"Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole." "Expressing the relationship between a general category or type and the thing being specified which belongs to such a category."
"America" refers to the whole north-south continent in Spanish and Portuguese.
The United States of America refers to a collection of states within the whole north-south continent as well.
The rest of the world didn't "cede the name", they simply weren't using it in your language, but theirs.
Oh, they didn't? They call themselves Americans? They say that they live in America? Do tell...
A: no contractor is free from the control and direction of the contracting entity, the whole point is that as a contractor you are bound by the terms of the contract.
"in connection with the performance of the work." You contract for results, not for how the work is done. If you want to control how the work is done, then you hire an employee.
B: many uber drivers also operate independently of uber and are free to do so, where uber has competitors a lot of drivers are signed up to the competing services as well.
"outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business." If you sell transportation services, and the worker performs transportation services for you, then they are an employee. It does not matter if the worker can also operate independently of you -- that's called "having a second job."
C: as b, depending on local laws/
"an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed."
C: as b, since "having a second job" with Uber's competitor(s) is not "an independently established trade, occupation, or business," but rather working for a fraternal twin employer. Does the driver obtain their own clients, collect their own fees, etc? No? Then it's not an independently established business, now is it?
By the way, the time for arguing that "no contractor is free from the control and direction of the contracting entity" is past. That is the test. If you want to argue that it cannot be met, in addition to having the California Supreme Court tell you that it can, failure to meet the prong means that the worker is an employee. So have fun with that.
The name "America" was written over what is modern-day Brazil, and referred to the whole continent: north and south... not to a nation that was going to be formed some 270 years later.
And then a bunch of states got together, i.e., united, and called themselves the United States of America.
A bunch of other states of America that preferred not to be united later developed a massive inferiority complex when the rest of the world shorthanded the name and nationality to "America" and "Americans." But they daren't call themselves, e.g., "The Bazilian State of America" and "Americans," because "ewwwwwwww!"
Super short version: Once you've ceded the name, most people don't want to hear you complain.
Well, it has been almost a week since we last rehashed this topic, so let's do a review. There is no ONE criterium that makes someone a contractor or employee. The IRS has a 20 point checklist (listed below). Uber meets some of the criteria, and doesn't meet others. But it is a checklist, not a scorecard. So does that mean their drivers are employees? Answer: Maybe.
Since this is a California labor law case, and labor law outside of civil rights and unionization issues still remains a matter of state law, that checklist means very little.
Instead, to prove that an employee is an independent contractor, an employer must show:
(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and
(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Otherwise known as the ABC Test. Does that mean that the drivers are employees? I'd take that bet.
If it were real, you don't tell people, because if you tell people they can work on solutions to stop it. If it is real- you keep it secret so you have a strategic advantage over the opposition.
Counterpoint: "The whole point of the doomsday machine...is lost if you keep it a secret!" -- Dr. Strangelove.
Your first post seemed to me to speak of spending years re-implementing their code base, and I disagreed with that approach...
No, it was another way of expressing this, to someone who does not appear to have any comparable experience leading project with a wide audience, much less one that is commercially successful.
...instead trying to clarify that the existing code can be progressively cleaned up with the guiding help of a static analyzer.
Oh... so the "It's the kind of gobbledygook code that I only see from freshly-graduated programmers and in competitive coding puzzles" quip was merely a gratuitous insult.
Working with low test coverage and poorly-written code will inevitably lead to bugs and slow feature progression.
You have no idea what the test coverage is. Your unidimensional vision of "craftsmanship" does not compel the conclusion that their code is "poorly written."
Their code is fit for purpose. They've succeeded wildly beyond your measure. Effortlessly criticizing their gift makes you look arrogant, envious, and cheap.
I'm not sure if you're aware of what static code analysis is, but it does not necessitate a re-write. Refactoring is something every developer should do, treating it like the Boy Scout Rule [deviq.com]. It's as much about cleaning up existing code as it is about not adding new litter.
I'm not sure if you understand that "not... a re-write" is quite inconsistent with "refactoring" and even "cleaning up existing code." You've run the gamut from nothing to ground-up reconstruction in the space of two sentences.
Craftsmanship is only a principal goal for hobbiests. There are many other concerns and goals in most projects, and craftsmanship can validly be subordinated to them. Especially when you're writing a game and not a general purpose library.
Mojang should spend a few days to set up some static code analyzing tool like SonarQube.
Mojang should spend $150K/year to have you do it. Then remind you that after working on it for years you'll have made a few hundredths of a percent of what they did from "gobbledygook."
