I remember my last job had a Non compete. I was a handy man. Non competes for NBA players and wealthy CEOs, fine. But non compete for just regular people doing regular jobs is crazy. Once I leave my current job, my ex employer should have no say in where I work afterwards.
That's just so they can treat you like crap and under pay you, so that you can't just go be a handy many somewhere else. If you lived in California it would have already been unenforceable anyway though.
Why is good for athletes and ceos? And is that the specific line that you would draw? NC seems like it benefits corporations and organizations but almost never individuals. Seems better to eliminate all together to me.
It’s fine for them because they’re being paid tens and hundreds of millions. And they can easily reject the contract and not sign. Don’t act like a cleaning lady and an NBA player are in the same boat
“It’s fine for them” isn’t a reason to keep something in place. That will just allow it to creep closer and closer to the cleaning lady (I don’t think many cleaning ladies are signing non competes though - this is not a representative example). Non competes are typically for higher level talent, the line between it specialist, physicians, minor league athletes and ceos and NBA players starts to blur. There is no good argument to keep these.
Offended? Why? Just saying that if this is true, then “big sport” is more broken than I imagined. And that chess is good sport that does not have such bullshit.
Executives make some sense because they made deciding the direction of companies, and can take “unfair advantage”.
Athletes, no. They bring mostly their own talent and effort, and that’s also what they bring to a new team. They are only employable by doing the same thing for someone else, and likely in the same league: literally competing . Non-competes don’t make any more sense for athletes than they do for baristas
Since when does Congress ban websites or dictate what apps people can have on their devices? Regardless of how you feel about this particular company, I feel like no one is talking about the internet-killing precedent that’s being set here, and that should be concerning.
It’s being used as an infiltration device by the Chinese government. Not that I agree butvits not just a website. Same as Twitter and Facebook bit we have more control over those.
There’s obviously not going to be proof, it’d be huge news if there were. At the same time, I also wonder why people so adamantly defensive of TikTok in particular? It seems trivial enough to establish that they could exert an undue influence on a global audience through social media with just a few (I would think uncontroversial) assumptions
Social platforms have more than enough information to create a good idea of your politics, personality, and interests
Platforms such as TikTok operate on “pushing” content the algorithm wants instead of users “pulling” content they want to see
You are not immune to propaganda. Nobody is.
With a state ownership stake in the picture, it creates a pretty uneasy tension, right? If they know (1), they could just push ads and content which would help prime you emotionally and mentally to receive that advertising via mechanism (2). This is their actual business model.
Alternatively, if so motivated, they could just as easily use that same profile and mechanism to push content which nudges the content consumer in any myriad ways (politically, socially, etc.). Start with something that’s “close” to the viewer’s existing views, and cumulatively keep pushing content which leads folks down pipelines. They don’t even need to make the content. The users create it; the sentiment, quality, and popularity data informs which shorts to push where; refine the model based on receptivity; repeat as necessary.
Given (3), especially at the scale we’re talking about with TikTok, I think it’s obviously possible that the platform could be used to meaningfully influence public opinion, sow discord, spread misinformation, whatever. Whether they actually do this is purely speculative, but I also have a hard time thinking people would be quite so enthusiastically defensive of a similar social platform under direct influence from their own government?
I’m pretty sure an American company already reviews all their code - Oracle, iirc. They already did this after people complained last time. The CEO isn’t even Chinese.
Platforms such as TikTok operate on “pushing” content the algorithm wants instead of users “pulling” content they want to see
This is just outright wrong, like hilariously wrong and if you used the platform for more than 10 minutes you’d see that. Tiktok is the ONLY social media that feeds me content I want to see as accurately and often as I want. It will even adjust the videos I see within the same 30 minute session to feed me more of what I’m favoring within that 30 minute session.
There is not any other single social media that does this.
Please don’t take my post as a claim that the algorithm isn’t absolutely amazing at what it does. All I’m saying is that it is, by nature, pushing you content rather than serving you content which you actively seek out. I don’t believe the things we’re claiming are mutually exclusive here.
