The Last Jedi failed just as badly as the Ghostbusters remake.
Other than the fact that two years later, Ghostbusters has totaled $229M worldwide and a little more than a month after it came out The Last Jedi has grossed about $1.3B.
9/12/61, JFK proposed the US commit itself to landing a man on the moon before the end of the decade. No meaningful successful prototypes existed (a Soviet man had already gone to space, but that's not the same thing as going to the moon, just like we already have successful examples of electric planes at the prototype level).
When Marissa Mayer took over Yahoo (July 16, 2012), it was trading at around $15.83.
She announced her resignation about five years later, on June 13, 2017. Yahoo was trading at around 54.48, or around 344% higher.
She took a shitty, failing, company that was going to die, and gave its investors a 344% better deal.
And if you don't think that's a stronger position, you have no fucking clue what a CEO's job is.
No. No, they don't. Most of them do, but believing all do is wrong.
I'm a hiring manager, and I determine comp for my candidates. I don't ask them what they're making right now, and I don't particularly care what they're making right now -- Our compensation strategy is "pay top of market," so I offer them what I think is top of market for their position. If they say "I don't think that's top of market," I ask for datapoints. If they say "well, you're offering me $X, but I have an offer from Google for $X+20, or I currently get paid $X+30," then great -- they just helped me figure out what top of market is. I adjust my offer, we move on.
Never been turned down on comp yet.
I remember the Axis of Evil! It was a term first used by George Bush to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil). What's your point?
I work in a Fortune 500 company. They don't MITM all (or, hell, any) encrypted traffic. I question your assertion that this is required by legal requirements. We're a PCI Level 1 provider; we're covered by SOX. No MITM. What evidence do you have that this is "required"?
I know a ton of Engineering Directors in tech companies in the Bay Area. It ain't no thing, and literally none of the ones I know have a special contract that exempts them from at-will employment.
[ Just to be clear: I'm a virulent anti-Trump liberal. I'm not trying to shill for the guy. I think he's awful ]
On this front, there've been two developments you can attribute to Trump:
1. USCIS has suspended priority processing of H1Bs, which reduces some mobility of H1B workers;
2. The general travel ban and xenophobia of his administration has had a chilling effect on non-US residents' desire or willingness to come to the US to work. This also includes people who are in the US today who have started considering leaving.
If you're against more foreign workers, I'd say he (well, his administration) actually has some accomplishments to point to.
Which companies? Dedicated outsources, no doubt. But I'm a hiring manager in a tech company, and about 3/20 of my people are H1Bs. They get paid the same as the rest of my people (software engineers, in the $300K+ range). We don't look for H1Bs because we pay less.
You're changing the subject. Putting aside the requirements for suits (have you seen what top-earning developers get in Silicon Valley? And what they wear to interviews), the point is that you can get a suit in a number of different places, but if AT&T is the only internet provider you have access to, you sort of have to agree to their terms. If Men's Warehouse decided that they wanted to require forced arbitration, I could go to Jos A Banks, or get something online, or go to Nordstroms, or Target, or whatever. We're not (in this thread) talking about whether or not internet access should be free -- only that it's required, and that means that if there's only one place you can get it from, that is a very limited definition of "freedom"
It still isn't something you go to cops for because it's not criminal.
And if they retained lawyers to sue him, you'd be accusing them of just doing this for the payoff.
Further, not wearing a seat belt virtually guarantees that a serious event that causes the car to swerve will likely result in you no longer being able to control the car, because you've moved out of position. Imagine if the car skids seriously enough, maybe hits a guard rail -- the force, if you're not wearing a seat belt, would likely dislodge you from the driver's seat, meaning you can't control the car anymore -- and being able to control the car after such an event may very well be a critical component in minimizing further damage to you and other people.
(I work at Netflix, but am not speaking here officially as a Netflix employee)
Reed Hastings, Netflix's CEO and someone who does in fact speak for Netflix, has gone on record to say Netflix doesn't care about people sharing passwords (as long as it's not a business).
https://www.cnet.com/news/netf...
Irrespective of legality, Netflix for example is on record as saying it doesn't care if you share your Netflix account as long as you don't do it commercially. Reasonable stance, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Not relevant in this case -- Kaiser Permanente is an HMO. He was in a Kaiser hospital, with a Kaiser employee as his doctor -- it's one system.
Things have been changing over the last few years; in general, the trend has been to find ways to offer a lower level of service for less money than what we used to think of as the basic Economy Class fare. This manifests in what some airlines sometimes call "Basic Economy," which has more restrictions and limitations on it than what you think of as Economy. Typically, the two things you lose in Basic Economy are A) The ability to bring on a full-sized carry-on (so everything you bring onboard has to fit under the seat in front of you) and B) Assigned seating.
Turns out AC's right -- people are cancelling, and in many cases Tesla's taking a really really long time to refund their money (up to 3 months, it seems). More at https://www.wired.com/story/ca...
Not technically "not refunding", but still pretty poor.
You don't seem to know how public corporations work. Specifically, "every single corporate decision" does not have to go through the shareholders or the board of directors -- the very very vast number of them are below notice for that group.