Just in case you forgot my reply to you in this very topic, just slightly higher in the thread:
"Not the point [] -- Amazon's admission that the video exists, which was subsequently questioned by ShanghaiBill because he simply word-counted the term 'video' instead attempting to comprehend what had been stated."
Jesus Christ, stop relying to my posts to critique points that Iâ(TM)m neither replying to nor making.
Iâ(TM)m well aware of the difference between a median and more. Iâ(TM)m also well aware that quotation marks set off things that others have said, especially as evidence to support a topic established by the sentences that are not inside quotation marks. Also, by the topic sentence and conclusion.
Are you? Because I literally did not use the term average myself. I quoted the whole statement as evidence of an admission that the video existed. And only that.
If you have any evidence that Feinstein did NOT employ a Chinese spy, feel free to post it
If you have conclusive evidence that she did, post it. Because the burden of proof is on those arguing that she did, not the other way around.
Unproven.. Even after a better-than-Kavanaugh-quality FBI investigation, so you've just gotta take them at their word. Innocent until proven guilty, drivers will be drivers, blah blah blah...
No money was created here, money was simply transferred from purchasers of TVs to lawyers.
How did the purchasers manage to retain rights to money that they voluntarily handed over to retailers, and the retailers voluntarily handed over to Vizio (generously assuming that there were no additional middlemen), exactly?
They didn't.
What money, time, or modicum of effort did purchasers invest in pursuing Vizio?
None.
Of course, you're free to opt out of the class action settlement and pursue your own claim(s). You're going to do that, right?
Wow, you are obsessed, do you have a life? Looks like no.
Asks the person (I asusme) that replies to absolutely everyone, usually with provably wrong drivel, at a rate that far exceeds my own posting rate. You're projecting - again.
So you admit, Apple products do explode as everybody knows.
You seem oddly fixated on ignoring that all the others explode a well, as everyone knows.
In fact, Apple products explode explode a lot.
Less frequently than the others. Have fun proving otherwise. Wait, you almost never actually include proof of your claims. Guess that will take awhile.
Think Pinto.
Yes, your arguments are quite similar to Pintos. Shoddily constructed, and liable to explode when they run into the slightest opposition.
Right, because life is completely binary, and either you favor the most safety regulation humanely possible, or else that means you are in favor of babies juggling electrified knives.
Fine. Pretend that those are not regulations that you are already subject to right now, that government has no business regulating commerce to forbid unreasonable hazards, and that IoT botnets have not proven that devices with generally-applicable default passwords are unreasonable hazards.
I am in favor of companies stopping this "default password" crap. However, the idea of a government entity mandating it makes me uncomfortable.
Stupid government requiring businesses and consumers to avoid unnecessarily hazardous practices.
I too an uncomfortable with mandates to use GFCIs in the kitchen and bathroom, carry gasoline in approved containers, not leave my keys in a running car when I go to the store, and all the rest.
You should merely be in favor of me doing so, and trust that I wish for you to avoid electrocution, conflagration, and general mayhem.
I would be against such a mandate and depend upon customers pressuring their vendors to change their behavior using the most effective tool known: their wallets.
Oh, you were serious. *snicker* All 0.01% of you that might use that as a pre-purchasing criterion will surely justify the expense.
You most certainly did not. Every single post of yours above the last was about Huawei.
Even switching to Xiaomi cannot help you. Their marketshare is smaller and not growing as rapidly. Apple cannot lose ground to Xiaomi while accelerating away.
However, since you are a rude, obnoxious Apple partisan, like most Apple employees, you will do your best to make an issue of that.
I'm a reality partisan that neither owns an Apple watch nor works for Apple (or any Apply supplier). And yes, I will do my best to make issues out of your attempts to ignore objective reality, such as the efficiency of ARM8 processors or Apple's marketshare.
Bottom line: Apple rapidly losing ground in the smartwatch segment because of designing an inferior product with unacceptable battery life, that is just plain ugly. In short, something only an Apple diehard could love. Carry on.
IDC disagrees with you. We've been over this already.
If I say "Hitler said "All Jews are evil"", and you quote me as saying "All Jews are evil". Then you are technically correct, I did say it, but that isn't a defense against slander, in almost every country excluding the USA.
Fortunately for the BBC, they didn't selectively edit his sentence so as to change its meaning.
They also linked to his entire presentation, so you can hardly claim that the article was misleading, intentionally or otherwise.
This is the same thing here. In the presentation (and you only have the slides), he was contrasting the two statements.
