gingerrr

This is a bit of a loaded recommendation - I own it and it's a fantastic compendium of literally all western cooking knowledge you might want to ever know.

It's also like 20lb and over a thousand pages and usually sells for textbook prices, so only invest in it if you really want to level up and have the time to read/work through it.

It's both. I'd also done the same with multis but kept a "casuals" multi for the defaults + populars, and it had been declining in quality for a while - but it genuinely fell off a sharp cliff with the Great Purge, even my multireddits now feel like the frontpage. Cacophonous shallow dreck.

Most states have some form of regulation against constructive dismissal/termination/discharge (term of art varies), but I don't know of a list. Would be good to have!

It's something usually managed at the state level, so depends where they are in the US. In California constructive termination standing is very much a thing.

I do like the idea theoretically as a deterrent against bad actors abusing the law to bully weaker parties - but the difficult part is in the details of implementation: how do you separate intent to abuse from incompetence?

Also confusing the mix here is who you are punishing when violations are found - is it the attorneys drafting the agreement? They're as likely to be unaffiliated with the company executing the contract as not, not everyone bothers with in-house counsel. Is it the company leadership forwarding the contract?

What's the scope of the punishment? An embargo on all new legal agreements for a period of time, or only with the parties to the bad contract? A requirement for change in legal representation? Now we get into overreach questions on the punishment side.

All of that to say I am guessing the reason something like this doesn't exist yet afaik is because it's a logistical nightmare to actually put into practice.

The closest I can think of to something that might work is like a credit score/rating for companies for "contract integrity" or something that goes down with negative rulings - but what 3rd party would own that? Even just the thought experiment spawns too many subqueries to resolve simply.

None of that contradicts the fact it's a good idea - just not sure if even possible to bring to life!

As the linked article notes, it's explicitly against the California State Bar Code of Conduct to condition criminal proceedings on requiring a civil outcome, so while not technically illegal it's censurable - that's against the attorneys who threatened, not the clients they represent.

> "if any piece of this contract is invalid it doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract".

Severability (the ability to "sever" part of a contract, leaving the remainder intact so long as it's not fundamentally a change to the contract's terms) comes from constitutional law and was intended to prevent wholesale overturning of previous precedent with each new case. It protects both parties from squirreling out of an entire legal obligation on a technicality, or writing poison pills into a contract you know won't stand up to legal scrutiny.

If part of the contract is invalidated, they can't leverage it. If that part being invalidated changes the contract fundamentally, the entire contract is voided. What more do you want?

It seems like you're arguing for some sort of punitive response to authoring a bad contract? That seems like a pretty awful idea re: chilling effect on all legal/business relationship formation, and wouldn't that likely impact the weaker parties worse as they have less access to high-powered legal authors? That means that even negotiating wording changes to a contract becomes a liability nightmare for the negotiators, doesn't that make the potential liability burden even more lopsided against small actors sitting across the table from entire legal teams?

I guess I'm having trouble seeing how the world you're imagining wouldn't end up introducing bigger risk for weaker parties than the world we're already in.

It's going both directions - that's how polarization works, and this is an increasingly polarizing topic.

> separating for you and following

Are you counting the fact that those are now different UI tabs as a new "feature"? Twitter always had the ability to switch between chronological feed of just accounts you followed, and an algo-curated feed of those tweets + other tweets you may have interest in, sorted by interest rank - that's exactly what "for you" is now.

> blue checks

Really not sure what you're claiming here. Verification was already a thing, as was Twitter Blue (editing & long form tweets for paid accounts) - the only "feature" elmo introduced is ambiguity about what that check represents - is it someone who has spent the last 15 years on twitter as a notable public presence with a verifiable identity? or some rando with $8 on a prepaid credit card? Who knows, now.

> unlimited video

to count this as a feature the video player has to actually work reliably. it does not, by any metric. endless buffer, glitching, skipping with no way to reload lost chunks. the 10s videos were an annoying limitation but they just worked.

> This is more change than twitter did for 15 years before Elon

Circles. Spaces. Communities. Community Notes. Co-tweets. Alt text tagging as a first-class citizen of image posting. User tipping options. NFT profile pics. These are all features released in the last 5 years of twitter before elmo took over.

If we're talking about intellectual honesty let's apply it evenly.

