Idk how anyone besides the wealthy survives in California. Someone sent me a job in my field starting at 150k in San Francisco. On paper, it would be really great money for what I do, but the cost of living would make it a poverty wage. I’m not interested in having 6 roommates at this point in my life.
100k w/four housemates is enough to eat, have fun, and save a wee bit in SF!
:) heh yeah wildly expensive. No accident the place is in high demand though 🌁🌉* And that’s in spite of parts of downtown feeling like they must be the fentanyl capital of the world. Western half of the city lives a different life than those stuck in e.g. the Tenderloin, very sad whether working class or homeless.
*emoji depict the Golden Gate Bridge at least on Apple devices
I live in flyover country and I’m not sure that’s enough here anymore. My wife and I have been making over six figures (combined) for eight years now and things are a bit tight for our family of four.
One of our local stations news teams did a wage study and found that to “be able to live comfortably” a family of four needs to make $186,000.
Trump hit with huge fine he can’t pay -> Rumors of Trump trying to raise money from foreign governments -> Lawyers push back, say ‘you can’t just accept half a billion from foreigners to pay the fine, there are rules!’ -> Truth Social IPO raises a bunch of money that (foreign) investors are willing to ‘loose’ when the stock inevitably collapses -> Trump puts up the stock as collateral to pay the bond to pay the fine.
What? He can’t sell his stock for 6 months? No, he isn’t selling it, he is putting it up for collateral, totally legal, totally won’t be investigated by the SEC until he gets elected and fires the head of the SEC and the lawsuit goes away.
He can’t use the stock as collateral for 6 months either or the other shareholders can sue. This dude is not a financial genius. People smarter than him have tried to game the system. Some win but there are a ton of laws and ways to sue for it.
Not to mention if the foreign investors are using this to curry favour with the potential next POTUS, the ‘investment’ isn’t in the $DJT stock, it’s in what trump will do for them if elected. They won’t sue unless he loses.
“I’ll settle my debts when I get to the White House.”
Solid gamble for investors, honestly. Like, extremely good. If I was a subhuman parasitic dickworm or something, I’d put at least half my chips on red.
And seriously, look what we’re doing. While we are talking about how he is going to repay his debts for [insert crooked fucking shit and prostitutes pissing on Trumps face here], we are not talking about how the FUCK a guy with his record is even allowed to run for president.
Just moving the goalposts, one investor at a time. Everyone knows this hog will get slaughtered sooner or later, and they are sucking its tiny teats for as much daddy milk they can before it dries up.
Then it’s MTG’s turn to be led to the top of the Aztec pyramid and control the world for a few years before she goes soccer mom tits up.
The killer would have had to kill him in his car, wrap his hands around the gun to establish fingerprint marks. A company like Boeing that’s part of the Military-Industrial Complex wouldn’t have an issue finding a highly trained contract killer.
Bribes at the local authority level (maybe higher too) to have them rule it a suicide with no further investigation needed. No need for further pesky questions.
Now all I’m waiting on is for the judge to toss out his incomplete testimony since it isn’t complete.
Then just wait a few weeks until the media focuses on other things.
Then the execs can have martinis while stock number go up.
They don’t need to do that, they could have just called him on a burner phone and threatened to kill his family if he didn’t kill himself. Forensically indistinguishable from suicide, but absolutely murder by coercion.
Has it ever happened to check the previous call logs of a suicide victim? Of course Boeing can bribe the telcom to keep shut / delete the info. But i’m curious wether it’s ever been done.
Actions like these is why I think it’s acceptable to kill members of the ruling class.
They’ve been killing us for generations and not only getting away with it, but getting rewarded for it in a way that makes their lives superior to ours.
Being willing to kill someone as a “last option” and wanting to kill everyone who poses the slightest threat are not the same motivations.
Also thinking about it, how many people at a company the size of Boeing become a threat by being bothered with criminal practices violating safety and other law and ethic standards? How many do we not hear about because the “normal” coercion tactics work?
Having half your engineering department wind up dead because they raised concerns about issues with the production could backfire much more to begin with, but also it would make every engineer look for a different employer quickly. So trying to destroy someones reputation first, ousting him, creating a “him vs. us” mentality is preferential. It also makes it easier for the company to move on after killing him, if the need arises.