Which two statements was he "contrasting," pray tell? Did one of them involve the wholly false statement that physics in "not by invitation?"
This is the same thing here.
Then I look forward to the successful lawsuit against the BBC. There won't be one, since the defenses of "truth," "honest opinion," and "publication on matter of public interest" each apply, but I'll rely upon the opinion of a pseudononymous slashdotter rather than my own decades of legal training and practice.
Nope. Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is [the] most likely.
Nope. Won the most money, therefore must be the best. You can't beat objective measures of success, and we all know that money is the sina qua non of objectivity.
17.01% Apple, 15.1% Huawei, from your own link. You need to get glasses.
I need glasses? 6.5% Huawei.
But since Xiaomi also has 6 letters, an 'a', and an 'i', I guess that they're one and the same in your eyes. As a matter of fact, Garmin does too, so you can just add those three together in some sort of delusional merger.
Slashdot Mirror
Or because they, like you, do not understand English.
Of:
"Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole."
"Expressing the relationship between a general category or type and the thing being specified which belongs to such a category."
The United States of America refers to a collection of states within the whole north-south continent as well.
Oh, they didn't? They call themselves Americans? They say that they live in America? Do tell...
"in connection with the performance of the work." You contract for results, not for how the work is done. If you want to control how the work is done, then you hire an employee.
"outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business." If you sell transportation services, and the worker performs transportation services for you, then they are an employee. It does not matter if the worker can also operate independently of you -- that's called "having a second job."
"an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed."
C: as b, since "having a second job" with Uber's competitor(s) is not "an independently established trade, occupation, or business," but rather working for a fraternal twin employer. Does the driver obtain their own clients, collect their own fees, etc? No? Then it's not an independently established business, now is it?
By the way, the time for arguing that "no contractor is free from the control and direction of the contracting entity" is past. That is the test. If you want to argue that it cannot be met, in addition to having the California Supreme Court tell you that it can, failure to meet the prong means that the worker is an employee. So have fun with that.
And then a bunch of states got together, i.e., united, and called themselves the United States of America .
A bunch of other states of America that preferred not to be united later developed a massive inferiority complex when the rest of the world shorthanded the name and nationality to "America" and "Americans." But they daren't call themselves, e.g., "The Bazilian State of America" and "Americans," because "ewwwwwwww!"
Super short version: Once you've ceded the name, most people don't want to hear you complain.
Since this is a California labor law case, and labor law outside of civil rights and unionization issues still remains a matter of state law, that checklist means very little.
Instead, to prove that an employee is an independent contractor, an employer must show:
(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and
(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Otherwise known as the ABC Test. Does that mean that the drivers are employees? I'd take that bet.
Counterpoint: "The whole point of the doomsday machine...is lost if you keep it a secret!" -- Dr. Strangelove.
No, it was another way of expressing this, to someone who does not appear to have any comparable experience leading project with a wide audience, much less one that is commercially successful.
Oh... so the "It's the kind of gobbledygook code that I only see from freshly-graduated programmers and in competitive coding puzzles" quip was merely a gratuitous insult.
You have no idea what the test coverage is. Your unidimensional vision of "craftsmanship" does not compel the conclusion that their code is "poorly written."
Their code is fit for purpose. They've succeeded wildly beyond your measure. Effortlessly criticizing their gift makes you look arrogant, envious, and cheap.
It's open source now. Fix it yourself.
I'm not sure if you understand that "not... a re-write" is quite inconsistent with "refactoring" and even "cleaning up existing code." You've run the gamut from nothing to ground-up reconstruction in the space of two sentences.
Craftsmanship is only a principal goal for hobbiests. There are many other concerns and goals in most projects, and craftsmanship can validly be subordinated to them. Especially when you're writing a game and not a general purpose library.
The "wingnuts and kooks" were identified as those who claim to "have proven that it's wrong."
Not those still seeking to determine the answer to the question through a rigorous experimental design and (yet to be collected) results.
I didn't realize that Vogtle had moved to South Carolina and been halted.
However unwise it may be, you still cannot say that.
Mojang should spend $150K/year to have you do it. Then remind you that after working on it for years you'll have made a few hundredths of a percent of what they did from "gobbledygook."
You are intentionally avoiding the point.
If sales have not died down, then the condition has not been met.
Just in case you forgot my reply to you in this very topic, just slightly higher in the thread:
"Not the point [] -- Amazon's admission that the video exists, which was subsequently questioned by ShanghaiBill because he simply word-counted the term 'video' instead attempting to comprehend what had been stated."
