The reasoning was 'jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes' potentially falling under 'advocating for violence'. They decided to clarify the rules a bit and going forward, advocating for violence is still banned, but have been directed that the policy doesn't apply to violence that has already happened.
The way the story goes... They didn't explicitly fuck up, some dude just though two snakes looked cooler than one and we've just been running with it for a few decades now. There is a story about how it was originally adopted by military personnel who transported medical supplies (along with messages so... it would kinda made sense) but the justification there does feel super cherry picked. Mostly, the accepted reasoning is that the caduceus is just a better design.
Not a completely standard thing, but a lot of places you wouldn't otherwise want to be known to work for will have something kind of like a parent company with a very nondescript name and a super generalized website that doesn't really tell you anything useful about what the company actually does. When you list it on your resume, you worked for that company. There's a lot of other benefits for the business itself, but it works out for the employees.
I really want to know more about these gloves that have inspired this level of dedication but if you tell me about them I'm probably going to go buy them.
So, possible, but they probably won't. Anything can happen at any time and you could do everything right and it could all fail spontaneously and catastrophically through no fault of your own. Its not a likely outcome though.
It only seems reckless until you step back and think about it rationally. You can't expect to prepare for everything so spend your time on more legitimate worries.
Seconding other comments, you'll never ever be financially ready, there will always be new concerns, but that was true for most parents. People far less intelligent and less prepared than you have figured it out and done alright.
We're just going to have to spend the next 20 years researching each model to figure out whether it was made by nissan guys in nissan plants or honda guys in honda plants. It will probably realistically be functionally separated for a long time. Hopefully, everything will settle closer to honda quality.
Thats where I'm at, I thought it was fairly obvious it was doing this and theres a hundred extensions like this. Are real people surprised this is how it works?
I'm conflicted on the projects like that one right now. It's super clever to monitor the network traffic for specific dash buttons trying to reach out, but it also feels super janky and I don't feel like I can justify putting the effort to set that up when it just feels so fragile. Especially with the caveat that if the amazon block you have to setup for it fails then the device just becomes a paperweight.
Genius idea, but I'm going to hold out for the unlikely possibility of someone figuring out a firmware level hack.
Mice and some other pests have evolved an instinctual aversion to the smell of cats, it triggers their fear response. Just having the cats around might have been good enough.
Amazon was effectively giving them away for free for a large portion of their lifespan. You'd have deals where you'd pay for them and then get a coupon for actually using them equal to the purchase price. I feel like I even remember a few times where the coupon you got worked out to slightly more than you paid for the button. Basically, saying that someone 'bought' one was usually only partially true.
They did have a few legitimately good uses. Had to have something that needed restocking sporadically but you also didn't think about often and could wait 2-3 days to receive when you realized you were out. A lot of prerequisites there, I used the ones for trash bags and detergent often.
It's mostly just a shame the amount of ewaste produced at this point. I still have a box full somewhere in hopes of finding a use case.
If you're interviewing with someone under 40, the interviewer is going to look you up on social media. Almost definitively, I do not know anyone who doesn't do a quick google search before the interview. May or may not be anything official at an HR level, and for me personally, unless I see something crazy and you're in a visible role, I'm probably not going to say anything.
We had a guy once who thought his social media was private and he was very wrong. Their interests were stacked pretty heavily towards weed and guns. Would not be a huge problem if it was private and they were able to abstain long enough to satisfy the potential drug screen, but with the amount of visibility, if anything came up, people might start searching for someone to blame for not doing their due diligence when hiring and my team would probably end up being the scapegoat.
As far as the drug screen specifically, I do not understand the methodology HR uses to determine whether someone needs to be drug screened during on-boarding. Maybe they know something I don't, but it seems completely random.
tl;dr: Someone will almost definitely go through it and unless it's actually for real private, you probably aren't as clever as you think in hiding it. The bar though for social media in my experience is pretty low.
Trump can say he won them over and that all of our best tech companies are friends of the government and him personally (which are the same to him). That's pretty close to Trump's favorite thing.
If you're fighting a singular male lion on it's own... They're not brave without their pack and they're way more 'bark' than bite. It's just like a black bear, be as big and loud as you can. Do not ever run, this triggers an instinctual urge to chase. Alone in the face of a fight it's not sure it can win, the Lion will want to run though. That will just buy you time, closing the gap and actually winning the fight will depend on circumstances, but you can get the upper hand in a lot of ways.
Whatever happens, be thankful you're not fighting a Tiger.
This is the update post for it at least: https://lemmy.world/post/22920690
The reasoning was 'jury nullification when this was suggested in context of murder or other violent crimes' potentially falling under 'advocating for violence'. They decided to clarify the rules a bit and going forward, advocating for violence is still banned, but have been directed that the policy doesn't apply to violence that has already happened.