Same as Twitter and Facebook bit we have more control over those.
Only in the sense that the people using them to manipulate us are the same ones making the laws. They’re leveraging it for their own ends, not stopping it.
The correct course of action (from the perspective of the American people, in stark contrast to that of the American government/oligarchy) would be to ban TikTok as the threat it is, and also ban Facebook, Twitter and Reddit for the threats they pose as well. The trouble is that it won’t, because it is the entity wielding that weapon against the American people and will not voluntarily disarm itself.
Banning them is the exact wrong way to go about the problem. That just gives the government the power to ban apps that contain information that doesn’t fit the narrative the government wants to put out. It gives them control over the consumer.
What should happen is comprehensive privacy protections for consumers and extensive fines when companies don’t abide by them. That way, the consumer benefits and the government has more oversight over companies, not people.
The way I see it, the problem is centralized social media with opaque engagement and content-boosting algorithms. Think of it not as the government banning apps with content it doesn’t like but instead as enforcing anti-trust law.
To be fair they didn’t actually name TikTok. That would be clearly Unconstitutional. Instead they made a bill that will only apply to one company. So unconstitutional but most people won’t notice.
And even better Meta, Alphabet, Apple, and GM are all busy selling China your information as fast as they can anyways.
The population of Ukraine is 38 million people. Putin would march every damn one of those Ukrainian civilians in as meat waves invading other countries and not care one damn.
Also, just because Ukraine loses the traditional war, doesn’t mean that the fighting will stop.
Also also, what greater threat to european peace and stability is there than a bunch of former allies, who are battle-hardened, traumatized, right next to EU borders and are feeling betrayed by their ‘western partners’?
A russia-funded network of right-wing parties, aimed at breaking up the european union, recently invigorated by their success of stopping a unified response to russia’s invasion.
Any country not in NATO is at risk. Russia wouldn’t invade a NATO country. They’d get shit stomped and honestly probably have to resort to a nuclear weapon.
I think the West would cut the head off the snake pretty quickly if Russia invaded a NATO country though.
Also also, what greater threat to european peace and stability is there than a bunch of former allies, who are battle-hardened, traumatized, right next to EU borders and are feeling betrayed by their ‘western partners’?
Assuming you’re talking about the Ukrainian people in some kind of Guerilla warfare, I think they’d be more likely to focus their efforts on Russia (the ones that actually did the attacking, raping, and bombing) vs the west that just “didn’t do enough”
Yeah, but this is day two of a criminal procedure. To date, Trump has only FAFO’d on civil trials. Shit’s about to get real different if he plays around in the same way.
It’s amazing that not only did they fuck up the regex, but only changed how the link was displayed and not where it linked to. And somehow their org is fucked up enough that someone not only wrote this incompetent code but it went into production.
I’m sure plenty of H1B visa talent is still there, terrified to do anything that Musk doesn’t explicitly order them to do, thus resulting in the same sort of fuckups that would result if they weren’t there. So I guess at least Twitter is stopping foreign people from having to go back to an impoverished life in Goa or wherever.
Wait, they just did a text replacement and didn’t change the anchor links? I tried x dot com and it redirects to twitter, so even if they changed the links, too, it would just send them back to twitter.
(laughs in SEO) You fools!
If they really wanted X to happen they’d do a full site migration using 301, or 308, redirects of twitter to x.
Do they just not have the resources to do this or what the hell is stopping them from doing it the correct way if that’s what they want? Doesn’t Musk own the x domain?
It was evident a year ago that Musk fired or drove away all their skilled, competent engineers.
They can’t do it the right way because a) they don’t know how b) nobody understands most of their existing services, and c) Musk is guaranteed to step in and fuck everything up.
Just optics, I guess? Probably some urgent drug-induced decree from Elron. They still have tons of references to Twitter in various parts of the site. The transition to the ‘x’ domain (which yes, Musk has owned since 1999) was rushed, hasty, and poorly done, not to mention incredibly stupid from a business perspective.
