I thought it was common practice to layoff the bottom 5%, 10% or maybe even more every year after reviews are complete? I have seen it in the past at some large well known companies.
Yes they're called "companies you don't want to work for".
Unless I'm completely missing the point and he's talking about the Freddie Mercury impersonator John Blunt was the man behind the South Sea Bubble, I really don't think Elon Musk wants to be remembered in a similar way.
The company has not performed well.
Therefore, by logical implication, its employees have not performed well.
Therefore, all employees are fair game for being laid off for performance reasons.
Therefore, by logical implication, the man at the top controlling things should be let go as being ultimately responsible.
I wasn't implying it was working, but I reckon they can do a fully automated drive from coast to coast on the existing system with a bit of planning and maybe a small amount of luck. i.e. they could meet the claim in a cheaty way.
Yes, but the point is that they don't seem likely to be able to meet the claim even in a cheaty way.
what if an enormously powerful but still limited being defined the laws of the universe and then set it loose?.
It's an attempt to get round some of the more obvious problems with an omnipotent God, such as why He would choose to make a world where
children die of cancer at two.
Anything bad can be explained as a minor programming error.
If, instead, France had followed a more peaceful trajectory and rebelled against the government by instituting a more just replacement, many, many lives would have been saved, their intellectual dominance might have been preserved, and France might be a much more powerful nation today.
That is a pretty weak argument, post-Revolutionary France was one of the most powerful nations on Earth. Like the UK its power and influence only declined after WW2 and the emergence of the US as the world's global superpower.
That's funny. I know people in Canada and Germany that would like to take advantages of the things I can in the US. I wouldn't mind diversifying into those countries myself but find that it's entirely unfeasible.
This sounds like the sort of "study" that ends up directly contradicting the personal first hand experiences of people with actual experience.
There will always be individuals with contradictory experiences to the average. That's why studies like this take a large sample to even things up.
You can derive the "value" of a company by using discounted future cash flows, but if your creditors file for bankruptcy because you can't pay your bills it's the actual assets they will try to get hold of to settle the debt.
If you're suggesting bringing back involuntary institutionalization, then you might as well just shoot the homeless. It would be more humane.
So there are only two alternatives to treating mental illness/health issues: either do absolutely nothing at all or else lock up anyone who looks a bit funny one day?
As with so many things in life, there is a vast grey area between these two extremes.
It's just that sites like Facebook and Reddit are the new town square.
No, they're not. Simple as that.
If you write to (say) the Catholic Herald newspaper, you can't seriously complain when they don't publish your "the Pope is a Paedophile and the Antichrist" cartoon. Similarly, they are under no obligation to accept adverts from condom manufacturers.
You don't have to read the Catholic Herald, and you don't have to visit Facebook or Reddit. It's not some Stalinist state controlled monopoly.
I'd ask him what the fuck "vigorish" means first, but each to their own.
It is a term familiar to me as a UK reader from American crime books, though I've mostly seen it used to mean interest on a (dodgy) loan, but it can also mean the boookie's/house cut in gambling.
I was confused a bit on how this was managed. I decided to pull up the Wikipedia article on Singapore. Here is the exact quote from Wikipedia
"Singapore is a unitary multiparty parliamentary republic, with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government."
I'm sure there is someone out there with a higher intelligence that might be able to explain that. I need a aspirin for my headache after reading that twice.
Translation: it's not described exactly the same as the US system, but I can't be arsed to spend thirty seconds on Google looking up a couple of unfamiliar words.
The problem is that when you give people this free stuff, they have absolutely zero gratitude for it. Because fuck you, that's why. In order for people to feel they own something, they have to work for it. Then they feel a sense of ownership. Give people something for free, and they abuse the shit out of it, because why not? Take, take, take and never give. The system only exists for them to exploit and the idea of contributing sounds absurd. They have no pride.
That is absolute bullshit. I am enormously grateful for my "free" education, which I have been more than happy to pay for out of my taxes since I started working.
"The Left" in the US is not even socialist for the most part, never mind communist. The connection between moderate centrist social democrat types (as they would be in Europe) and actual Marxists is about as solid as that between moderately right wing Republicans and actual Nazis.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a professional linguist, and here's my message to the author: go fuck yourself
Some achievement being a professional linguist at the age of twelve!
(Insert your own joke about there being two days of actual summer in the UK here).
You don't need ink for a flatbed scanner.
It. Was. A. Joke.
Your smart vibrator.
AKA an on/off switch.
I thought it was common practice to layoff the bottom 5%, 10% or maybe even more every year after reviews are complete? I have seen it in the past at some large well known companies.
Yes they're called "companies you don't want to work for".
Unless I'm completely missing the point and he's talking about the Freddie Mercury impersonator John Blunt was the man behind the South Sea Bubble, I really don't think Elon Musk wants to be remembered in a similar way.
