jhhh

Likely nothing will happen to them. It's a combination of several factors:

Courts removed DOJ's legal tools they used to go after individuals (Skilling).

DOJ started allowing companies to hire law firms to investigate themselves for wrongdoing because it was easier than doing an investigation. Also, it created a revolving door between the white collar legal community.

Culture change at DOJ after a pushback from said white collar legal community after flattening Arthur Anderson hilariously punctuated by the hiring in Obama's first term of Denis McInerney as the DOJ Chief of Fraud after he represented Arthur Anderson.

Several high profile losses: Skilling (again), Bear Sterns execs, AIG execs.

Everyone should just read Chickenshit Club.

Ironically I've heard the exact opposite effect being proposed as a reason for allowing insider trading. If you allow people to profit from their knowledge about inner workings of a company then that information will find its way to the market faster since people are incentivized to take a position and then capitalize on it. Not sure if that's too simple of an explanation but it seems facially plausible. In this framework the market would have more timely information about the state of things so investors could potentially be more likely to invest overall.

Unpersonalized ads can still serve the same democratic funding model you're identifying as the main positive reason for online advertising's existence. You present a false choice between obnoxious (visibility intrusive) ads versus these odious information gathering schemes. Since the latter make more money and people hate obnoxious ads we must choose personalization. Thankfully we're now fully aligned with how Google has implemented their ad targeting.

Hypothetically if congress could ban both obnoxious and targeted ads (somehow) leaving us with the unpersonalized newspaper model of ads would you be for or against that bill?

It was so bad I had to make a greasemonkey script to block the autoplay elements on my PC. When I'm going to watch on my TV I'll find the show on my phone and then look it up on my TV or just cast it. I actually chatted with them several years ago to complain and they said they'd pass my feedback along so that they could "have this option available soon". They never implemented an option to do this, of course.

It looks like it's a questionnaire through the Current Population Survey (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-docume...) and the wording I found:

(THE WEEK BEFORE LAST/LAST WEEK), did (name/you) have more than one (job/job or business), including part time, evening or weekend work?

So it doesn't look like it separates different kinds of work.

Only 5% of working adults in the US have more than one job. The average worker between 25-54 works 40.5 hours with an average commute of 26 minutes each way.

I know we in tech see all of our coworkers, friends and acquantences with degrees but only ~35% of US adults have a B.S. or higher. I'm not sure these people, the ones with the BS/MS/PHD degrees and can acquire the higher requirement jobs are the one that need to have their debts cancelled. At least Warren's plan attempted to be more reasonable about the limitations on income, relatively.

If you don't like him just say so and move on. Trying to rationalize and then justify non-substantiation in an argument by playing this burden of proof shifting metagame wastes everyone's time. Just because you dressed up your assessment in this snide court language doesn't make it any better.

Every person that I've talked to that seemed to have a strong negative opinion about parens never used it. They just think they won't like it but wouldn't take the minimal amount of time to give it a try with something like paredit. I was also in this camp for a long time until I figured I would give it a serious try instead of disparaging something I had not used. You might consider that creating and editing code with balanced parenthesis doesn't actually require you to insert them manually when you have an editor that will always keep the code data-structure balanced and makes structural editing simple.

I think it's more a acknowledgement of the current state of popularity of languages and an attempt to win people over rather than a manifestation of latent doubt.