My understanding is, Musk fired all the developers who actually understood how Twitter works, and now they don’t know how to manage that migration without breaking the site.
armchair developer here, but it wouldn’t be that hard, right? Isn’t it just a single line at the very root of the domain in .htaccess - or whatever equivalent if there’s a different stack
I’ve never done the actual implementation myself, honestly. Redirects can be done via .htaccess (or equivalent), server side, or JavaScript.
Theoretically, yes, it’s that easy. However, pages should have 1:1 redirects for each page URL that matters. Then a strategy to prune the ones no longer needed/outdated by allowing them to 404, redirect to the most relevant subfolder, or just send to the main domain should be considered.
The list can be quite long. There’s more to it than all this as well, but that’s the general gist.
As of April 8, 2024, the iOS Twitter (now X) client automatically replaces the text “twitter.com” in posts with “x.com” as part of its functionality. Therefore, for example, a URL that appears to be “netflix.com” will actually redirect to “netflitwitter.com” when clicked.
As another X user (@Arcticstar0) pointed out, “the actual link is unchanged. It’s just the text placeholder that appears different. So the link goes to a different url than it appears.”
It could work the way you’re describing with the same effect, but that’s not what’s being described.
No, apparently what happens is people post netflitwitter.com, linking to netfltwitter.com, and the X app changes the visible link text to netflix.com but not the link target.
The way you’re describing it is the reverse, like people post netflix.com and the link is changed to netflitwitter.com. That’s not what they’re doing. Or, if it was that people posted netflitwitter.com and it linked to netflix.com, how would that be a problem?
No. If the link was left pristine, phishing would be impossible, because the original links we’re discussing went to genuine sites and the displayed link would be obviously garbage.
The whole problem is that people are linking to netflitwitter with a display of netflitwitter, then the regex changes the link target, so you see the original, sane address, click on it, and get deceived into going to a target the regex fabricated.
That COULD be what happened, and it would have a similar effect, but it wasn’t what happened. If you read information about this that becomes apparent. They didn’t change the link target, they changed the link text only.
Someone registers spacetwitter.com and sets up an adversarial site. They then make an “X” post mentioning spacetwitter.com. The app creates a link to spacetwitter.com but changes the text to say spacex.com.
On April 9, Twitter/X began automatically modifying links that mention “twitter.com” to read “x.com” instead. But over the past 48 hours, dozens of new domain names have been registered that demonstrate how this change could be used to craft convincing phishing links — such as fedetwitter[.]com, which until very recently rendered as fedex.com in tweets.
Notice how it says modifying links that mention “twitter.com” to read “x.com” instead.
Just out of curiosity then… do you have a point in posting that link? Are you trying to say you think I’m just a troll? You’re not really explaining yourself well which… Well… makes sense.
Edit- also… You posted the exact same link twice as if they were different things? Was that like… Artistic expression?
You posted the exact same link twice as if they were different things? Was that like… Artistic expression?
No I copy and pasted the link that’s the little chain symbol next to the comments. I’m assuming those links point directly to the individual comment that the links appears next to.
Just out of curiosity then… do you have a point in posting that link? Are you trying to say you think I’m just a troll? You’re not really explaining yourself well which… Well… makes sense.
Dude, to be frank, you’re very upset, and you’re being rude, and its not worth having a conversation with you right now.
For what it’s worth, I wasn’t attacking you at all for anything, I only thing I was trying to do was defend the fact that the original comment was ambiguitous and could have been satire or literal/real, because people were giving me a hard time for not detecting the satire.
My comments are straightforward, and I stand by what I’ve said in them, and nothing more than that.
Still doubling down on claiming it was ambiguous. You can just admit you missed an extremely extremely obvious joke and then got lippy about it. And then for some reason decided to link some post. Twice.
What it really boils down to is… If you don’t like people talking to you like this… Don’t go through life being lippy.
How many of the weekend update jokes did he write? I assumed they mostly came from the writer’s room (and that he may or not be there, but it at least wouldn’t be all or maybe even mostly him)
He had writers too, but he was largely in charge of Weekend Update, I believe. There are some good interviews with Jim Downey, who worked closely with him.
