A woman saying she doesn't mind carnations, and that she thinks carnations are fine, is not nearly the same as saying she adores them and prefers them for the occasion of Valentine's Day.
2,739 karma · joined August 27, 2016
On the note of carnations for Valentine's Day, I'd view it in much the same way. Unless she's told you how much she adores and prefers carnations on Valentine's Day, roses are the best bet.
My partner and past partners have always fit that type, and I don't think either is lucky or better or right. I personally enjoy the tradition and the unspoken symbolism in the gifts, and striving to make her happy without it being spelled out for me.
I'm happy you have someone who makes you feel lucky, and who matches your preferences for communication and a relationship — finding that is possibly the greatest feeling in life. I simply aim to point out that either are valid, normal preferences and dynamics, as opposed to one being gaslighting.
I don't think there's any glaring issue with either party above, but it's like you expect all women in your life to be like many people on HN — hyper-rational, utilitarian devs who would never want a mined diamond because a cheaper artificial one with better clarity exists. It's not wrong, but it's not right - there is no right answer here. Traditional ideas of romance are a powerful force.
As someone involved in law in the US, the US is really good at these types of things. People, including Americans who have lived here their entire lives, are consistently amazed when they learn the power of the court and how functional it all has managed to be.
>500m Facebook records were leaked and <10m records have an email address — far more records are phone number but no email.
It's the only organization I've read that actually makes me think of journalism as opposed to news. They have an About page that they've very much followed [1].
Most of my friends who have checked out an article have ended up subscribing!
We could say the same about "liberalism" when we look at deadly riots, fires started at police stations with people inside, people executed on the street, ideas like "f** x" based largely on x's race or profession.
It's clear that the majority on both sides are relatively moderate. They aren't the loud minority you hear the most of. Why do both sides use this defense, but neither side believes it about the other?
Those groups fear the government roughly as much as she does now, and that's by-and-large why they own guns.
She doesn't seem to reach a second-order level of thinking and realize that common fear — she just sticks to "my marginalization makes me fear the government and own guns" without thinking of why they own guns. It's sad because there could be much more common ground, which leads to more considerate dialogue.
Otherwise, there's a funny sort of irony in being a spend management tool for other SaaS products without clear pricing on your own.
If you talk to a FAANG company about this and you aren't some famous rockstar engineer, they're going to just tell you that they won't remove any clauses.
What then? Do you pass up a job offer...?
These companies don't care if some of their contract is enforceable -- they want you to believe it is. They almost certainly know the law and know that it isn't enforceable, but it's still there for a reason.
Reuters and others issued retractions already, but NPR has not.
[1] https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1352641048514854913 [2] https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/no-twitter-did-not-suspend...
He granted clemency to 143 more last night which places him closer in line to Bush and G.W. Bush, but there's no way your data here would include that (and that still places him at a very low number), so I'm wondering where you're getting this data, and how you qualify "corrupt."
If we look at a handful of Bill Clinton's corrupt pardons on his last day in office alone as mentioned in the gp comment above:
(1) Susan McDougal who went to jail for contempt of court for him, (2) Braswell who paid Hillary $200k for the pardon, (3) his brother Roger Clinton Jr, (4) Democrat Mel Reynolds who was granted clemency after being found guilty of sexual abuse of a minor.
Thus, Trump must have had at least 40? Where is the source?
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/24/so-far-trum... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FT_20...
It digs into how corporations are essentially psychopaths — they put profit first, and if they appear to be good or generous, it's only because the money it takes to cultivate that image is going to be a net benefit to them.
> If you support a president who separates children from their parents
Obama's Homeland Security secretary, Johnson, confirmed with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly that this predates the Trump administration.
> terrorize your elected officials
AOC has said that the whole point of protesting is to "make people uncomfortable." A professor at Wellesley wrote an article in Slate that "Violence can be an important tool in protests." The destruction of government buildings has certainly occurred in recent protests, there are dozens of instances of this.
> build gallows outside the building
Even the irony in this! Black Lives Matter protestors built a guillotine in front of Jeff Bezos' DC home.
I support Black Lives Matter to be clear, but obviously this whole "Nazi by association" schtick leads to the conclusion that we would all, in fact, be Nazis.
With that said, I agree 30 may seem like a lowball and it possibly is, but I've seen so many cases of people who went to the initial protest being doxed, and it's been some random kind woman from the Bay Area, some random woman who works at a hospital in Massachusetts, and so on. They very much just appear to be regular people brainwashed by Trump and his cronies.
I agree, and I'm firmly in the camp that the election must be respected, and that it would be the death of America as we know it to overturn an election like this.
> If you are uncomfortable with an employee saying the truth
Did you read the article and the phrasing of his comment? This appeared to be during the initial peaceful protest; they were not all Nazis, and I doubt that even 0.1% of them were. Read the room, it's a workplace!
I would have no problem with seeing his take on Twitter, but the workplace? I equally don't expect someone to be able to go around my work's Slack saying "watch out for the Black nationalists" and "watch out for the violent Bolshevik Commies" because they saw a raised fist and a hammer-and-sickle in the crowd at a Black Lives Matter protest.
> "I did not know that, as a Jew, it would be so polarizing to say this word,"
Saying this word when referring to a large protest of Americans for a cause you disagree with in your work Slack channel? Statistically, it's likely that several people in the channel either agreed with the protest, or at the least, have relatives who did. You essentially just called coworkers and their families Nazis.
