I've been fired before. I'm up front about it when people ask. It's never been a problem. Not sure why this is considered a stigma unless you were really doing something wrong.
Depends on your work contract. Some require advanced notice for higher level positions. Standard rank and file employees in the US is accurately describes as two weeks notice is appropriate where companies will often ask that you either keep it quiet or terminate you on the spot.
I've seen more than once employees try to argue loudly for their job back, threaten violence, leave bomb threats, stalker exes, etc. all at a single company. Security walking people out is a precaution and based on my experience there a sound one.
In Massachusetts you automatically get unemployed benefits unless the employer files paperwork for termination due to cause. The de facto assumption is that the employee will receive unemployment benefits up until the date that those benefits are exhausted. The only way that this stopped was if the employer started that the employee quit or that they were terminated for cause, neither of which sounds true in this case as terminating someone for an intention to quit is not cause. Obviously IANAL but as far as I can tell the employee is entitled to unemployment benefits.
It's also entirely possible that the company could have worked to retain the employee. This happens all the time. The only time it matters is if the employee quits on the spot or was given notice of termination. Notice of intent to quit is not quitting.
I've in fact quit a company in Massachusetts before when I was younger because I was falsely accused of theft. They provided me unemployment which I refused on principle. Turned out the manager who accused me was the one stealing. Karma paid her a visit in that she was stabbed during a robbery on the shift she had to cover because of me leaving (she was fine with stitches). After this is when she was caught. So fun times all around.
While I'm certainly not trying to be quas-religious, what's the point of a definition of it means nothing? If there's meat in the patty because of poor preparation, that's plainly easily avoidable by scraping the grill, and bk just refuses to do it or find one of the other amazingly easy ways to not have it cooked in beef fat, you can't call it vegetarian. Absolutely there's no way for a company to never have insects, rats, and other pests in their foods even under the best of conditions. This isn't that. If they cook the patty in beef fat, is not meatless, you've made the beef fat an intentional part of the product, therefore not vegetarian. The patty itself is still meatless, the end product is not.
Edit: Most vegetarians you happen to know. I personally don't like the fluidity with which the term is used expressly because it leads to confusion. You want to eat meat, cool you do you, but don't make it harder to explain for people who choose to actually follow the definition by making it meaningless. It's like the term "green" when people guest started using it it had a definition that was understood, now it's meaningless. If someone is comfortable with meat intentionally being in their food for to preparation to the point that they don't mind if there's meat in their food, they probably consume far more meat products than they realize and I doubt that they are as vegetarian a they intend to be, which again is fine, I just dislike claiming to be something that, by definition, one isn't and trying to torture the definition to your preferences.
So as much as the guy seems like a tool, he definitely got scammed, he didn't give up at the first sign of defeat, and he shared his success while attempting to show other people scammed how they could win too. Sure he sounds like "That Guy" from the 80s Futurama episode, but there are some teachable moments here and the net balance is positive for humanity as a whole. We shouldn't condemn a gift because we don't like the packaging.
I think you're correct here. I had an impossible burger, but I can say pretty clearly every person who is a meat eater regularly has found it more pleasing than long time vegetarians. I personally enjoy the Beyond Meat Patty more. Anecdotal evidence is only just that, but it's been a trend I've seen. Personally I hope this becomes a big success and people really enjoy it, even if it's not my thing.
I've not intentionally eaten meat in over 15 years. The only real definition of vegetarian is someone who makes a conscious choice to not eat something that contains meat. Just because someone may still crave meat but chooses not to eat it doesn't make them any less of a vegetarian.
It's not vegetarian either if there's meat juice. Vegetarian means they only consume eggs or milk. Meat in the product at all is not meatless. Same reason some beers can't claim to be vegetarian. They need to cook it on a different grill. I'd be surprised if they weren't prepared for this. There's usually two sets of utensils in most places I've seen or they clean the knife prior to cutting.
Hoopla and Overdrive have audiobooks through your library or some just for using their service. Costs you nothing. Having it through your library gets you more options though. Might help you lower your costs. Aside from Audible you could check out Downpour. Similar service to Audible but less restrictive on ownership.
The basic laws of economics are premised based on an optimal market, with rational actors. None of these matter in a natural oligopoly. When there are few enough actors you can functionally cooperate without ever communicating directly which acts as a defacto cartel.
Nevermind comfort, bag fees, hidden fees, different amenities, etc. None of that is covered in most travel sites, just the fare. If there were a fare site that also had a comfort gauge for price it would spur competition. Moreso for something with a "Truecost" calculator that took into account bags, overhead space, seat pitch, food, terminal niceties, etc. This would be the ultimate air travel site.
Except it's more expensive than flying. I'd love to take the train from Boston to DC but buses are significantly cheaper and generally get you there at a similar time when you take into account how often they leave.
So the solution to you is that citizens should pay for the privilege of giving up their right to privacy so that the government can pretend it's doing something more than it was before. What does pre check do that they didn't already know? It's frankly mind boggling that people aren't up in arms over how plainly silly the idea that the TSA makes you safer than it was too fly before. It's the same people with more toys, less training, and more stress. The solution is to make the security meet the actual risk. Current airport security is more about making money than it is about security.