This is what happens when you give the state the power of life and death over its citizens. Even the people who make up the low levels of power in the state have no actual voice when it comes to the state committing legally-sanctioned murder.
A lot of these people believe in god too apparently. They must have such little faith in an afterlife. If you actually believed god will judge evil people with eternal punishment what’s the rush? Let god, the all seeing all knowing judge them. Eternity seems like a long enough sentence. They’re not really acting like they believe it
Apparently their god is no longer omnipotent enough to smite, so they have to do it on his behalf. Weird, because he used to do a lot of smiting a few thousand years ago.
And remember, your state is run by the same motherfuckers who can’t reliably fix a pothole. And anyone expects them to catch the right guy 100% of the time?
And you believe you can prove every single time beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused child rapist you are putting to death is not innocent of the crime? How would you be able to do so?
Are you trying to argue that it’s okay to imprison innocent people but it’s not okay to execute them? Because even without the death penalty, these innocent people you’re referring to would just spend life in prison. I guess that’s acceptable to you?
What if they die in prison? Even if their case gets overturned, they could’ve spent decades in prison. Is that okay to you?
Nothing about what they said implies that this would be ok.
Problem with homicide is that it’s final. Someone falsely imprisoned has the chance of being let go. Anyone who is killed immediately loses that option.
Nothing about what they said implies that this would be ok.
False. He said we shouldn’t execute them because they may be innocent. That implies imprisoning them is okay, unless he thinks we shouldn’t imprison child rapists because they may be innocent.
Problem with homicide is that it’s final. Someone falsely imprisoned has the chance of being let go. Anyone who is killed immediately loses that option.
Okay. So it’s alright to punish innocent people as long as it’s not permanent?
Unless of course they die in prison, in which case…?
And also, losing decades of your life in prison is permanent. You don’t get that time back.
They generally do so when they’re older than the people who get executed for the same accused crime. Meaning there’s a chance they’ll have a life outside of prison if they’re innocent.
Again, you can’t unkill someone. You can, however, not intentionally kill them.
Again- potential vs. definite. Why is potential just as bad as definite to you?
There’s the potential you will get hit by a car every time you walk down the street. Isn’t that potential better than someone intentionally driving into you?
Of course it is not acceptable to imprison potentially innocent people for life. That’s why you give them many chances to appeal. Do you think that I believe people should not be given chances to appeal or something?
And, again, they only have the potential of being in prison for life. If their appeals have been exhausted but new evidence arises, special circumstances can be made.
People with the death penalty who have exhausted all of their appeals get killed.
Also, there is no restitution given to innocent people who were killed. Innocent people who were imprisoned and get let free get restitution.
Now, please answer me:
There’s the potential you will get hit by a car every time you walk down the street. Isn’t that potential better than someone intentionally driving into you?
Of course it is not acceptable to imprison potentially innocent people for life.
But that’s what happens when we imprison people for life. Inevitably, someone innocent is going to end up there. Just like with the death penalty, right?
You’re typing an essay because you don’t realize how you’ve succumbed to doublethink.
You’re ignoring that the state should rectify unacceptable situations. With wrongful imprisonment, the state can rectify the situation and compensate the innocent. With the death penalty, this is never possible. And even if such a rectification is not done, at least the prisoner was still able to live somewhat of a life.
This makes life imprisonment infintely more acceptable that the death penalty. There’s no doublethink in admitting there are different gradations of unacceptable.
hell fucking yes, keep going!!! All the scumbags that get enraged when kids get their predatory loans forgiven but were happy as hell to take PPP loans and have them forgiven
That headline sounds really weird until you read more. Basically his lawyers were paid one lump sum by the state, incentivizing spending as little time as possible on the case.
Once your event is over you’re just left hanging out with a bunch of young, fit people with nothing else to do who you won’t see for four years. Frankly I’m amazed they don’t have sex rooms for the athletes at the Olympics just to make it easier to clean.