So both from a emotionally crippled, but not fully devoid point of view and from an completely psychopathic cold blooded strategy point of view it makes sense to not pull the trigger on everyone right away.
Regardless of if they actually hired a hitman, it’s very clear that Boeing harassed and psychologically attacked this man to the point of him ending up dead.
Whether they actually hired a man to pull that trigger or convinced him to pull it himself, legally his murder would be on their hands and they damn well need charged for it.
As it happened with Khashoggi and the same with Daphne and the list will always keep going on & on while we imagine hearing the clink of more glasses after.
I didn’t want to mention him as he wasn’t a heroic whistle blower but a criminal with a testimonial, but yes I agree even he wasn’t spared by his fellow posh.
“In at least some instances, requiring the Government to disclose sensitive information regarding its grounds for placing or removing a person from the No-Fly List could undermine the Government’s significant interests in airline safety and the prevention of terrorist attack,” Alito wrote.
Horseshit. I don’t know what part of “due process” people don’t understand. If the government is limiting your right to movement, they need to prove why when questioned. No exceptions. Especially so if the individual(s) in question have not been charged with any crime.
Agreed. Public safety is making everyone aware and allowing them to make informed decisions. Public safety is not hiding information hoping the problem solves itself.
You must have forgotten about the Patriot Act. “Terrorists” don’t get rights, and we don’t have to tell you why we think you’re a terrorist. (And that’s super fucked up and unconstitutional)
A terrorist is whoever says something that the current administration doesn’t agree with. And the internet makes it very, very easy to “find” terrorists
While I agree that this should be handled with due process, I disagree with your conclusion that this is infringing on someone’s right of movement (outside of international flights.)
It would affect your access to a mode of transportation, but not the transportation itself. Something that we already have restrictions on outside of air travel, such as drivers licenses.
Regardless, it’s still a fucked up authoritarian list and process.
The Supreme Court is sabotaging the Trump indictments by delaying a decision. The goal is to delay trial so he can’t be convicted so close to the election. This court is just an extension of the party.
Oh bull. I’ve been collecting examples of the Court NOT acting conservatively, let alone acting partisan. I’m no fan of this Court, and I loathe Thomas, but they make some surprising calls. If they were an organ of the GOP, none of these cases would have passed, OR, they would have heard them to shoot down the lower court rulings.
There was an earlier ruling where they shot Trump down, but I can’t find it for all the noise over recent events.
I’m kinda OK with them putting off the call on the immunity case, it’s a weighty one, but I’m scared as hell they’ll take too long to ponder the arguments. Calling it now: They reject Trump’s claim. Just like they allowed him on the ballot, and the unanimity was telling, I think they understand the chaos that would ensue.
I don’t suppose you could explain how the 14th amendment works in the relevant case to give the contrary opinion to the unanimous court? I’m with the guy above, they suck and are awful, but not wrong on this one in particular. That you think the 9th amendment is somehow relevant is… telling.
edit: crickets. Crickets and downvotes. Nope, no hivemind punishing wrongthink here. Nosiree.
So, explaining how the 14th amendment works or how the 9th is relevant to his case is… beneath you. I’m painfully illogical for asking for an explanation. “the hivemind will downvote you for having a contrary opinion” is a lazy argument(?), despite direct incontrovertible evidence to support my claim.
I made no arguments, I asked a question and asserted a claim.
Thank you for deigning to reply, but I reject this as being of very poor quality, and mostly projection.
Shalafil posted a rebuttal 8 hours before this comment accusing them of not defending themselves, and this person posted a far more thorough debunking.
That you think “non-sequitur therefore your argument is invalid” is a compelling argument is depressing.
The overturning of Roe vs Wade, which was an almost 50 year old precedent, is an example of the supreme court acting in a partisan manner. Since the premise is that the current supreme court has never acted in a partisan manner, the counterexample refutes the premise. And if the premise of an argument is not true, then the argument doesn’t support the thesis. So, the guy you cited is also wrong.
Edit: Turns out the rebuttal you linked is a reply to a different, albeit identically worded post. And in this context, Shalafil didn’t use the term ‘never’ in their premise, meaning that in that context, a single counterexample actually isn’t enough to disprove the premise. So you’re right on this one. Sorta annoying that these two clash several times in this discussion.
