Thank you for explaining it, you did a great job at helping me understand what happened. The whole process seems way too convoluted for something as serious as paychecks. It really relies on everybody acting in good-faith and in the proper fashion. By Cachet working Step 2 before Step 1 and possibly assuming Step 1 was going to happen, they already were too far gone and only made the situation worse for them and a bunch of employees.
Honestly, this is really scary. Personally, I would be unable to take a [2x my bi-weekly salary] hit to my account and that would result in a pretty negative balance. I think I recently saw an article about a bank depositing too much money into an account and the account owner spent it then got arrested. It just seems like the people in charge of how we get/hold our money can screw up with minimal blow back, yet the receiver of the money is almost always the one who draws the short straw. I could be wrong, but it really makes me question the safety of (what little) money I have.
You talk about talk in your opening paragraph, yet these people are actually trying to do something so I am not sure why you are so against it? It doesn't matter if they are part-time, full-time, janitor, Lead Designer, or the office coffee boy. Climate change affects them and they are trying to take action in getting Amazon to listen to them. They are doing much more than you and I discussing it on HN.
I was about to say the same thing. I was in mid-reply to someone as I saw their post was flagged and has since been taken away. I am not really sure what is going on.
It seems like that reasoning would put everything into the bucket of "political issue". I feel like it is more intertwined with forcing people to change (gas cars to EV) OR removing a flow of money (oil industry).
Why can't employees voice their concerns to their companies? I imagine such a large company like Amazon, it would be near impossible to get a direct response without something bigger like this. Companies are groups of people working towards a goal/service/whatever and those people all have ideas on how to make the world a better place. If the company wants to shut them down, sure, but companies have ideologies too and don't always have to play the "neutral" card. Which, IMO, climate change shouldn't even be a political issue.
I am not sure on your reasoning here. If they keep popping up, isn't that a good thing? More and more communities are seeing the internal problems these people are causing and are calling them out on it. I've never seen "ReactGate 2.0 cause the 1.0 people are still causing issues". I can't say every "gate" has fixed all their problems but acknowledging the issues and working towards a fix is a step in the right direction.
I guess I forgot about that (it probably helps that Youtube doesn't give it much attention as they should). I think those were a step in the right direction but having those possibly at the top of the "recommendation" area or just replacing it completely would be more intuitive to me. Maybe even having it autoplay to the next video set up by the content creator.
I am not a content creator so my opinion is solely from the viewer side. I would love to hear from people who are making the videos I watch and enjoy as well since many of them are using Youtube as their sole income. IMO, you have to please both sides to a certain extent or this all won't work.
I propose an idea, maybe: every video you watch, the original author of that video can set up a list of recommended videos to watch after you are done with the one you originally came for. This way, the original video author has a say in where you head in your Youtube rabbit-hole experience.
This is just off the top of my head early in the morning so probably not the best idea, but honestly it seems better than what they are doing now. Personally, I subscribe to a certain set of people and rarely watch videos outside of those content creators.
Edit: Just to add to my first point, I would be much more happy to follow the recommendation of the content creator I follow than some algorithm designed to get me to watch/click more.
This is all just so you can continue to live your life and not sit in jail while waiting for trial correct? That just seems wild to me. If you don't have the money, or can't get a loan, you probably lose your job due to being in jail, which now your entirely livelihood is at stake. It just seems so broken.
Not sure if it is the best book overall, but I used it for one of my college classes and I think it is a great book for learning much more about operating systems. And it is available for free online so my college student wallet loved it!
I honestly love coming to HN to see posts like this and comments like yours. It is always so neat to see the other sides of software engineering. You listed 4 acronyms and I have no idea what any of them are or how they fit into this story but all I want to do is deep dive into each one. It is also awesome to see people so interested in things that I've never even encountered before.
I am glad that they do not discriminate on how much they charge: significant costs should be imposed on anyone wanting to further remove endangered species. I get what you are saying, you may want the tree removed but if everyone got their "just this one tree" removed, then it would speed up the extinction of that tree. Does that tree seriously need to be removed? Does it have life threatening consequences to you or the surrounding area? I seriously doubt it.
These animals/plants do not have a choice in the matter. They have no say whenever we destroy their homes or their food sources. How do people honestly think it is their right to destroy and take all for their mighty money? Why do we let corporate greed take over so many things that should be simple?
