“This is no different than the maintenance guy moving it out there….”
Except…
Trump always sides with himself.
Crazy; I just get on a call with my doctor and they email my employer. All covered by insurance and I pay nothing and take no time off.
If my employer did anything about it like fire me, they’d get reported to the government who would prosecute with minimal involvement from me other than a statement and possibly witness testimony.
But if an employee says “I need to take a week’s medical leave, here’s a note from my doctor…” the employer doesn’t know the reason and can’t fire the person, right? I’m just failing to see how this can mutate into something worse. Or are you saying it’s common practice in the US for employers to deny medical leave?
Slams implies alcohol consumption doesn’t it? And blasts implies some sort of physical or metaphorical explosion.
What’s wrong with “denounces” or “disparages” or all those other words that actually have literal meanings?
In the US, are employers really allowed to pry into what type of medical leave an employee is taking?
Hmm… is there such a thing as a lame duck congress?
I can just imagine the GOP congress refusing to pass anything after a D wave is elected, effectively killing all government until the end of January.
Perfectly fine. But in the upcoming election, because of FPTP voting and the electoral college, you have one choice: vote Harris or be OK with Trump getting elected.
Doesn’t mean you have to agree with Harris or support her policies. Just means that not voting for her means Trump is just that much more likely to be elected, at which time it doesn’t matter who you voted for, who you endorse, or what personal values you hold.
But those aren’t the only names on the ticket.
My general rule is to vote for individuals at the municipal level, vote first causes at the state level, and vote strategically at the federal level, to get the representatives who will steer policy closest to the direction I want into office. Then comes the letter writing to remind them that I helped elect them, and they still need to win my support by acting in accordance with my values in key areas.
That was a dugong impressive pun….
It’s the same type of people who were against seatbelt regulations in the 1970s and helmet laws for motorcycles and bicycles later on.
People who only want to live in a society when the benefit to them is immediately obvious.
Balanced for inflation?
Thankfully they don’t appear to have my number.
Obvious solution: build water splitters driven by natural gas.
This is a horribly written article about an exciting discovery.
Essentially, they’ve discovered that some humans don’t actually have the AnWj antigen, where it was assumed that all humans had some antigen configuration. And they’ve found a way to test for the missing antigens.
Spot-on.
I spend a lot of time training people how to properly review code, and the only real way to get good at it is by writing and reviewing a lot of code.
With an LLM, it trains on a lot of code, but it does no review per-se… unlike other ML systems, there’s no negative and positive feedback systems in place to improve quality.
Unfortunately, AI is now equated with LLM and diffusion models instead of machine learning in general.
You mean like the bipartisan bill that Trump tanked because it might make the Dems look good?
Aha! That episode with the ferns! Obviously they planted the ferns!
Yes; I wasn’t talking about how many plan to vote for Harris or Trump, but about the fact that in the current election format, not voting for Harris makes Trump more likely to win, as all other votes are protest votes that won’t actually elect a candidate.
Once FPTP is eliminated and states use a ranked voting system, your argument comes into play. But surely people in the LGBTQ community understand that not voting for Harris in this election means not caring that Trump gets elected?
I was very intentional in my wording.
When I was in that age bracket, I identified as conservative. Over the years, my positions have become increasingly conservative, and I find myself classified by many as a flaming socialist.
So this isn’t a new thing; people compare themselves to what they consider normal.
I think what it really shows is that it’s less obvious today what the difference between conservative and (what? liberal? progressive?) is. People tend to know more what they aren’t than what they are when they’re young. If they reject something that’s considered liberal, they must be conservative.