I read your comment and it reminded me of something, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it. It took me a few minutes, then it dawned on me: it was my drunk Trumper uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. He was telling us how the “Mexicans and Blacks” are sabotaging “White Christianity™” by crossing the border and interbreeding with white women and that our telling him to shut up and go home was the real intolerance
Tl;dr: dumb people often blame everyone else for any consequences of their failure to recognize they’re dumb.
It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and yes it’s remarkable how often humans fall into this trap, isn’t it? In my experience, the appropriate response is to educate people when they are mistaken. Perhaps you could take the time to correct my mistake instead of ridiculing me?
Why do they need to put this off? Is there really a need to ponder over the question of ‘is a president allowed to break laws with impunity?’ Because it seems to me like there’s only one answer there and it’s “FUCK NO.”
It is fairly complicated. Should Obama be imprisoned for murder of US citizens in drone strikes? Should Bush be held liable for the incompetence in allowing 9/11? Should Clinton be held responsible for deaths in Kosovo for violation of the war powers act?
Presidents do seem to have immunity with regard to actions as a President. Creating a ruling that protects presidential action and allows criminal prosecution for other actions is going to be difficult. There’s also the matter of if actions done with immunity can be used as evidence against a president.
There is some existing precedent for distinguishing the President from the Candidate during elections. This could be used as a basis for a ruling Trump isn’t immune, but it’s hardly definitive.
It’s going to take more than an “I know it when I see it” ruling.
Except the question is not ‘is the president ever allowed to break the law,’ the question is ‘can the president break the law whenever he feels like it?’ The answer is obviously no.
All of these are asking if someone is guilty when the actual question is are we allowed to bring you to court to determine if you are guilty. A president should not have immunity and if a president feels they need to take extreme actions they should justify them before a court and accept the consequences of their actions. If someone does not want to be in that position to make such a call and pay such a price they have no business taking that role.
In most cases the guilt is largely proven, criminal liability would require a court to agree, but the findings from official reports are sufficient evidence. I’m not sure no immunity is a realistic outcome, a test for what actions are protected is most likely.
To me it seems that if something was agreed upon to be a law it should be enforced and if there are exceptions to the rule they should be written into the law itself. If something isn’t written into the law itself it should go to court where a determination can be made and if a jury finds there was good cause to commit such an action they can find them not guilty and a future exception can be added. By adding a blanket immunity it’s like adding cheat mode into the game and it’s going to be exploited in ways that we haven’t imagined yet.
They didn’t have to move at all, though. That’s the thing, they’re doing this voluntarily, just like with their ruling on Trump being on the ballots because they claim Congress has to hold a vote every time they want to enforce a law that has existed for 150 years. They chose to rule on that, they didn’t have to.
Most times, precedent is set by what the court decides NOT to review. When they say nothing, they are saying “the lower court has it right”. This is standard practice.
No they aren’t. They were asked to take this up a long time ago and didn’t. Then, when shit started looking bad for Trump, they suddenly reverse course and delay his trial.
You are correct. Mr. Smith’s team requested that the SCOTUS review this months ago. Long before it was brought to them by Trump’s team, as a way to expedite the process, and stop the “play out the clock” approach they take.
More BS. This Court is conservative, not partisan. They owe nothing to Trump or the GOP. LOL, I even posted two accounts of them voting, or ignoring, both of those parties.
And as to my references, got any arguments? Perhaps they should have taken the trans bathroom ruling and fought it? How about Washington’s tax deal? That could have been Earth shattering.
Hi, I’m a mathematician. My career is built on creating, evaluating, and identifying the problems with logical arguments.
Even if the person you’re replying to is wrong, their argument is at least cogent; it’s entirely possible that the Supreme Court rules against Trump, and there’s good reason to believe that they will.
Your comment (the one I am replying to) is a non-sequiter, and is therefore invalid.
Furthermore, even when applying the principal of charitable interpretation, the best argument you could plausibly make relies on a false inference. Specifically: you fail to take into account the fact that the justices were selected for their opinions on abortion, and so their ruling cannot be used to infir that they will always act in the best interests of the GOP.
Please don’t be such a doomer asshole; it’s unbecoming.
