They'll never get a chance to vote on it, because the GOP leader McConnell has final say on what bills come to a vote.
The Senate is a deeply broken political institution. Every single Republican, by supporting Mitch McConnell as majority leader, is complicit in its destruction.
GPL has obviously utterly failed to solve this problem. "Doubling down" on it will only serve to further isolate any code which adopts it. There will always be people out there who will be happy to license their code freely, and those people will be the ones whose code gets used widely. Highly restrictive and viral licenses like GPL only serve to stifle the code which it encompasses and ensure it almost never gets used as people continue to excise its poison from their codebases.
The government does have the power to regulate what you do with your body when your body interacts with the public. Cigarettes are rightly banned in enclosed spaces and shared public spaces. Alcohol is rightly banned if you combine it with operating heavy machinery. I agree that drug use should be decriminalized (complex topic), and that the outright banning of sugary products is a dumb idea.
Maybe, but there doesn't seem to be much danger in them being enacted on a global scale. Even the OP article is treating added-sugar products like age-restricted alcohol, not an outright prohibition. We've seen what happens to laws that try to prohibit consumption in adults (soda ban).
You know, I thought so too, but I would probably instead just work _less_, maybe half time for half pay, I dunno. Seems like a great way to transform how we think about work and the economy. Fewer hours, when it's by choice, are pretty much always a good thing.
Unless you wanted to be acquihired into Google/Instagram, you likely wouldn't have made any money in equity. This acquisition is $200M less than their most recent valuation from 4 years ago, the investors are probably taking everything and most employee options are likely underwater.
The shelter in place order mostly hits around the margins. Most people are staying home on their own volition - government orders notwithstanding. I started staying home a few weeks before the official lockdown went into effect.
The economy was going to collapse no matter what - that's not because of government giving an order to stay home, it's because the reality is that the virus infects everyone and leads to horrific health deterioration. Furthermore, our government has provided our economy nearly zero safety net to account for something like this.
Pandemics are scary. Suffering severe health deterioration or maybe even dying are existentially scary. No amount of shutting our ears and screaming "HOAX!" is going to change how most people view the risk - it only increases the chaos and lengthens the crisis. You want the economy to come back? Then figure out how to make people feel safe, which means getting rid of the virus, because no amount of weird charts or saying "it's just the flu" is going to work now that people realize how bad it really is. Ignoring the problem isn't a solution.
I'd posit it's the business owners who feel like they want to earn a living, not a small number of them by forcing their employees to come to work and create value for them. The vast majority of people in the US don't own a business, they work for a wage, or are living off retirement. I'd be interested to see the breakdown of people who don't support the lockdown vs the people who own a business that's been closed. I'd imagine there would be a strong corollary.
Then he should have done a better job representing himself. At any time he could come out and say exactly what he means and doesn't mean, and apologize for any harm done. Instead, he allied himself with the very people whose views you claim he doesn't hold. At some point, your actions define you.
I always thought it was because the recruiter only cares about whether you accept the offer, not really how much the offer is, and so will either negotiate based on that, or else pressure you to accept whatever offer they can muster. Plus, if the recruiter can bring in people who accept lower offers they're more likely to be used by the employer. Hence, if you accept an offer through a recruiter, it's likely that you're accepting a stunted offer.
But if you know the answer to all of them, what are they really measuring? Once you study enough there's not really much new under the sun. It's a really fatal flaw in the typical interview process.
I mean, the story was that the Soviet Union was spying on its allies. Klaus Fuchs went to jail. All of this is pretty much accepted statecraft. Are we supposed to think that something _went wrong_ when Klaus Fuchs was caught spying and went to jail? That's what happens to spies who are caught. Hence Assange.
Unfortunately, your role is "customer support engineer". Ideally there is another team that does not directly interact with the client that is actually able to get real work done on the product. Try to get on that team.
Yes, we need to clear certain streets for primarily bus usage. This recently happened on 14th street to humongous success. The hope is this can extend to other heavily-trafficked routes in the near future.
Yes, and moderate-distance trips are the least-common trips that I tend to take. Plus, those would probably be better-served by better bus service anyway.
I wonder what the average trip is for Americans in large cities. For me in Brooklyn, it's about 4 miles to my office in Manhattan. Even in an ideal world with no cars, I still wouldn't really be able to bike to work (in terms of my desire to bike that far). If I'm going out to eat in my neighborhood, it's much easier and safer to just walk up to about a mile. So, there's not really much use for me to bike anywhere other than purely for recreation. Maybe I'd bike between a mile and four miles, I'm not sure. But it definitely would be my least-used form of transportation.
Obviously this is anecdotal, but I am skeptical how useful a focus on bike lanes will be to the general public in American cities as compared to things like buses.
It actually resulted in not enough evidence, due to massive amounts of obstruction. What we continue to see today is a pretty good indicator that the basic tenets are likely accurate, and that there is much more to be uncovered.
I have to ask - why? I understand if you're dealing with an external resource that you can't change, but I'd still like to ask them the same question. JSON's strength, it seems to me, is that it's great for human consumption. It's a very readable data structure when serialized! But who is ever going to read 90GB of JSON?
> The real solution is revolution. Take the table, take the world, break free from this failed system.
Ah yes, violent revolution, where the lower class gets killed en masse (a "noble sacrifice") and autocracy takes even greater hold as a result. The wheels of the revolution larpers are always greased with the blood of the downtrodden.
This argument doesn't really seem to hold much merit, as you can use this exact same logic to say that we shouldn't have any sort of enforcement around working hours. We already had this fight. The argument ended in favor of enforcing shorter shifts than the ones we used to have. The only argument now is, should the limit be even lower?
And historically the best way for people to band together to collectively do the same thing is via government action. Far more important to do activism and press the government to solve it than to inconvenience yourself and think "Well, I did my part, now everyone should do the same".
This is insane. I used to think this way in high school - "wow, girls have it so easy, every man wants sex and if girls want sex they just have to raise their hand, it's so hard for men!"
Then I lived in the real world and realized that, well, people don't actually want to have sex with anything that moves, and it's a gift to be a man who doesn't get dozens of sexual advances per day, and doesn't have to worry about what literally every person's intentions are.
Yeah, how dare people care more about who's currently in power (and doing far worse damage) than those who aren't. You, sir, are clearly smarter than those partisan fools!
It's nominally the law in my state too, but apparently it's fine to weed out the "non-performers" i.e. whoever you want. Public schools then have to take on the extra burden of the "undesirables".