No it doesn't. If the precheck lanes are closed you get to go through the regular line first. That's it. Add to that, there is no evidence to show that our intrusive security is any better than the former metal detectors that existed prior. Flying is needlessly impacted. It's theater as it's trivially easy to bypass most security measures in place and get weapons on board all you want. The best security measure that was implemented was locking the cockpit during flight. It's the only one that made any real improvement in security and it cost nothing.
Do they get to set their price for the transaction, make a counter offer? Can they individually amend the work contact? They can only be open to accepting clients they cannot pick which clients to make a bid for like any independent contractor.
Democrats know most Republicans are stupid. Democrats just don't realize most of them are stupid too. Democrats try to play like it's an even playing field where everyone is playing by the same rules and are too afraid to get their hand dirty or be seen as having had to overcome issues in the past. Republicans see character flaws as a bonus just to spite the libtards because Rush told them right. The smart ones in the political sphere are just two sides of the same coin with slightly different opinions on the same issues to anchor what they think should matter in people's minds. I'd politics were rational we'd have significantly different political systems than we have now.
You say this like the free market people aren't already doing this. Despite how many bridges collapse they seem to think things are going just fine because the bridges haven't collapsed on the roads they use yet.
Right, a lack of regulations is why things are expensive. Deregulating has worked so well as a cap on prices for internet, mobile, finance, etc. If only we'd let the free market Porcupine fairy handle everything it would be better. You completely left out that Republican Congress specifically denied Medicare the ability to bring in cheaper drugs from other countries and isn't allowed to negotiate drug prices, oh and they've underfunded every single regulatory agency for ages to be able to claim government doesn't work. Why is it that other countries can somehow pay more for the same or better care of their public options and we don't. I can promise you it's not that they are less regulated in Europe. You're never going to have a cheaper private option with a profit motive on anything versus an option that doesn't require a profit motive.
Hell, I've literally asked for a non-pay title increase and been shot down before. I was doing significantly more than the job description and literally doubled my salary at the next place. I was not paid well and didn't realize my worth. Now I'm on the other end and despite 3 people accepting offers they all back out on the hire date for a reason no one seems to want to share. There's things I can fix, things I can't fix, and things I just plain don't know about.
Equity is literally a scam at this point because there's the stock options that they give you, the private stock they give themselves, and the stock the VCs get. You're literally last on the list to get paid and first on the list to get shafted. It's not like it used to be where stock meant everyone shared risk and reward.
I mean, I have cancer and my health insurance in the US is about as good as can be expected, which unfortunately means almost nothing because we're terrible at cancer we can't cut out of the body. If I didn't have this healthcare I'd probably be dead already and leaving a mountain of debt for my family. The costs to my insurance company are insane for treatment. I'm easily costing over 100k/mo for basic treatment.
Which means that they haven't done the bare minimum research into the position, they hired incompetent people, or they themselves are incompetent. None of these options really screams good place to work.
I mean it's racist, but is it hate speech? It's basically the Republicans party platform for keeping the southern border closed and limiting immigration from mostly darker skinned countries.
Free reign except for the police targeting them, refusing to protect them, actively protecting proud boys, and having numerous examples of police supporting white power movements.
Milking a cow requires that you keep the animal producing milk which means numerous pregnancies that produce either another dairy cow that has been born into milk slavery or a meat cow destined for the slaughter house after fattening. I'm not sure where people get the idea that milking hurts the cow as it doesn't. The machines are automated and some are ones the cows voluntarily enter for milking. If the cows don't milk regularly it can be painful for them.
I think my only really problem with this is that it creates confusion because of people using the term wrong. I've known too many people who say they are vegetarians but still eat meat frequently, or they eat fish, which is meat regardless of what Catholics claim.
Vegetarians are people who eat no meat intentionally but may consume milk, eggs, and some other animal byproducts like honey so long as nothing had to directly die or suffer.
Veganism is a higher level where the attempt is to remove all products and foods that are not plant based it that require some other creature too perform outside of it's natural life cycle.
Pescatarians are people who are vegetarians other than the eating of fish.
Raw food advocates do not cook their food.
Jainism has a religious element to their food intake and behavior regarding other creatures.
In any case it's either done for dietary or ethical reasons. The standard diet is to eat what's comfortable or easy with little thought to what you're eating. That's pretty much the only constant as there's numerous other non-veg diets out there that people eat for a variety of reasons religious, dietary, and personal.
Me personally, I'm of the opinion that you should case about what you're eating and as long as you're comfortable with what that means regarding how it's procured, eat up
Plants that humans eat are literally some of the most widespread plants in the face of the Earth. Apples, tomatoes, potatoes, corn, soy, and rice are all massive successes for the plants in spreading, that doesn't even get into sugar producing plants. This started as humans eating and distributing seeds. Farming just made this process not need to involve eating. It's not just about delicious either. We eat some bitter and spoiled (butter, beer) foods for nutritional value.