Who’s hiding? All of my comments are public, and you can tell because a whole shitload of people read my comments to downvote them because they disagree with me. Who’s talking smack? I have asked questions, made claims, and the overwhelming response has been active hostility to me, personally, and not to my position. Case-in-point:
You forgot, we also don’t like fucking cowards who hide and talk smack. Make sure to add it to your list so you can feel better than the rest of us.
Hey everyone look at the superior mind here.
Your comment is two things: Sarcastic, vitriolic, ad hominem (smack talk), and a total failure to address any of the claims I or others are making. I suspect because if you attempted to actually address the claim (instead of calling the person you disagree with coward and, by sarcastic implication, stupid), for instance, that “the hivemind will downvote you when they disagree with you here,” you realize you would fail utterly.
I’m sorry you feel the need to attack me with compliments, your fascination with the superiority of my mind(?) is very strange. I never said that I was smarter than you or anyone else here, and, in my opinion, this is suggestive of your own lack of confidence in your position or your ability to argue your position.
I’m reporting your comment for ad hominem attacks and bad faith argumentation. There, downvote that.
Supreme Court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas installed on US-Mexico border
Omg the Supreme Court honors the federal governments right to control the boarder. So controversial and certainly something that would never get flipped on its head.
Oh the SUPREME COURT didn’t want to talk about $500 mask fines???
I hope they see a permanent reduction of sales, even if small. CEOs typically move around like trading cards, so if/when this one does, his successor will learn the lesson too. And he won’t be inclined to try this again at the next company he pilfers. After a few shifts, maybe all the CEOs will postpone this plan indefinitely (who wants to be the guy that hurts shareholder value by trying this again?)
There are definitely people who will not return because of this. I still don’t buy Kellogg’s products, and that was over a temporary strike. A temporary boycott led to a permanent one when I realized generic corn flakes are just as good— and really, who needs Wendy’s that bad? Same with Pepsi for their support of Russia, Nestle for the incredible breaches of ethics, Burger King for intolerable taste, Hobby Lobby for the anti LGBT donations, In-n-out for the banning of masks for their employees, and more. Capitalism might actually work if people truly voted with their wallets for everything. (Of course this is nigh impossible these days because, in the late stages of capitalism, almost every corporation is unethical)
They will just implement it backwards and with another name. It will be “off peak hours” pricing and it will start off being a discount to buy during off peak hours. Then after we get use to getting a deal between 2-4 and maybe 7-9, they will raise the prices of everything. The price of the off peak hours will be the “normal” price and the “normal” price will turn into surge pricing without the name.
People have limited time, money and brainpower. If you’ve been working 8 hours and you have to go home and do housework, put the kids to bed, walk the dogs etc., you’re going to choose the easiest option for dinner even if you disagree with the prices or the company. As long as it’s not taking the piss, it’s not worth the hassle. This is the squeeze that “the sociopaths in charge” have put most of the working class in - don’t blame individuals caught in shitty circumstances for being stupid when this setup was done on purpose
If anything the lesson they learned is to not announce anything and to just do it hoping people don’t catch on. I don’t think enough people buy fast food so regularly that they have the prices memorized. :/
Anyone whose kid catches measles because of this should sue the surgeon general for malpractice. Maybe also drop a complaint to the medical board, see if they can get his medical license revoked.
As much as I’d love to see that, the likelihood of it happening is low. The boards move on public opinion and consensus. The public they care about may be only other doctors, but as we’ve seen since covid, there are plenty of doctors who listened to Ozzy and boarded the crazy train.
Public consensus is that vaccines for diseases like measles, polio, etc., are a good thing. Even most of the people and doctors who were against taking the covid vaccines seem to be in agreement with this, or at least the ones I have heard speak on the subject. Its just an extremely small outlier that claims otherwise.
Still, I feel like you are sadly right about the likelihood of any sort of prosecution happening. I would also love to see logic prevail, every once in a while.
MMR was the boogeyman jab that started the whole modern antivax movement. I wouldn’t say it’s rare for antivax people to be opposed to getting the measles vaccination.
Mr. Suozzi’s comeback will have an immediate impact in Washington. After he is seated, Speaker Mike Johnson can afford to lose only two votes on any partisan bill, an unwieldy margin that could limit Republicans’ election-year legislative agenda.