Circles were a near-exact lift of the same-named feature from Google Plus. You could (can still?) set up ring privilege layers of your followers or specific subgroupings and send tweets only visible to those in that group.

Cheers, appreciate you clarifying!!

It's not like their original comment is that opaque, but here's my attempt to break down (translate?):

Are we going to continue to allow capitalist enterprise to have a say in public policy conversation (concessions stands outside the town square)?

Ideally no from an ethics perspective, but then we as a populace need a way to and habit of contributing directly ourselves to fund social services ("dropping a dollar in the plate" - reference to collecting tithe during Catholic services).

They're tired of seeing public services starved of funding, then privatized and replaced by corporate, profit-driven ("plastic") replicas.

Basics of human nature keep undermining our attempts to build giant organizations together. We need to make and keep government a local, small-scale, accountable practice we all participate in, rather than one giant federal tent nobody is connected to - that gets Orwellian.

Hope that helps and hope I represented it faithfully.

That text you quoted appears literally nowhere in the source you cited. Which is Wikipedia.

I combed all the article sources cited in that entry. And turns out the only source for the claims of criminal history was a single anonymous police tip to a gossip rag (https://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/info-europe-1-mort-de-na... - Europe1 is not known for its journalistic ethics), and all credible journalism indicates he had no actual criminal record because he had never been tried for any of the alleged incidents. (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66052104) To be a criminal you have to be convicted. We assume innocence in western legal tradition.

Again, you're not providing any sources that actually back up your claims. Aside from a single anonymous cop - which if it actually were true, wouldn't the department have publicly revealed his criminal past since you seem to think it disculpatory?

Your replies here still reek here of agenda and your attempts to rebut are intellectually dishonest.

> endangering people with a car is a "traffic violation".

Nobody died, nobody was even injured, and no sources have claimed he even intentionally tried to hit anyone. He ran a red light while speeding. Those are both traffic violations, and unless someone was injured they would be prosecuted as such no matter how hysterically you try to whip frenzy over hypothetical harm to claim they're violence.

edit: the irony of trying to cite a "criminal history" that shows a history of cops harassing him and trumping up reasons to file reports that went nowhere because they had no case to actually prosecute - you're making my point for me. petty tyrants.

They already have exactly this, it's called "Communities" and not very heavily used.

edit: great idea though it functions pretty much exactly as you described, get into product if you're not yet!

Moreover - <a series of incredible escalatory claims with absolutely zero sources>.

This comment fails to contribute meaningful discussion at best, and at worst is openly attempting to spread misinformation.

so there was still no violence, nor any actual victims of his driving, just traffic violations, and all you have to offer is appeals to emotion over hypothetical victims?

it's pretty clear you have a narrative agenda and don't care if you have to throw reason out the window to push it, since that's exactly what you're doing.

> maybe you should consider becoming a cop, and ideally in a crime-ridden area

people like you who say this never consider that people like me live in those crime-ridden areas and have already seen firsthand the abuse of power dynamics inflicted on my minority neighbors by power-tripping cops.

or in your hypothetical do you have to actually be the cop? bc not everyone dreams of growing up one day to be a petty tyrant. but again, nobody is forcing them to be cops. if they can't handle doing their job without murdering teenagers they should quit.

edit: it's also a fascinating choice to be humanizing the cop (he regretted it so much!) but there's a dead kid you have no sympathy for in any of your commentary, what's that about?

Where in any of that account was any violence committed? Traffic violations. You're calling that violence. So we should be charging everyone who runs a stop sign with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon now?

Pretty incredible that you were able to ascertain the cause of the economic decline of that area over the last decade was entirely due to the 2020 pandemic, all within the span of a 6 hour layover.

Hope you make plenty of money with that superpower.

Of course, those of us who have lived here during that time know that Union Square has been on the decline with empty storefronts since 2012 - but it's fascinating to watch people building and tilting at strawmen in real time.

The article you linked quite literally says:

> There may be situations in which a court decides that those protections do not apply to a given piece of content

Which is all someone needs to lose, is section 230 protections over 1 piece of content, to lose a defamation lawsuit about that piece of content - which is what the comment I was linked was discussing. Seems pretty apt to me?

All of the other conversations about moderation in that article apply to removing content. Reddit moderators often review and approve flagged and auto-removed content, making it available on the site by their actions; I believe the commenter I paraphrased was saying that that action crosses the line into content creation, which even your article says introduces liability for bad content.