“I currently have almost five hundred million dollars in cash… The often overturned political hack judge on the rigged and corrupt A.G. case, where I have done nothing wrong, knew this, wanted to take it away from me, and that’s where and why he came up with the shocking number which, coupled with his crazy interest demand, is approximately $454,000,000,” Trump wrote in all caps on Truth Social Friday morning.
I can’t live off of the millions of dollars that would be leftover.
People who live paycheck to paycheck buy this crap. I mean, what’s he supposed to do with his “millions” in the interim? Just starve to death?
It’s all bullshit anyway as nobody with $500M would just leave it sitting around liquid/as cash. That’d generate around $40M a year in interest by just investing it in basic shit and getting an average return.
Right now $9.5 billion in Treasury Bills can make you $484 million per year. Enough to buy a yacht or pay a massive civil penalty, depending on who you are.
That’s the best thing about Trump not being able to scrape together $460 million. Any real billionaire would just get a loan and pay it off with the income from their investments over time. Never sell good assets unless it’s for more money.
Trump has no good assets that he hasn’t already mortgaged. So no bank will lend to him. He’s probably fucked. We’ll see on Monday.
Most likely bonds (as you said, cash equivalents). When you get to a certain level of wealth, instead of paying taxes, you lend that same money to the government and receive interest on it.
And/or because it’s hidden away in some tax haven under somone else’s name.
That’s something she does on the side, and if anyone in the workplace gave her shit, I would tell them to leave it the fuck alone unless they wanted me to bring HR in to the convo.
Can people please not be cunts? (I’m an Aussie…)
Edit: People need to disconnect things. Say there’s leaked nudes (or even just public nudes) of a work colleague. Let’s take it to they used to do porn. Yep, that’s something they did. That has zero impact on their role now or who they are in their role. They don’t deserve shame, or ridicule.
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.
Those expressions were her reaction to taste testing some kombucha on a video or stream. Those screenshots were grabbed by the internet and used in a similar format to the Drake meme, “Nah that’s bad” "actually I like that
The bank didn’t fire her specifically because she posted the video where she made a couple faces after trying kombucha. They fired her because her face started to get used for the meme. Completely out of her control, because people started posting “thing I don’t like, thing I like” memes with this format, often times with various political messages. Basically someone else used her face in a “this brings joy, this does not bring joy” meme and she got canned because of the bank’s “image.” As if it was actually her saying these things.
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.
Here in Sweden this wouldn’t be a problem whatsoever, and she’d have worker rights. Well, the conservatives driven by American cock sucking ideals are dismantling all that, but so far, she’d be ok.
You’re not wrong, but I’ve also worked at companies that successfully contested unemployment claims. It can depend by state, but “it was entirely this person’s fault” is a bad start. Employers win about 30% of contested claims, and then about 15-20% of appeals (#1 cause for an employer losing a contested claim or an appeal appears to be withdrawing or not showing up for it). (Some numbers)
And the main reason employers lose when they show up is lack of preparation. In a case like the above, if they can show a policy (preferably one signed by her) that directly forbids her onlyfans account, they probably have a pretty good case to shut her down.
That said, they’re very unlikely to waste their time and money to fight it. Ultimately (as my current employer’s HR put it) “it’s just a cost of doing business” and a waste of money to pursue.
If the actions of an employee will reflect on a company, why shouldnt they have the right to decide to work with someone that doesnt do those things on the side?
If an america employee went on the news yelling racist things (on the side), shouldnt they company have the right not to work with them?
Yes - and the company should then pay the employee for the termination unrelated in any way to their performance on the job. Keep in mind, the better solution would be to have racism be actually illegal in 'murica, so the employer fires that employee after they explicitly break the law.
'murican being 'murican, as expected. “I don’t wanna go to prison for being a racist cunt, I want black people to keep going to prison for literally no reason instead! wah wah wah!”
Oh gotcha you are just strawman guy… Sure dude, people are just going to prison becuase of their race, you are a genius! I guess you just want them to go to prison for say naughty things or drawing pictures of prophets.
Why is it always corporations that should get the slack. Aren’t you and me more important, our rights? You’re not a megacorp, why do you take their side? They’re not on yours!
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.