This looks like an opening. Is there any “broken clock is right twice a day” legislation that the extreme MAGA fringe wants passed that mainstream GOP doesn’t that coincidentally aligns with democrat policy goals?
The GOP would actually have to pass legislation for there to be a chance for anything for them to talk about. They haven't passed meaningful legislation in years that wasn't bipartisan. They've shown that even with a majority they can't get anything done themselves. They keep scapegoating their own Speakers because of it.
It pretty much shows that the GOP can't even unite to do anything in current Congress. It is supposedly so much a shitshow that some long-time Congresspeople are considering retirement after their terms are up out of frustration.
bi-partisan effort with democrats and MAGA fringe GOP voting for it.
Well it was 208 Democrats + 8 GOP. That's not even 4% of the GOP in the House. I guess you could call that bipartisan if you want. Then there were a bunch of failed speaker nominations before Mike Johnson.
The impression I got of McCarthy’s ousting was that some democrats would have voted to keep him as speaker had he had the balls to ask them. But he didn’t, so the democrats did what they were expected to do and voted to oust the guy from the other party.
Even if Johnson gets bypassed and literally any major legislation gets passed, all Republicans will take credit for it. They take credit for bills they voted against all the time.
Oh, they are more than welcome to take credit for Ukraine funding. No worries there. I’m sure their voters will looooove that. Israel, yep, they can have that one too. Taiwan, sure, why not? Aid for the Gazans? Yep, sure. Totally fine.
“In that case, with our new-found leverage, we’d like to formally request a 40% pay increase and a 4-day work week to compensate for the inconvenience of propping up your failed real estate ventures. We look forward to your affirmative response.”
Somehow, when people talk about “the government overregulating things”, they never mean the insane amount of regulation in place in the US to prevent effective collective labour action.
I just realized something. Making people work in expensive office buildings is how the rich extract more wealth from the working class.
How can I get more money? Start a business! Perfect. Now how can I get more money from that? Well ... If I owned an office building, then I could rent office space to the business. But what is the business going to do with an office building? Ohhhh, the business, that I own, or am the majority shareholder in, the business in which I make all the decisions, could decide that employees have to come into the office. That I rent to the business, because I own the office building.
There’s also the businesses nearby that serve the workers in the office building. Supposedly one of the reasons Amazon has pushed so hard on RTO is a lot of their executives have personal investments in those businesses and without Amazon workers in the area they were taking in way less money. When you happen to own the restaurant across the street it’s in your interest to force your coworkers back into the office.
Interest rates were so low for so long, people tried to find other ways to grow their money.
Hey you want to borrow what is essentially free money to buy a building in charge tenants? It’s a safe investment, right, there’s no reason why businesses would stop needing office space, right,…right right.
And of course it goes deeper than that too. Even if a company doesn’t have any real skin in the game as far as owning The real estate, shutting down the offices makes for some colossal problems. If your stuff’s not already in the cloud you need to migrate everything. It changes secure networks, where do you meet with clients, when you don’t have that huge beautiful branded space with a magnificent mahogany table in your conference room how do you impress your clients? Where do you have your new hardware shipped? Does your IT team now just store hundreds of thousands of dollars of hardware in their house? How much are you going to lose when you auction off all the furniture?
This of course can all be overcome and answered but it’s not easy. It’s also not easily reversible.
Most of management cares a lot less that people are working from home and cares a lot more about having to decommission the actual offices because it’s strategic and financial nightmare fuel.
The company I work for reduced our office space from 3 floors of the building to 1, started leasing out the other two, and now maintains only a few conference rooms for client meetings and similar functions, the server rooms and IT space, and a very small set of communal workspaces for people who want or need to work from the office.
Point being, there’re always options less extreme than “Sell the entire building!”.
We’re in a larger building we don’t own. Keeping one floor for the 5 people a week that come in is kinda insane. We need to move, but it’s a shit sandwich, place is beautiful,
Because they have to spend a fortune on rent and/or commuting to earn a living where all the jobs are.
Not forgetting that is is bosses who make the location decisions and they can afford to buy in those hugely expensive cities while the forced influx of workers pushes the price of housing up.