That's a fair point about the publisher/platform thing - the original comment was talking about literal newspaper publishers as an analogue of a content creator under section 230. I just plucked the word publisher and ran with it thinking it was a meaningful term wrt the law!

Good read.

edit: Either way though that commenter said the law hasn't been decided by court case around this question yet so it's all hypothetical!

> As a consumer in the bay area, I know WestField SF will be neglected.

I guess this one was too self-evident, as that feels like it was a truism even before the foreclosure considering the overall direction the entire area has already been headed for over a decade and the stores within the mall that have already closed. Do you see the foreclosure itself having had a unique impact on these feelings? To me, public sentiment has already been very negative.

> Foreclosed assets go for lower price than before

Makes total sense! Wasn't thinking what happens after the next sale re: property taxes, good point.

Thanks for explaining!

> what makes you think they'll stay open even if they weren't leaving?

The fact that their lender probably wants to squeeze any return they can out of it and they stand to lose far more money leaving it with lights off than at least letting it limp along until they can get someone else on the hook for it, to start.

It could be that the lender also writes off the loss and just shutters the mall, but usually properties in foreclosure stay open because they want to claw back as much make-up ROI as possible on an already down position.

Still haven't found the comment! I'm no lawyer, but iirc it was that paid moderators making content approvals would end up turning them into publishers, where bc they're volunteers they're currently 3rd parties to Reddit, so if they approve illegal content now it can't hurt Reddit because of section 230.

Basically because mods don't just remove, but they approve content, paying them as 1st parties gets you into risky "publisher" territory.

edit: YOU FOUND IT. thank you!! your search-fu is a long lock of hair and mine is but an eyelash

Ah ok, I may have been trying to look too deeply then if they were just alluding to the noxious side effects of any write-off.

I guess this seemed like the obvious next step for them, to me. Considering recent store closures, operational costs have to be close to outpacing revenue at this point so waiting for a potential buyer wouldn't make sense while losing money daily. Especially not when you already planned to divest of the asset - you'd save yourself trouble and time and write off the loss.

So I got curious about what other ramifications I was missing - like maybe those replies were insinuating the foreclosure was an first trickle of a broader collapse in commercial real estate, or something else that wasn't just "SF downtown bad" again.

Thanks for clarifying!

I read a comment on one of the many other threads over the last week that paying moderators changes Reddit's liability under section 230 to be stricter. With volunteer moderators, the mods themselves are considered users instead of employees of the company and that apparently matters in a tangible sense.

Trying to find the comment since I'm not the expert who was mentioning, but it's likely not that easy/why they haven't just done this already, not counting the extra cost.

To whom? Yes to Westfield's bottom line, but both you and another commenter have replied this as if it has self-evident corollaries.

Why is the difference meaningful to anyone who isn't the corporation already planning on exiting the market? Would be a helpful exposition to better understand what you're both trying to indicate with pointing out that 2 different things are different.

edit: I'm asking bc the article doesn't really explain that either and I'm not sure why this means anything beyond Westfield couldn't find a buyer at the price they wanted, or thought this was the simplest/fastest way to divest

Where did you read the mall is closing? The final paragraph in the linked article indicates things are staying open, Westfield isn't shutting anything down, just deciding to back out of repaying the remainder of their loan.

It's a functional foreclosure, which divests them of their interest much like selling an asset would - do you just mean it's "much different" because of the amount of money they make/lose?

Trying to understand the distinction you're making as it relates to this article and their preexisting plans to exit the market.

fundamental reading comprehension failure on my part, thanks for the correction.

edit: wow I can't read, apparently. or scrolled too aggressively when reading, either way they absolutely mentioned it.

--

Seems like journalistic malpractice that all these recent pieces trumpeting the SF downtown location closing don't also mention that Westfield announced a year and 2 months ago they're selling their entire US mall portfolio by 2024 to focus on Europe.

https://smmirror.com/2022/04/french-based-owners-of-westfiel...

You have to click on the kebab menu next to the result title - you should see a modal popup titled "About this result". Then you either have to expand the "More Options" collapsed at the top to see the "Cached" pill, or scroll to the bottom of the modal to see it - it seems like they have 2 versions they're A/B testing.

I'm not sure why but it seems like they're really trying to make it hard to find.