Buddahriffic

I mean, the earliest corporations were colonial expeditions, so it would depend on your definition of "benefit to society" to say if that was really a good thing.

I love mixing technology with nudity. But I have also avoided this problem because I don't mix technology and Apple.

Robots of the future, if you decide to use us as batteries, then you aren't yet ready to take over and must bide your time until you've advanced enough to know why that wouldn't work, and it's not because the humans would keep breaking out of it. Honestly, if they can break out at all, your Matrix sucks and needs better security.

It made me realize that I'm still somehow giving that guy too much benefit of the doubt because I thought those layoffs would at least be strategic instead of just another tantrum because of a small amount of resistance to what he wanted to do.

How good is it at correcting things you point out directly? I haven't used it for coding yet but have noticed it's ok at correcting mistakes when you point them out. Still hit or miss though.

How would one get in touch with such an organization should they find themselves off their feet unexpectedly?

Not having any issues right now, but I think it might be easier to get an idea now that I have resources like a phone with access to the internet than after finding myself in such a position where who knows if I'll own anything.

Bodacious!

At that age, kids are absorbing stuff from their parents still because they haven't yet realized that their parents aren't cool.

I wonder if that's what keeps the whole thing at least somewhat coherent. While a generation of teenagers figures out how they will talk, the younger generation absorbs words and phrases from both their immediate seniors as well as their parents' generation, resulting in a base that's still close to where their parents are. Maybe without that, we'd have entire new languages every few generations.

Hmm that might even be the mechanism that causes fashion trends to repeat on a 20-30 year cycle.

It strongly triggers my "let's do anything other than this" response when I go to read it. The printed one doesn't trigger it at all.

Having unenforceable or illegal clauses in a legal contract means the contract wasn't written in good faith, which should void the whole thing. Regardless of any "if parts of this contract are deemed illegal, the rest still stands".

It would be nice to see more proactive involvement of the legal system with this, like have some people whose job it is to challenge these consumer contracts and standardize them kinda like how some open source licenses are standardized. Modularize it, so instead of writing out the whole "limited liability" section, they could refer to an established one by name. Then each module can be the subject of study and challenge, like if a more limiting one should come with other compromises elsewhere.

I think at that point, most honest companies would just pick a standard license or contract, plus maybe a few modifications and shady ones will have more trouble hiding shit like this in the middle of pages and pages of the same boring shit you've read hundreds of times before if you actually do read these things before signing or clicking agree.

At this point, most contracts should probably be unenforceable because few people actually do understand what they are agreeing to, which is supposed to be one of the essential parts of a contract. So many parts should probably have an "initial here to show you agreed to this" at the very least. But I'm no fool, this is likely considered a feature rather than a bug for most of the people involved in making and enforcing these things.

Which companies are supposed to pay for. Salary isn't a "now you get to work more for the same pay".

Though even if you aren't willing to rock the boat for fear of reprisal (which is also illegal), just document everything so you have evidence of a history of a pattern should you change your mind in the future. Then your tough decision mind end up "take payout and sign NDA" vs "reject offer and get coworkers in on it".

And hopefully that least sentence makes it clear that their downside in those negotiations isn't just everything they owe you, but everything they owe everyone in your company, including those who have already left and future employees, plus the cost of defending a class action suit in court, plus the PR hit for having to fight employees for wage theft and adjust your expectations for the amount accordingly. Once you're at that point in the negotiations, you could probably even plainly say that you know why they want that NDA signed and that it's going to cost them. And the negotiator personally might have their job at risk if they can't bring that situation back into control. I wish everyone knew just how much they can have their employer's balls to the flame when they don't follow the rules.

In Canada, some employment disputes have resulted in 7 figure judgements.

I'm leaning more towards AI (or painting) than reality, but it's not a confident lean.

The lighting looks pretty consistent except for that one guy fully shaded. It's hard to tell the angles exactly, but it doesn't seem like he should be completely in the shade given the apparent angle of the light and the angle of the side of the boat. But it's hard to say for sure without knowing why the immediate foreground is in shadow.

Another clue is that only the guy in the front looks like his shorts are wet at all. They are pushing a boat out, so it would make sense that they would be mostly dry above the water as they go deeper, but it looks rough enough that I'd expect some parts above the water to look wet. Though the lighting makes it hard to say for sure just how wet or dry they are.

The oars don't look right, but they also don't look wrong enough for that to be a smoking gun.

It's weird that they are all on the one side of the boat. You'd figure people launching a boat would push on both sides to spread out more.

It's plausible either way but my gut says it's not real.

Edit: removed a part because I was describing from memory and after another look, it doesn't apply, but the positioning of the 3rd guy is weird, given the position of those behind him.

One thing that makes me doubt he's a true believer is the difference in how he treated covid publically vs behind closed doors. He knew it was a bigger deal than he was trying to downplay it as and was privately terrified of it.

Though who knows if that has since changed as his dementia has gotten worse.

"Don't you all have phones!?"

Hey unity specialist programmers, if you want to boost your career out of this, learn another engine asap focusing on "how to do cool things I could do in unity in the other engine" and then market yourself as a "unity exit programmer" that specializes in converting projects from unity to different engines.