Companies should be taxed based on the in-work benefits required to make their location viable, regardless of their own wage structure.
it raises the productivity requirements of the business to exist without actually returning any of the same money to the pockets of workers. Its similar to your boss owning your apartment and billing you for rent. You work harder, make less money and your boss makes more.
Its why there should be limits on the creation of shell companies and real estate trusts.
it raises the productivity requirements of the business to exist
I don’t understand what this means? You mean the business has to make more money to pay the rent? Why would that obligation be necessary to “increase productivity requirements?”.
yes the business has to sell more product to rent a place than buy it, generally. This is why venture capital often does exactly this when they buy a corporation - they seperate all the real estate to a shell company and raise rents, which lowers profits for the original company forcing managers to try to extract more from workers to maintain profits and prevent closures.
I want to say this is exactly what happened to albertsons and the cut that gets made is a reduction in wage increases.
which lowers profits for the original company forcing managers to try to extract more from workers to maintain profits and prevent closures.
That makes no sense. Why would you fabricate running costs of a business that the employees or managers will never see or care about?
If they sold these properties and these costs suddenly disappeared, are managers going to suddenly allow their employees to slack off because they “don’t need” that much money? No. There’s no such thing as “enough money” in a corporate environment.
This sounds a whole lot like a made-up conspiracy theory.
So explain why this is one of the many things Cerberus did after it bought albertsons-safeway and one of the resulting actions taken was to axe the pension program?
My understanding: In the case of Cerberus they wanted the original company to look less profitable’ Afaik this is one of many accounting trick to make the portion of the business with the most negotiable costs (such as labor) as unprofitable as possible on paper so they can justify things like pension cuts. By splitting it up it obfuscates the finances to the unions and gives a negotiating advantage without really damaging investor profits and they can then sell the now more risky corporation off while keeping the real estate as part of their portfolio.
Like its not always this blatant and there’s also some tax incentives and other things mixed in there but overall the goal of most businesses since the 80s is to move more money from wages —> profits. If they can consolidate the market a little as well, that’s bonus. “Competition is sin” after all.
It’s a very funny video with a clip of Ben Shapiro saying that the coast going underwater doesn’t matter because people can just sell up and move. And hbomberguy asks who he thinks they’re going to sell to, Aquaman?
Nah, there will be buyers for commercial buildings for the right price. Not pretending like they’re going to get all of their investment back but as I said, you can still get some of it back.
For the right price, yeah. You’ll be able to sell coastal properties for the right price too. Just nowhere near as much as you paid for them. They’re not interested in getting only some of it back.
Which is why I said “dangerously close”. Office buildings which are empty because they’re not needed as offices any more can be sold to developers who will turn them into housing or shops. But with fewer employers based there, demand for housing and shops may also disappear.
Yes, obviously. Is the number of employers who no longer need the office space larger or smaller than the number of employers who need more office space?
They’re going to make a loss. They do not want to make a loss. No amount of imaginary buyers is going to stop them having to take a loss.
I have no idea why people are trying to pretend it’s not worrying the owners of these buildings when the owners of these buildings are throwing hissy fits all over the shop.
My current employer did just that – sold the space, sold the desks, and then enshrined remote work in the union contract.
Since they weren’t tied to an office, people could work from anywhere the privacy and security regs allowed. That’s the entire country. Turn-over is incredibly slow, but we can now pull from a national talent pool for a 100%WFH job. Competition is gonna heat up.
Rape has been a serious criminal offence in a lot of Europe since the middle ages… But as the crime happens in private where there is considerable shame applied to consentual extra merital liaisons there was a sort of “conflict of interest” for women to claim that it was something forced on them and not consentual circumstances. This, and the level of punishment being high required equally high burden of proof so usually unless someone was actually physically beaten to the point where it would be ludicrous to assume it consentual during the attack or there were independent witnessess to the crime you see this long history of rape being on the books as illegal but very little motivation to convict.
A lot of these rapes could be in step with the practice of “stealthing” or reproductive coercion where a condom or other contraceptive is willingly tampered with or removed during sex without the knowledge of the partner. This, while not the violent crime we automatically think of associating with rape is a removal of consent that has severe potential mental and physical reprocussions. Rape also encapsulates aspects where consent was removed partway during an otherwise consentual act but one of the partners refuses to stop. These styles of rape are quite common in the culture of dating which has culturally evolved to include sexual liasons as part of the trial period of determining good long term matches.
