abraxas @ abraxas @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

780

Joined

2 yr. ago

Simple answer. Most of us (and most of the world) thinks At-Will employment is barbaric.

It is entirely reasonable to require some substantive effect to warrent termination, even if that substantive effect is not directly the teacher's fault. Her having an onlyfans account, not grounds for firing. Her onlyfans account passed around by students? Grounds for termination.

There's a (not so new) trend in the US for companies to crack down on side gigs. Yes, sex work is a politically charged side-gig, but we shouldn't ever be supporting a company's right to fire people having side-gigs without a very good reason. So long as your side-gig never encroaches into your day job in any real (not hypothetical) way, there really isn't a good reason.

HR where I work is excessively paranoid about terminations. They will want a paper trail of performance failures or argue to death that "then they'll be able to argue they were really fired for a protected reason. Get me a paper trail of performance failures".

Not saying our HR is worker-friendly. They're just VERY lawsuit-averse.

Flip-side, I worked at a company that fired anyone for any reason and just kept cash aside for wrongful termination suits. And they had a HUGE HR team, whose job it was to keep the employers happy.

At Will employment. "In a meme" is not a protected class, and a reasonable bank employee could see her meme-attachment having a detrimental effect on business (you don't have to be in your reasons for firing someone as long as those reasons aren't protected or being used to hide that you're firing them for a protected reason). I'd guess she'd have no case in almost any state in the US with their lack of employee protections.

This here. Through the years, if I ever pirated a game and liked it, it was instabought.

Execs that know they're producing shit are the ones that really double-down on anti-piracy measures. When piracy is considered, it turns into a challenge of quality. When piracy isn't considered, it's just about return on marketing spend.

The real lost sales are the people who pirate a game, spend 15 minutes playing it, and delete it saying "thank GOD I wasn't stupid enough to buy this". Make a refund policy just hard enough on Steam and most of those just keep the game with regret.

I know. That one where the first person's wrist just flows into the next person's ankle.

One thing of note with the Steam Deck is that it CAN stream games from your PC, allowing you access to your whole library. You get access to fewer games in SteamOS (there's still a ton). You can always look up what games are natively compatible with Steam Deck before you buy. The big ticket games are usually compatible nowadays (Starfield was markedly absent, but BG3 is there all-the-way).

I don’t really get people saying fuck Nintendo. It’s their IP, and Yuzu team was pretty blatant it’s made for piracy

Because a significant percent of people have always seen IP as theft and IP lawsuits as shakedowns. Real Talk - IP was codified to solve one problem (it wasn't casual piracy, it was inventors being ripped off by evil businesses), and it made that problem worse. We should've just thrown it out from there and tried something else, but then the evil businesses convinced the soccer moms that their little Billy listening to Metallica on Napster was everything wrong with this country.

It’s not what you do when you try to stay under the radar

And people walked down the street smoking pot in my state before it was legalized. We still said "FUCK the war on drugs" when they got harassed by cops.

Which is why Quest is beating PSVR in terms of overall experience. Of course, it's still not doing as well as it seems to need to. ACNexus did reasonably well considering the audience size, but they're still pulling out.

I'm sure the corp interest rates issue is part of it all, but nobody seems to be able to overcome the "why would I buy VR with no games?" and "why would I research games for VR if I don't have VR?"

I mean, for me, I've powered through more solid VR games since jan-1 than I've played PC/PS/Xbox games in the last 3 or 4 years. But the games I've been playing are The Room and 7th Guest (OMG t7G remake is the GOAT). Popular among an older generation, but not great to build a critical-mass following.

There's a marketing challenge and nobody has solved it. Even when I got my headset it was more of a "shit, I have nothing else to ask my wife for for Christmas... The HELL do I pick?"

New England, huh? I love that they texted us again to correct themselves.

Are you referring to Presh Talwalkar or someone else? How about his reference for historical use, Elizabeth Brown Davis? He also references a Slate article by Tara Haelle. I've heard Presh respond to people in the past over questions like this, and I'd love to hear his take on such a debunking. I have a lot of respect for him.

Your "debunk" link seems to debunk a clear rule-change in 1917. I wouldn't disagree with that. I've never heard the variant where there was a clear change in 1917. Instead, it seems there was historical vagueness until the rules we now accept were slowly consolidated. Which actually makes sense.

The Distributive Law obviously applies, but I'm seeing references that would still assert that (6÷2) could at one time have been the portion multiplied with the (3).

And again, from logic I come from a place of avoiding ambiguity. When there is a controversiallly ambiguous form and an undeniablely unambiguous form, the undeniably unambiguous form is preferable.

Pretty much. I'm a progressive. Specifically, a socdem. I fully acknwledge that most people don't want what I want. The fact that one side is giving me a seat at the table and offering me some progress and concessions means the world to me.

and when Trump eventually dies, I might be more sympathetic to a discussion about the progressive bloc holding out for a platform shift to the left

I won't hold my breath, though. The Left is what... 13% of Democrats? If the Republicans fully died and the Democrats split, we Progressives would have to find allies to even win an election. Changing hearts takes time, and we've backpedaled a long way since the early 90's.

Interesting. I haved lived in and out of Purple areas in a deep-Blue state, so perhaps the Republicans here are a little less insane than the typical ones. Not surprised, really, just didn't realize

You mean more than "she's a Democratic VP"? I wasn't aware of that. She seemed the most conservative-friendly candidate to me in 2020 except Bloomberg. Guess I wasn't aware of the particular hatred. I wonder why that could be. Surely not because she's both a minority and a woman.

Are you really bragging about your support of fascism now? Oh look, found the block button.

She was specifically asked if she had a conversation with Bernie where he said a very specific sentence. Nobody knows where the media got that information, but she answered truthfully and moved on. Then Bernie denied it up and down and turned it political.

How do we know who told the truth? Because they hot-micced her at the end trying to talk to him, shocked at how he accused her of lying on national TV.

If one had anything bad to say about Warren it's that she didn't know how to fight dirty anymore than Mcain did in his campaign. I'd buy that.

Yes. Despite your Trump vote, we will elect Biden and preserve this country.

Kamala was a tough-on-crime prosecutor. She might even be able to rally some of the right to vote for her.

Not sure that's saying something good about her, though.

In fairness, if 2020 had fallen differently Warren could've done it. If Bernie had backed her as a VP candidate instead of running, there was a solid shot they could've beaten Biden. She actually was leading the betting odds for "president" when the 2024 campaign began.

Warren had the opposite of what the Clintons had. She was a constantly progressive voter who could rally the moderate vote of a Harvard-trained law professor with a no-nonsense mindset.

She was also Obama-level known (unknown to common voters, but known to people who paid attention) so there wasn't years of hate-news on her. The worst they could get was a true story about her having Native American ancestors that was intentionally blown out of proportion. That's some Tan Suit shit there.

The moderate Democrats are probably the single largest voting bloc in the country. They don't get to be "the problem" in a Democracy. They're the base.

In 2020, I'd have said Warren. She was able to bring in almost every demographic, if she didn't lose progressive votes to the infighting with Bernie.

In 2024, nobody has a better shot than Biden.