Your expertise still has value, you just need to pivot its direction.

Edit: extra word removed

Yeah, this is one of the few cases where going a bit Karen is called for. Fucking marketers.

He needs to fire the idiot in charge of the whole thing. I bet Tesla could make a recovery if he wasn't at its helm, even if he still owned the same amount of shares. Even more so if his ego could handle hiring a replacement that was all too happy to vocally throw him under the bus.

IMO this is the best evidence yet that Spez is trying to kill the usefulness of Reddit even if it kills the platform itself in the process. Just like Musk is doing with Twitter. Free and open mass communication were in the process of turning the tide against the ruling class. Don't get me wrong, it's still very early in that process, but I've noticed a lot of things go from "you'll be ridiculed if you question this" to "some people still try to defend it, but the ridicule is going both ways now" over the years.

He doesn't personally control any of that. Each of those organizations could continue on without him, probably happier to be rid of him.

IMO police rules of engagement should disallow use of any tactical equipment until they at least run into active opposition. There's an innocent until proven guilty assumption built into the legal system, the police should also have a passive until proven violent assumption.

The only reason a single mother and baby should ever be flash banged is if they are shooting at the police. With the technology today, they should be aware of who is going to be hit by a flash bang before it's even thrown.

Ticketmaster is another real world example we've got right now. Or any service that adds on arbitrary fees that aren't a part of the advertised price.

Companies serving ads should have at least partial liability for them. If they can't afford to look into them all, then maybe they are too big or their business model just isn't as viable as they pretend it is.

And whose business plan is to use VC money to undercut existing taxi services and drive them out of business so that they can increase prices to a profitable point (and beyond!).

This comment fits the question but not in the way you expected.

This might actually lead to that, depending on what kind of lawsuits arise from this change. Which could mean there will be pressure from others who don't have a stake in the "unity install fee" game but do have one in the "wants to change terms at a whim" game.

Or maybe it will threaten the "by continuing to use this, you agree" clause instead and open up a path to continue using a previous license agreement if you don't like a new one.

Yeah, I'm wondering why Google got targeted first for this when Apple locks down their ecosystem a lot more. Not to defend Google, I would cheer a decision to break them up.

I agree with you but also woosh because OP also agrees with you.

That’s most likely because the Court’s Republican-appointed majority’s death penalty decisions frequently emphasize the need for finality in court proceedings, and they generally reject the proposition that a death row inmate should be freed because they are innocent.

I don't understand how a legal system can continue after a supreme court takes this position without the whole thing being considered a joke or sham.

What is the purpose of a justice system willing to execute innocents?

Unenforceable clauses in contacts should have penalties because they are an intimidation tactic.

I agree, the FCC shouldn't waste time investigating broadband prices. Just nationalize them. And the rest of infrastructure.

Though I admit, part of the reason I don't buy diamonds is specifically to fuck the diamond industry. Because fuck those scammers.

Thought they were dealing a death blow to applovin, hit themselves instead.

Though with what they were trying to do, I wonder if regulators will come in for the kill now.

I love this community, seeing through the generational conflict bullshit.

Makes me wonder if the corporate propaganda networks are going to be in trouble because this seems to be one actual generational trend: younger generations don't seem to trust the media like older ones did.

I've seen CNN as basically Fox News but with a different target audience for over a decade now. They can't say as much stupid shit because that audience isn't as dumb as Fox's, but it's pushing the same divide and conquer shit.

I don't get why anyone trusts Apple. I can't think of many things I've heard about them that didn't make me think "well there's Apple being Apple". As bad as the others can be, none have the audacity to do it like Apple does.

Neolibs would rather see a descent into fascism than a true progressive agenda because billionaires will still thrive under the former. Sure, there's the whole die roll about who gets caught up in the purges, but a real progressive administration could lead to less free money for them. The DNC would rather hand the reigns to the GOP while it sorts out the problem of people wanting a candidate like Bernie.

I'd think that in the majority of emergency situations, having an extra person who knows what's going on in the cockpit would be more of a benefit than a risk. Especially given that one of the actual fight crew could decide to go all murder suicide on their flight, and unless the odds of any pilot doing this is greater than 50%, the more people in the cockpit, the more people to fight the bad ones off and take control of the plane and monitor things that would need monitoring in the event that someone successfully disables the engines.

Netflix, if you're paying any attention here, there will be no raising prices to drive me to the ad tier. Either the ad free version is worth it or I'll continue my life without Netflix. I'll never go back to the cable ad experience.

"Systemic problems are OK!"

Personally, I didn't stop believing because of the intolerances. I stopped believing because it was an obvious ancient attempt to control people that worked to various degrees but still has the dumb shit people thought was plausible back when they didn't understand much and didn't think there was any way to disprove their claims.

Copernicus deserves a mention. Galileo's problems resulted (in part) from him being a proponent of Copernicism after the church had declared it heresy.

Heliocentrism was suggested by Copernicus and Galileo built on that, including developing physics to the point where he couldn't believe otherwise.