fiter

Which power supply? According to the poster there are 9 separate battery packs which, presumably, are the power supplies.

The CPUC is directly responsible for the safety standards that PG&E has to meet.

"The CPUC meets publicly[15] to carry out the business of the agency, which may include the adoption of utility rate changes, rules on safety and service standards, implementation of conservation programs, investigation into unlawful or anticompetitive practices by regulated utilities and intervention into federal proceedings which affect California ratepayers."[0]

It is also their mission to assure access to reliable utility services.

"The CPUC regulates services and utilities, protects consumers, safeguards the environment, and assures Californians’ access to safe and reliable utility infrastructure and services."[1]

However, the CPUC does not regulate governmental utilities.

"The CPUC does not regulate the rates of utilities and common carriers operated by government agencies."[0]

I would prefer that my county was responsible for utilities as they are much more responsive to local demands and its much easier for me to justify rate increases for safety improvements.

[0] CPUC Wikipedia

[1] CPUC Mission Statement

I can think of some reasons: (1) redundancy, (2) economies of scale, and (3) changed regulatory regimes.

Not only are they violating the GPL, but they've been doing it for over 4 years? Thanks for the links, this resets my opinion on Ubiquity.

I stated that in the beginning and then moved on because the world is not black and white like the case of being a hitman (besides that is already solved politically). You are going to face situations that are ambiguous as I believe was the case for most Americans at the time of the IBM sales for the Nazi censuses.

That specific point was about the importance of using your political power to act as a group in a way that will actually affect the world, rather than solely appeasing your conscience/principles.

I'll admit I still do not understand. That quote seems to say that ICE paid GitHub $500,000 and, presumably, ICE received $500,000 in services. GitHub later paid $500,000 to immigrant support nonprofits. In this case, when you say that GitHub gave $500,000 of value, do you mean in the original transaction between the two of them?

I completely agree that if you do not feel comfortable with the work you are doing, then you should stop. If you feel comfortable with it because you've compartmentalized, then I imagine you would not stop. And, unfortunately, there's often some reason to compartmentalize some situations: because your competitor will just as soon take the business.

It certainly would have been better if we could have gotten US policy on Nazi Germany to change much earlier than it did. It would have solved the coordination problem--for US companies, anyway. This would have required direct political action.

> Harry Truman, was quoted in the pages of New York Times in June 1941 as saying, “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible …”

The maturity could be the ability to compartmentalize. Whether that's a good thing is up for debate.

Should we keep religion out of politics? Should we keep politics out of work? I doubt there are any clear answers.

I cannot find in your quotes or the article where it says they are giving them the product for free. One of your quotes mentions a $56k payment.

For reference, Firefox 60 was released May 2018.

I don't know how often that happens, so I can't add anything to that part of the discussion.

I can only reason that it depends on whether the founder still has voting control of the company, but that's implied with "greenlighting".

WeWork is a similar situation where the founder is effectively getting a carve-out to greenlight the deal. That's only one example, though.

Often enough that it is mentioned in the article.

Isn't there some legal fiduciary duty that would prevent the executives of the company from doing this explicitly? Just because 51% of the shareholders want to lose their money doesn't mean the executives can act without regard for the 49%?

Signal priority over pedestrians too?

Are you thinking of dedicated on-ramps and off-ramps as well? Otherwise, I think stops will take a long time due to lane changes.

Even with a dedicated lane, there will still be more delays than with a grade separation (subway). Intersections are a bottleneck.

It's funny that you mention Rouge et Noir; I think they've been re-branded to "Marin French Cheese". I miss the old name.

What position is appropriate for a person with an MBA but little real world experience? I think the answer might help you and the other poster align.

The need for a revolutionary vanguard makes it clear who is really uniting: the revolutionary vanguard. Whether that unity helps workers is secondary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism

So the law we are looking for is disclosure. I can agree with that. Do you know if such a law already exists?

As mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the employees should be free to leave but this could result in their firing.

Regardless of the philosophy, what do you think of the legal basis?

Early in your reply you say employees have a choice where they apply for jobs, then you say they have no choice on whether to apply for jobs with security measures.

They are also obliged to arrive at the workplace, but their travel time is not necessarily compensated. At least this was put through both a judicial and legal process a long time ago in the ruling before and the Portal-to-Portal Act[0]. I do wonder why this was re-litigated; if this will change it seems like it will have to be through an act of Congress.

[0]: https://content.next.westlaw.com/6-508-0673?transitionType=D...

Do you think the wealthiest 400 households have had a significant change in wealth/income makeup in the last 70 years? The article is highlighting that something has changed, and they are suggesting its tax policy not investment decisions.

I believe the nominal tax rate now is not ~20%, so then the graphs are all showing effective, not nominal, and their point stands.

This article is looking at even smaller/higher percentiles than the article that you're referencing. I believe this explains the difference.

Haha, alright. Hopefully you can make your case to someone else.

Is it uncommon to be threatened on BART? I thought that was just normal.

There are people I know who will not take BART alone. I agree that the perceived safety definitely effects ridership. I can't believe this is not taken more seriously by those who wish to encourage more people to take transit! After all, subways are normally considered better than buses which really is what could be implemented more easily!

In the article it said Randstad targeted homeless people because they were less likely to talk to the media.