> This is a very stupid proposition
Surely there's a more respectful way to criticize the idea.
6,067 karma · joined July 30, 2015
Surely there's a more respectful way to criticize the idea.
Netflix sometimes(?) carries "Knights of Sidonia". I only ever saw season 1, but I was really surprised by how bad (IMO, obviously) the animation was [0].
It reinforced my perception that "Netflix Original" was a mark of poor quality.
[0] And my standards are probably lower than most of this crowd. I barely noticed the animation quality of Arifureta, because of how much I liked that series' other aspects.
I have a lot of empathy for others. Enough so that I'm unwilling to back polocies that I expect will cause more overall suffering in the long term.
I'm curious if this level of caution is truly required to meet an SEC rule. I've never heard of another company feeling the need to be this secretive for market reasons.
That doesn't sound healthy to me.
Can you elaborate? I'm having trouble imagining a legitimate reason to ghost a candidate, other than a court order or National Security Letter.
Seems to me that the only way the headline could be true is if we use the older definition of "prove": to test.
I imagine this is just another case of a university PR writer displaying his ignorance, to the great consternation of the researchers.
Probably easier to just give them all flashlights, than to have everyone shift their clocks to accommodate this use case.
You know what your staff are paid, how productive they are, and (potentially) how their salaries figure into your organization profit-and-loss numbers.
In your case, the power imbalance would come from Poland (or the EU?) not prioritizing your situation in trade negotiations with Switzerland. And your inability to force the EU to change that.
That's my working theory anyway. Happy to be corrected.
E.g., if a prison inmate was physically abused by staff, and his only corroborating evidence would be this video footage, can it be used to justify a civil or criminal complaint?
Not for math, at least not for my kids. I was helping my son with his high school physics homework a few days ago, and IMO his poor handwriting was a genuine impediment to his mathematical problem-solving.
So IIUC, the legal system carries some of the blame here.
And if a neighbor refuses to comply with noise ordinances because they want faster/cheaper lawn care, they already kind of hate you. They're just being subtle in how they show it.
It sounds like that might be the most practical way to force compliance.
I think the GP was questioning the wisdom of seeking a detail answer on this question; not whether or not the question has an objectively true answer.
Having salaries broken out by major city don't seem to anticipate remote workers.
How so?
You're probably right. But I think there are also many who take a view opposite of yours. Maybe that's why these debates rage for multiple years, instead of being quickly resolved.
I'm genuinely curious if this is a good strategy, relationship-wise. I would expect that insincere / dishonest communication would put a limit on intimacy, but maybe that's preferable to frequent arguments?
Now I'm not so sure. It seems like some ad hoc communication can be switched to a scheduled-presentation format, which allows the presenter to create online slides / diagrams. Pro: the presenter may think through his/her ideas more before soliciting feedback. Con: less spontaneous discussion, and harder for others to present alternative ideas.
Anyone have thoughts on this?
When inspection frequency gets too low, airplanes fail, leading to more frequent inspections.
When inspection frequency gets too high, airlines and authorities decide to save money, leading to less frequent inspections.
So the inspection schedules (somewhat) satisfy Hook's Law, and thus we should expect wavelike oscillations.
[Edit: The system also requires momentum. That's provided by labor unions agreements, maintenance contracts, and the time needed to change regulations.]
Thanks, I'll be waiting for you at the pub.
For example, are companies like the NYT permitted to force you to go through a red-tape gauntlet of their design?
Or, e.g., does the law ensure that once you tell one of their agents that you're canceling, they're legally barred from attempting to charge you for the service?
It seems to me that the burden of red-tape / bureaucracy navigation is an under-discussed battlefield for consumer rights, at least in the U.S.
There seems to be a huge number of fields-of-expertise that potentially have bearing on my life or work. E.g., urologists, transmission repair techs, indoor air quality experts, sleep therapists, house painters, early childhood education consultants, therapists/counselors, sports trainers, physical therapists, housecleaners, etc.
In my experience, most of those fields have practitioners who are sure they could help you avoid future problems; you just have to hire them to see the benefit! Or at the very least, invest time in helping them understand your particular situation so they can give more detailed advice.
I could easily believe that most of them are correct, too. But each of us, even in a business setting, has limited funds and time/bandwidth to deal with such specialists.
In my post above, I was trying to say that knowing which of these many specialists one should have engaged with isn't always clear ahead of time. E.g., maybe I didn't need to bring my car to a transmission repair shop, when the only real problem I'd have in the near year is back pain from poor sitting posture.
Having worked for companies the size of small startups up through megacorps, my experience has been that megacorps can be unfathomably foolish in these kinds of things.
I'd expect Citibank to be less likely to learn (and apply) the right lessons from this experience, than a small or medium-sized business would.