With our modern concepts of consent the perceived range of acts which count as reportable rape is larger than ever before due to decent education campaigns but the conviction rate remains low because of the same issues of burden of proof not being supportable to meet the level of persecution.
According to the wording of the ad he took out, his argument is focused on length, not style. He explicitly states that the school allows braids, locs, and rows. Then he argues that the CROWN act is very specific about not applying to length.
This whole thing is really stupid. Length of styling of hair, along with clothing and other personal appearance issues, should be considered speech and protected outside of blatant attempts to disrupt an educational atmosphere. All that said, the school may not be acting in opposition to the letter of the law, even if they definitely are in spirit.
or maybe, just hear me out, the dude should join the rest of us in 2023 instead of 1923. It’s a waste of time, resources and effort. Literally nobody is benefiting from him making an issue out of something that simply does not matter.
And for the record, he’s singling the kid out for being black. I doubt he’d have an issue with a white boy wearing a man bun, or whatever the equivalent would be.
It gets better. So many times Dr’s will have to start with treatments they know won’t work because otherwise insurance will just decline it all together.
It may cost more for that individual, which is likely additive. What’s multiplicative is the number of people who don’t or can’t jump through the hoops and just move on. Having a tough time getting out of a subscription service? Insurance basically did it first.
Agreed, they play the numbers game but at the cost of human suffering. All the cases where it costs them more though is just illustrative of the stupidity of it and helps show that there is room for legislation to curb this.
I’ve enjoyed these kinds of signs here in NJ. They’re no more distracting than billboards and actually get safety messages across better through humor. I think this is a bad idea.
I can see how someone whose first language isn’t English could have a hard time telling if an official sign is an important message or a humorous one. That’s not an issue for billboards because those never have important information.
This is exactly what it is. Nothing stopping these local highway patrol and safety departments from erecting electronic signs on the side of the highway for all their cute messages.
It’s that they’re using the big electronic ones that are overhead while driving which should be uniformly easy to understand, simple, and official.
Basically, if there’s a message on a sign above the actual road and it takes you more than a second to understand what it’s trying to say, it needs to be revamped.
It’s not hypocrisy because the signs they’re talking about are not in the same places as billboards. There are regulations about how far back billboards have to be. The signs in question here are the ones that are actually over the road or literally on the side of it, not 20 yards back.
And part of the reason that they don’t let billboards just hover literally over top of the roads is because they’re distracting. Signage that is on the road needs to have an official purpose and convey information that is relevant to the driver, and that information has to be delivered in a simple, uniform, and clear manner.
If humorous signs are too big of a distraction, billboards should also be banned.
There's an electronic billboard in my town that suddenly becomes visible as you go around a curve in a highway with a complicated exit at the end. Accidents happen there all the time and I think the momentary distraction of the billboard changing at that critical point is part of the reason why.
I think the point is that we are coming up on the moment when those retirees who didn’t retire in the 2010’s, because they had no money to retire with and can’t live on the joke salary of what social security has become, are all about to be forced by nature and an employment structure that’s is hungry for younger talent to actually retire. And we have no infrastructure to handle that.
I think boomers that have high paying and powerful jobs are working longer than ever because they want to. The other side of the boomer wealth inequality, yes, those ones have to.
Don’t you need verified degrees and licenses to do those jobs? I would imagine immigrants picking oranges, never seen one bedside at a hospital or in a child’s school.
Using healthcare in Canada they are often African or Filipino and they aren’t hired as nurses because nurses are expensive. We have all new titles at cheaper wages for them.
I went into aviation. I’ve heard that “all the pilots that joined the airlines after 'Nam are gonna retire en masse any minute now and we’ll never find enough pilots” lie for 20 years now, and the next mouth I hear that lie come out of is going to rapidly break into small, wet pieces.
In fact, every time I have seen a thread on the topic of boomers working past retirement because they can’t afford to retire on Lemmy so far, someone chimes in about how they’re in their late 60s and love their job as a [something rarely unpleasant], so they want to keep working.
As if that’s the same as someone in their 70s working the fryer at Burger King.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.