Still applies here as well. Even 11 days later.
Jesus Christ, stop relying to my posts to critique points that Iâ(TM)m neither replying to nor making.
Iâ(TM)m well aware of the difference between a median and more. Iâ(TM)m also well aware that quotation marks set off things that others have said, especially as evidence to support a topic established by the sentences that are not inside quotation marks. Also, by the topic sentence and conclusion.
Are you? Because I literally did not use the term average myself. I quoted the whole statement as evidence of an admission that the video existed. And only that.
So kindly sod off.
If you have conclusive evidence that she did, post it. Because the burden of proof is on those arguing that she did, not the other way around.
Unproven.. Even after a better-than-Kavanaugh-quality FBI investigation, so you've just gotta take them at their word. Innocent until proven guilty, drivers will be drivers, blah blah blah...
How did the purchasers manage to retain rights to money that they voluntarily handed over to retailers, and the retailers voluntarily handed over to Vizio (generously assuming that there were no additional middlemen), exactly?
They didn't.
What money, time, or modicum of effort did purchasers invest in pursuing Vizio?
None.
Of course, you're free to opt out of the class action settlement and pursue your own claim(s). You're going to do that, right?
Nope.
Asks the person (I asusme) that replies to absolutely everyone, usually with provably wrong drivel, at a rate that far exceeds my own posting rate. You're projecting - again.
You seem oddly fixated on ignoring that all the others explode a well, as everyone knows.
Less frequently than the others. Have fun proving otherwise. Wait, you almost never actually include proof of your claims. Guess that will take awhile.
Yes, your arguments are quite similar to Pintos. Shoddily constructed, and liable to explode when they run into the slightest opposition.
That was Samsung, genius.
Fine. Pretend that those are not regulations that you are already subject to right now, that government has no business regulating commerce to forbid unreasonable hazards, and that IoT botnets have not proven that devices with generally-applicable default passwords are unreasonable hazards.
IoT botnets are totally ficitonal, like babies juggling electrified knives.
Stupid government requiring businesses and consumers to avoid unnecessarily hazardous practices.
I too an uncomfortable with mandates to use GFCIs in the kitchen and bathroom, carry gasoline in approved containers, not leave my keys in a running car when I go to the store, and all the rest.
You should merely be in favor of me doing so, and trust that I wish for you to avoid electrocution, conflagration, and general mayhem.
Oh, you were serious. *snicker* All 0.01% of you that might use that as a pre-purchasing criterion will surely justify the expense.
Waving the white flag, eh? You literally cannot come up with anything except for ad hominems that project your own feelings onto others?
Which is why millions are sold every quarter, and they're the market leader.
Which is why far fewer of each are sold every quarter. Participation trophies for all!
First sentence "Samsung might not be the only smartphone maker with exploding handsets in its portfolio." Whoops.
That never happens to others.
Looking forward to your reply, because you're not obsessed at all...
You most certainly did not. Every single post of yours above the last was about Huawei.
Even switching to Xiaomi cannot help you. Their marketshare is smaller and not growing as rapidly. Apple cannot lose ground to Xiaomi while accelerating away.
I'm a reality partisan that neither owns an Apple watch nor works for Apple (or any Apply supplier). And yes, I will do my best to make issues out of your attempts to ignore objective reality, such as the efficiency of ARM8 processors or Apple's marketshare.
IDC disagrees with you. We've been over this already.
Fortunately for the BBC, they didn't selectively edit his sentence so as to change its meaning.
They also linked to his entire presentation, so you can hardly claim that the article was misleading, intentionally or otherwise.
Which two statements was he "contrasting," pray tell? Did one of them involve the wholly false statement that physics in "not by invitation?"
Then I look forward to the successful lawsuit against the BBC. There won't be one, since the defenses of "truth," "honest opinion," and "publication on matter of public interest" each apply, but I'll rely upon the opinion of a pseudononymous slashdotter rather than my own decades of legal training and practice.
Nope. Won the most money, therefore must be the best. You can't beat objective measures of success, and we all know that money is the sina qua non of objectivity.
I need glasses? 6.5% Huawei.
But since Xiaomi also has 6 letters, an 'a', and an 'i', I guess that they're one and the same in your eyes. As a matter of fact, Garmin does too, so you can just add those three together in some sort of delusional merger.
Wrong. Try at least 10 points behind. Still.
Physicists studing geons say otherwise.
You assume that photons cannot cause space-time curvature. You know what they say about when you assume...