A manager doesn't care that you leave because he still gets to bring home a salary, all they have to do is hire another person and maybe cut back on scope for a little while.
Yeah, I'm curious how someone can have an opinions on workplaces and workers and not seem to have personal experience with the subject, especially in a community like this.
Do they just come from a wealthy family so the stance is "Getting fired isn't a big deal, just ask your dad to cover expenses until your next job."?
It seems the original commenter has never really been a "line-worker". But I could be very wrong too, but then I'd be curious how those opinions were formed.
Nope, you're correct: he runs a startup and apparently has been running startups since his early 20s.
> Please tell us briefly about your background.
> I grew up in the Netherlands, and I was interested in technology from a young age. I started a gaming website when I was 13. Later, I attended Erasmus University Rotterdam before founding Fashiolista, my first startup and an early social network similar to Pinterest. It grew to millions of users...
Don't people have savings? Don't people see what's happening in the industry and make sure to have 6+ months of savings? Don't people think that putting away a small portion of their immense tech salary would be a healthy thing to do?
If you grew up with even the slightest feeling of financial insecurity, dipping in to savings can already feel like the end of the world.
I can't imagine living with only 6 months of savings. There's no guarantee that I could find another job in 6 months, and unexpected expenses (medical, car trouble, housing repairs) can easily wipe out a month of savings anyway. In fact, given that a layoff means likely also an economic downturn, finding a job at the same salary within 6 months seems highly unlikely.
I have probably 3 years of no-risk savings at this point, have managed to reduce my living expenses to the point where I could work a 40-hour minimum wage job and still pay for my expenses, and have multiple back-up careers, and I'm only now starting to feel that taking money out of savings is an acceptable risk. That took years of frugal living on a high tech salary. People in their first few years at a tech job or with families will probably never achieve that.
It's so frustrating reading the comments around here. It's like the conversation is driven by people whose circumstances fall on the upper tail end. No concept of financial insecurity. No long-term financial commitments to worry about. Infinite flexibility. Like jeez, congrats. Now try imagining somebody else that's not you.
Depriving someone of their constitutional rights cannot be an official act by definition. Arguing that it can be is just word games in a world where words stop mattering.
The court opinion literally says pressuring the vice president to try to not certify the election was an official act related to talking about the limits of his roles and responsibilities.
We are already well into stupid word games territory.
What is your counter argument, from the actual opinion?
> The court opinion literally says pressuring the vice president to try to not certify the election was an official act related to talking about the limits of his roles and responsibilities.
This isn't how Supreme Court cases usually work. Most of the time, as in this case, they clarify some things and send it back to the lower courts.
The Court here ruled that the President is entitled to immunity for official acts and sent the case back to the lower court to determine if Trump was acting in his official capacity as President or in his capacity as a political candidate.
>This isn't how Supreme Court cases usually work. Most of the time, as in this case, they clarify some things and send it back to the lower courts.
I'm actually a member of the Supreme Court bar, and have been involved in a number of supreme court cases, so i'm fairly aware of how Supreme Court cases work :)
They did what I said:
"Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice
President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct"
No it doesn't. The conclusion III(B)(2) of the opinion:
> It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.
Yes it does - the part you cite was written because they found it an official act with a presumption of immunity that the government has some chance to rebut. If it had been an unofficial act, there would be no immunity at all.
Here:
"Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice
President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct"
> 'Official act' does not currently have a legal definition. It isn't defined in this majority opinion and it hasn't been given a definition previously.
It sounds like it does, from the majority opinion:
> The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
So it sounds like "official acts" means an act "exercising his core constitutional powers."
Should an official act done in furtherance of a crime be official?
I think the problem is that the section regarding evidence, c3 iirc, says that any evidence implicating a criminal unofficial act must itself be unofficial, and not related to presidential acts.
The definition of words. It is unconstitutional to infringe on constitutional rights. Official actions are made such by the granted authority. No unconstitutional action is supported by the granted authority of the constitution.
> So if you belive that the election was stolen, and organize a military uprising to fix that, then what?
Or if you don't believe the election was stolen. The court said In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
Despite frequent claims over the decade that tax cuts for the rich were morally reprehensible, the Democrats did not allow the tax cuts to automatically expire, extending them for two years in the lame duck session of Congress, and then most were made permanent two years later before they should have expired again.