> In his final Slack message to coworkers, the employee said that his experience shows that the tech industry, and GitHub in particular, needs to be held more accountable for improving diversity and inclusion at the leadership level.
I'm fairly sure that GitHub's own CEO is Jewish, and would see this employee's perspective perfectly well. I don't think this is an accountability issue so much as a social-cues-in-the-workplace issue.
I was lucky enough to study a bit of network science in college under a fantastic professor, and always regretted not taking it further and getting involved with his research.
It impacted my thinking in so many areas (finance, technology, etc.) and the only limiting factor was forgetting over time what I had learned. There's been hardly any good introductory resources for network science given what a young field it is. Great to see that changing!
Yes, legitimate journalists are sometimes arrested by police, and this website documents those cases accurately.
Seeing that a substantial number of their incidents are misleading or false, however, takes away from the validity of their data.
I can trust them to report an individual incident accurately in their incidents involving legitimate journalists, but I cannot not trust their data. As every journalist knows — one false incident and the credibility of your data is lost.
To protect wildlife, it's been recommended by wildlife nonprofits to snip the straps of your face masks before disposing, to minimize the potential for it to harm an animal.
[1] https://www.heart.co.uk/lifestyle/rspca-warn-face-masks-wild...
In the first three incidents listed, they are "independent journalists."
(1) One of these independent journalists asked to be identified through their Twitter handle.
Their name on Twitter is "Andy Ngo is a fascist," and their bio is "ACAB means all of 'em, including Kamala." The first handful of their tweets includes "F* the peace police" in reference to those attempting to stop violence from occurring at a protest.
This person is most certainly not a part of the press, and it is not surprising this person would be arrested, presumably for violent behavior, at a protest.
(2) Looking at other cases, many of these "independent reporters" don't seem to exist anywhere on the internet under their legal name. The first and only relevant search result is the Press Freedom Tracker website.
(3) Another one is actually a hairdresser instead, and not a reporter. No articles ever written that I can find, and on Twitter, no reference to journalism - just being a cat mom and lots of swearing about politics.
It's really disappointing to lose faith in the Press Freedom Tracker. I expected a high level of journalistic integrity, and it feels so instinctually wrong to lose trust in an organization like that, but wow.
No wriggling. :)
To me, that statement would be backed by evidence that DoorDash allows drivers to make more than they previously made as drivers for specific restaurants.
To you, that wouldn’t satisfy the notion that they are fairly paid, because you believe they have always been underpaid.
I’m looking at “underpaid” through a lens of historical data, but you’re looking at it through a different lens, so I asked how you define underpaid.
Do you see what I mean?
- cross-app communication between Messenger and Instagram
- Messenger API enabling business communication on Instagram
- ad management for Instagram and Facebook through a centralized platform
- WhatsApp business accounts linking to Facebook accounts
- Facebook shopping in-app in WhatsApp
These are all small and there are many more examples, but an overarching theme is to integrate FB's products as much as possible. It's not only to increase adoption and revenue, but also to make them appear inseparable.
If the FTC has their way, Facebook will need to seek prior notice and approval for future mergers and acquisitions.
If that's the case, how can one say that, for all of history, they have been underpaid? What is the standard that defines underpaid? If we agree that this is an issue that DoorDash has done better on than historical alternatives, should they receive as much flak as they do?
> With Doordash alone multiple lawsuits against it for payments alone
I would never argue that DoorDash isn't acting in its own self-interest and has been quite misleading when it comes to tips, to the point where they should be losing lawsuits. When we talk about delivery people being underpaid, though, that seems directly against the initial pitch of DoorDash, and it seems to have instead fulfilled its pitch to help drivers make more money than they did previously.
When the drivers worked for one restaurant only, they would be sitting around most of the time waiting for an order.
By delivering for many restaurants at once on DoorDash, they would be able to make more money and have less idle time.
I'd love to see data, but I can intuitively imagine this being true, and the common view of "underpaid" being a view that isn't consistent with the history of the space.
I'm very capitalistic, but if SpaceX successfully colonizes Mars and builds factories there, I can imagine some frightening scenarios where it has considerable control over the U.S. rather than the U.S. having control over it.
It'd be acceptable if it's a relevant party, like your skip or your manager's skip, even if it would anger your direct manager. This, however, is entirely different. It's venting your frustration to a large group of coworkers. It takes away from productivity as a whole, and is socially inappropriate.
I don't know about Google's management policies, but at most companies I've worked at, senior employees and managers are held to an even higher standard, and this would make firing a more likely choice than some type of correction.
Regardless of the hypotheticals, from what I've read, she offered an ultimatum, and they declined her ultimatum, which resulted in her being fired:
> Dr Gebru had emailed her management laying out some key conditions for removing her name from the paper, and if they were not met, she would "work on a last date" for her employment. According to Dr Gebru, Google replied: "We respect your decision to leave Google... and we are accepting your resignation.
I completely agree with you, but what happened here was that this manager sent this email to a large group of employees, not the specific employees she had the issue with (which would be fine!).
This email wasn't an attempt at conflict resolution, it was sharing how upset she was, at her manager, with a bunch of coworkers.
For the last sentence: in the event where one wants to complain to a large group of coworkers, I think it's pertinent to stick to the basic, unarguable facts of what occurred. Suggesting that you've been dehumanized by the company is adding fuel to a fire that you should instead be aiming to resolve privately, if you want to continue to work at the company.