The company has not performed well. Therefore, by logical implication, its employees have not performed well. Therefore, all employees are fair game for being laid off for performance reasons.
Therefore, by logical implication, the man at the top controlling things should be let go as being ultimately responsible.
I wasn't implying it was working, but I reckon they can do a fully automated drive from coast to coast on the existing system with a bit of planning and maybe a small amount of luck. i.e. they could meet the claim in a cheaty way.
Yes, but the point is that they don't seem likely to be able to meet the claim even in a cheaty way.
On the other hand, it's a hell of a lot easier to just have stuff delivered to work. Like everybody else that works here does.
And obviously, everybody works where you do, and has access to the same transport home as you do, so they can all do what you do.
Whatever your opinion of sales, describing it as "low pressure" seems inaccurate.
what if an enormously powerful but still limited being defined the laws of the universe and then set it loose?.
It's an attempt to get round some of the more obvious problems with an omnipotent God, such as why He would choose to make a world where children die of cancer at two.
Anything bad can be explained as a minor programming error.
In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the king was elected...
That is certainly an improvement on wielding supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
If, instead, France had followed a more peaceful trajectory and rebelled against the government by instituting a more just replacement, many, many lives would have been saved, their intellectual dominance might have been preserved, and France might be a much more powerful nation today.
That is a pretty weak argument, post-Revolutionary France was one of the most powerful nations on Earth. Like the UK its power and influence only declined after WW2 and the emergence of the US as the world's global superpower.
That's funny. I know people in Canada and Germany that would like to take advantages of the things I can in the US. I wouldn't mind diversifying into those countries myself but find that it's entirely unfeasible.
This sounds like the sort of "study" that ends up directly contradicting the personal first hand experiences of people with actual experience.
There will always be individuals with contradictory experiences to the average. That's why studies like this take a large sample to even things up.
You can derive the "value" of a company by using discounted future cash flows, but if your creditors file for bankruptcy because you can't pay your bills it's the actual assets they will try to get hold of to settle the debt.
If you're suggesting bringing back involuntary institutionalization, then you might as well just shoot the homeless. It would be more humane.
So there are only two alternatives to treating mental illness/health issues: either do absolutely nothing at all or else lock up anyone who looks a bit funny one day?
As with so many things in life, there is a vast grey area between these two extremes.
Homeless in the US is almost exclusively due to mental illness, including chemical addictions. There are not economic solutions to mental problems.
So literally anything spent on treating "mental probems" is just a waste of money? Are you sure?
Living in Canada I find your land shortage humorous. Thanks for the LOL.
Classic slashdot "it doesn't apply to me therefore it doesn't apply to anyone" logic.
It's just that sites like Facebook and Reddit are the new town square.
No, they're not. Simple as that.
If you write to (say) the Catholic Herald newspaper, you can't seriously complain when they don't publish your "the Pope is a Paedophile and the Antichrist" cartoon. Similarly, they are under no obligation to accept adverts from condom manufacturers.
You don't have to read the Catholic Herald, and you don't have to visit Facebook or Reddit. It's not some Stalinist state controlled monopoly.
The Anarchism subreddit isn't a problem. They never do anything except argue about how to define anarchism.
Splitter!
Yeah, it's almost like bookies and casinos are businesses trying to make a profit rather than charities!
I would give you my mod points if I had any.
I'd ask him what the fuck "vigorish" means first, but each to their own.
It is a term familiar to me as a UK reader from American crime books, though I've mostly seen it used to mean interest on a (dodgy) loan, but it can also mean the boookie's/house cut in gambling.
I was confused a bit on how this was managed. I decided to pull up the Wikipedia article on Singapore. Here is the exact quote from Wikipedia "Singapore is a unitary multiparty parliamentary republic, with a Westminster system of unicameral parliamentary government." I'm sure there is someone out there with a higher intelligence that might be able to explain that. I need a aspirin for my headache after reading that twice.
Translation: it's not described exactly the same as the US system, but I can't be arsed to spend thirty seconds on Google looking up a couple of unfamiliar words.
The problem is that when you give people this free stuff, they have absolutely zero gratitude for it. Because fuck you, that's why. In order for people to feel they own something, they have to work for it. Then they feel a sense of ownership. Give people something for free, and they abuse the shit out of it, because why not? Take, take, take and never give. The system only exists for them to exploit and the idea of contributing sounds absurd. They have no pride.
That is absolute bullshit. I am enormously grateful for my "free" education, which I have been more than happy to pay for out of my taxes since I started working.
"The Left" in the US is not even socialist for the most part, never mind communist. The connection between moderate centrist social democrat types (as they would be in Europe) and actual Marxists is about as solid as that between moderately right wing Republicans and actual Nazis.