I don't understand why you can't just get the police to put them in a van and take them to the airport, and put them on a flight back to their home country or wherever they live.
I'm not sure I want to give local police the power to put whoever they want on a plane to "wherever".
> I'm not sure I want to give local police the power to put whoever they want on a plane to "wherever".
I presumed that the proposal is a shorthand for "why the police can't offer to escort them to the airport and let them board an airplane to a destination of their own choosing". As in the police would be there to make sure they don't "abscond" in the country without a valid visa, but the seafarers can get back to their family. (if they so choose)
> and let them board an airplane to a destination of their own choosing". As in the police would be there to make sure they don't "abscond"
Maybe being overly pedantic, but "destination of their own choosing" won't work. Airlines will refuse to board, because they're generally responsible for the costs of flying that person back if they're refused entry at the destination (if their due diligence wasn't done re passport/visa, rather than an immigration official's decision).
I was talking from the perspective of the interaction between the stranded mariners and the police. I emphasised the "destination of their own choosing" because it appeared that the comment I was responding to had a misunderstanding. They thought the proposal is that the police kidnaps the mariners and sends them to wherever the police wants to. I was clarifying that it would happen in consultation with them, and the mariners would select the destination.
That does not mean that there would be no other constrains on them flying. Presumably they would choose their home country as their destination. Or some other country where they have a right to be.
But if you choose to be pedantic why did you only mention the "visa requirement" constrain? Why not list all the others. To just name a few: Their destination has to be a real place. They cannot fly to Narnia, or Middle Earth, or La-La Land. Their destination has to have a continuous atmosphere from their departure airport. Otherwise the airplane can't fly. So for example they cannot choose the Sea of Tranquility on the Moon. It has to have an airport. So Monaco is out right away. It has to be existing on the day they depart. So they cannot fly to Pangea, nor to the USSR. Because they don't exist anymore. It also has to be a place where there are scheduled flights to. So they cannot choose McMurdo Station either. And yeah, visa requirements too.
What dose of any substance is harmful instead of harmless? Is this a philosophical question or a practical one? If it's a practical one, we don't know, because if there are any effects they're too weak to infer with certainty. Unlike for example those of benzene in your sunscreen or acne products, or flame retardants in your furniture.
Insanely over-saturated but almost all AAA games are extremely derivative, stale, bland games with a coat of pretty graphics...
People have been saying this for decades at this point. I'm not seeing it.
Innovation is largely overrated. It can be a good thing, but the vast majority of games, whether AAA or indie, can't be truly innovative. And innovative doesn't translate directly to a game being enjoyable. Conversely, a game being "derivative" doesn't automatically make the game not fun to play.
Agreed. In video games, "innovation" quickly becomes "niche". Microsoft actually has a wider variety of games and genres represented on the Xbox, many highly praised, but frequently gets lambasted for having no games because the the overwhelming majority of players aren't actually interested in them. Sony on the other hand is dominating, and yet its biggest titles are all somewhat similar to each other and none of them really do anything new or interesting, they simply have a lot of polish.
If past history is any indication, TES6 will be to Skyrim fans what Skyrim was to Oblivion fans which was what Oblivion was to Morrowind fans. Daggerfall fans are split about Morrowind though and i'm not sure there are any Arena fans.
I feel sorry for any startups looking to innovate in this space. It's hard enough competing against established players without them getting billions in free money.
Which startups would be harmed by this type of investment? as a relatively casual observer, I didn't think there was much in way of startups that were looking to go head-to-head with a company like Intel or AMD in chip fabrication.
i have used it all of twice once was when i ran into a post about something that sounded familiar and sent a dm to the poster turned out it was a friend of mine's account, the other i messaged a moderator when a bot for the sub quit posting updates and they fixed it.
...when Apple lobbies the government they are doing something measurably immoral
Would you consider this to be true if the government was on the wrong side of an issue?
Say politicians wanted to pass a law that every internet search query needed to reviewed and approved by a human before search results could be displayed. Would it be "measurably immoral" for Google to lobby against this law?
Yeah, I'm curious how someone can have an opinions on workplaces and workers and not seem to have personal experience with the subject, especially in a community like this.
Do they just come from a wealthy family so the stance is "Getting fired isn't a big deal, just ask your dad to cover expenses until your next job."?