I think this is a good place to point out that the "churn" could be a variety of things and really depends on the person "churning". The advice is still sound though, make steps in your life to not deal with the churn. The first step is identifying it, maybe next is how to overcome it. Not always an easy thing to do but I do believe everyone has that one thing holding them back.
Honest question: When is it appropriate to talk about this stuff? I see this often: "We are speaking about <event> too soon after it happened, we need to let the families <grieve|move on|have space>." It seems like one <event> happens, we can't talk about it, then a new one happens and the cycle goes on, never stopping to sit down and discuss how we keep ending up here.
I agree, I think some of the best designs lead you along without making it obvious at all. My opinion is that some of the top tier level design has a strict path on moving forward but lets it up to the player to decide how exactly they want to move down it.
This sort of stuff is fascinating to me. There is so much design and forethought to level making that it just blows my mind. Whenever I am on the other end, playing the game, I never notice when the stage is built in a great way. I do, however, tend to notice whenever it has flaws. Maybe reading more about the design of it all will help me be more cognizant of the patience and dedication put into level design.
As a side note: I really enjoy how the imagery at the top shows the rating for Python is E (for everybody). Do all apps receive this type of rating? Who got to test this and decide it was E? I always assumed the ESRB rating system was only attached to video games.
Of all things...two classrooms? Seriously? How low does this have to go before everybody takes a step back? As a country, doing something as petty as this blows my mind. Is there anything that can even be done other than shaming them? I really do feel for the people caught up in this whole situation. Especially the poor children who are growing up in not only this pathetic display, but also the never-ending violence.
I think the greatest thing about this is the choice. If you don't like this practice, vote with your wallet. If you do, then the same rules apply. I think the biggest issue a lot of people may have is the possibility that the choice aspect is taken away.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this. I am happy that Malaysia is taking a stand and is refusing to be a dumping ground for trash. I am sad that all of this plastic is coming back to the US where I am honestly unsure on what they will do with it. I am mad that it has gotten this far and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.
I feel the same way. This says a lot about the 737-Max but it also says a ton about the company. This whole thing has shed a light on Boeing that I personally have a hard time overlooking. I know my opinion matters little in the grand scheme of things, but it doesn't seem like many people are in the same boat as me.
People get kicked out of the conversation because men still have power. A good example of this would be this exact argument. A woman feels uncomfortable about a man and she is a "whiny snowflake" while a man feels uncomfortable about a woman and the world needs to change.
>You don't have to be a predator to say, or do something in a way where the other person will take it as abuse.
No you don't and this is a problem. Anybody can say something abusive but that doesn't make it right.
>Just fail to identify a transgender person and use a wrong pronoun and you will find yourself in front of HR so fast that you won't have time to say sorry.
Out of all the transgender people I know, they will correct you if you fail to use the correct pronoun OR they will let you know first, that way you don't feel awkward. It is up to you then to follow through with it.
I think there are a vocal few who are super easily offended and too many people are focusing on them. They don't make up the general populace. Just like how not every guy is out to make crude jokes and be offensive. It always seems like the "not every guy" defensive always comes up but it is unfathomable that not everyone is as easily offended as this vocal minority.
I think there are a lot of gives and takes here. People being "afraid" of each other seems a bit dramatic. I think this may be the first time many men in the workplace had to sit back and evaluate the things they say before they say them. This movement has shed light on some of the utterly repulsive behavior people have been getting away with for years, now people just ask you to think twice before telling a joke. If thinking before saying something to a female coworker is that difficult for so many, then I am not really sure what we can do to fix it.
I guess why have it at all then? If their goal is profit and profit means to skip care, which is the main reason of healthcare, why even go about trying to pretend then? Skip right to the fact, take my money and leave me to die. I know this isn't a real answer and isn't how it truly works but the system just seems to defy the whole idea behind healthcare.
Growing up, my parents would make fun of my aunt for taking anti-depressants behind her back in front of my sister and I. When I was a kid, I didn't think much of it. Now being older and having gone through some dark times of my own, I am truly sickened by the fact that they see her in this "weakness" light. Imagine all the kids who faced the same thing but never saw the other side and wound up feeling the same way their parents did? My parents taught me a lot of great things but I am glad this was not one of them.
Honestly, I will have to try this. I am a pretty passive person so my head usually goes to "just nod and say ok a bunch" during confrontations like this but the luggage experience had me pretty upset. Thank you for the advice!