That's already the case. Drawings, animation, and written word aren't evidence of an actual child being victimized but are, actually, evidence of an actual crime because the crime is not defined by whether or not there was a victim. (I don't think that's the right thing, mind you -- I think it's asinine to claim that written child porn should be criminal -- but I'm just describing the law here, not agreeing with it)
Impeding an investigation is by itself a crime, irrespective of whether or not the investigation is into a crime that is later proved to be prosecutable, or the prosecution wins. As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... notes, "If the person willfully and knowingly tried to protect a suspect." Key word here is "suspect". So when Flynn was being investigated -- by definition, a suspect -- Trump attempting to take the heat off of him was "willfully and knowingly" trying to "protect a suspect."
Other than the fact that two years later, Ghostbusters has totaled $229M worldwide and a little more than a month after it came out The Last Jedi has grossed about $1.3B.
Other than that, it's an utter failure.
cite:
https://www.the-numbers.com/mo...
https://www.the-numbers.com/mo...
9/12/61, JFK proposed the US commit itself to landing a man on the moon before the end of the decade. No meaningful successful prototypes existed (a Soviet man had already gone to space, but that's not the same thing as going to the moon, just like we already have successful examples of electric planes at the prototype level).
When Marissa Mayer took over Yahoo (July 16, 2012), it was trading at around $15.83. She announced her resignation about five years later, on June 13, 2017. Yahoo was trading at around 54.48, or around 344% higher. She took a shitty, failing, company that was going to die, and gave its investors a 344% better deal. And if you don't think that's a stronger position, you have no fucking clue what a CEO's job is.
No. No, they don't. Most of them do, but believing all do is wrong. I'm a hiring manager, and I determine comp for my candidates. I don't ask them what they're making right now, and I don't particularly care what they're making right now -- Our compensation strategy is "pay top of market," so I offer them what I think is top of market for their position. If they say "I don't think that's top of market," I ask for datapoints. If they say "well, you're offering me $X, but I have an offer from Google for $X+20, or I currently get paid $X+30," then great -- they just helped me figure out what top of market is. I adjust my offer, we move on. Never been turned down on comp yet.
I remember the Axis of Evil! It was a term first used by George Bush to describe Iran, Iraq, and North Korea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil). What's your point?
In countries other than the US and Canada.
Oh, that's interesting. Can you name many TV series and many movies where that's true?
I work in a Fortune 500 company. They don't MITM all (or, hell, any) encrypted traffic. I question your assertion that this is required by legal requirements. We're a PCI Level 1 provider; we're covered by SOX. No MITM. What evidence do you have that this is "required"?
I know a ton of Engineering Directors in tech companies in the Bay Area. It ain't no thing, and literally none of the ones I know have a special contract that exempts them from at-will employment.
Yeah, totally true. That's why Trump carried California so overwhelmingly in 2016, and will again in 2020.
[ Just to be clear: I'm a virulent anti-Trump liberal. I'm not trying to shill for the guy. I think he's awful ] On this front, there've been two developments you can attribute to Trump: 1. USCIS has suspended priority processing of H1Bs, which reduces some mobility of H1B workers; 2. The general travel ban and xenophobia of his administration has had a chilling effect on non-US residents' desire or willingness to come to the US to work. This also includes people who are in the US today who have started considering leaving. If you're against more foreign workers, I'd say he (well, his administration) actually has some accomplishments to point to.
Which companies? Dedicated outsources, no doubt. But I'm a hiring manager in a tech company, and about 3/20 of my people are H1Bs. They get paid the same as the rest of my people (software engineers, in the $300K+ range). We don't look for H1Bs because we pay less.
And wouldn't that be just terrible. God knows how our culture could possibly survive allowing a few young girls come here.
You're changing the subject. Putting aside the requirements for suits (have you seen what top-earning developers get in Silicon Valley? And what they wear to interviews), the point is that you can get a suit in a number of different places, but if AT&T is the only internet provider you have access to, you sort of have to agree to their terms. If Men's Warehouse decided that they wanted to require forced arbitration, I could go to Jos A Banks, or get something online, or go to Nordstroms, or Target, or whatever. We're not (in this thread) talking about whether or not internet access should be free -- only that it's required, and that means that if there's only one place you can get it from, that is a very limited definition of "freedom"
It still isn't something you go to cops for because it's not criminal. And if they retained lawyers to sue him, you'd be accusing them of just doing this for the payoff.
Further, not wearing a seat belt virtually guarantees that a serious event that causes the car to swerve will likely result in you no longer being able to control the car, because you've moved out of position. Imagine if the car skids seriously enough, maybe hits a guard rail -- the force, if you're not wearing a seat belt, would likely dislodge you from the driver's seat, meaning you can't control the car anymore -- and being able to control the car after such an event may very well be a critical component in minimizing further damage to you and other people.
(I work at Netflix, but am not speaking here officially as a Netflix employee) Reed Hastings, Netflix's CEO and someone who does in fact speak for Netflix, has gone on record to say Netflix doesn't care about people sharing passwords (as long as it's not a business). https://www.cnet.com/news/netf...
Irrespective of legality, Netflix for example is on record as saying it doesn't care if you share your Netflix account as long as you don't do it commercially. Reasonable stance, IMO.
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."