snapetom

Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. The archaeological records and excavations is clear on that. The leftist and white guilt that ignores that and subverting the definition of Zionism is disgusting.

For the National League. Abolish the DH in that National League.

Sorry, maybe I'm not using it right in learning a language, but isn't Anki just flashcards?

I don't know how any baseball fan can be against this. I would bet that man has made at least one season-ending mistake on every team out there throughout his career, and he's completely unapologetic and arrogant about it. Everyone was relieved when he retired, but there's been plenty of others happy to play the king villain now.

Second American Nations. I take issue with, in parts of it he has an elitist, typical Yankee patronizing tone against the South, but overall it’s well done work. As far as I know, it is the most comprehensive work in highlighting the diversity in culture and history of the US, and why we appear to be so divisive.

If you read news and opinion articles from the early 1900’s you’ll find that many authors are saying the same thing as people say today. In context of American Nations, the answer is “we’ve always been like that.”

Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to their indigenous homeland. Your Western leftist ideology have twisted the definition to your own agenda.

The author asks, "So... do you need a telescope?" then politely and politically answers the question.

I, however, looking at the side-by-side comparison, would answer, "hell yes."

I worked at a software company for shipping terminals. One release, we changed the color of a snowflake icon for better colorblind accessibility. The union said it was brand new software and the terminal had to do an emergency shutdown for a week to retrain.

On the same software who's only difference was that it had a different icon color.

Bravo for the introspection, OP. Thanks for sharing.

So what happened with her? Was the effort worth it? Happily ever after?

Citizens United specifically affirmed corporations' First Amendment rights.

The disconnect between academia and private is real and often bizarre.

I have a good friend that's a recruiter for a top 20 flagship research university in the US. Her line is always, "We're education. We don't do things like ghost jobs and ghostings." She'll then often tell stories where she and her colleagues do the exact same thing you hear in the private sector.

Recently she asked me if I thought it was ok to go ahead and fly a candidate out for an interview knowing the funding had just been cut. Her boss (in recruiting) wanted to anyway in case the funding was restored. Luckily the hiring managers refused to go ahead.

This is going to be very hard to enforce on a Federal level, let alone pass.

Companies are going to play shell games with the titles, responsibilities, and org structure just enough. There might also be 1st Amendment issues, too. The required reporting numbers will be hollow. The end result will be that it will be on the books, but the government won't have any enforceable actions for years.

And when you do see action, it will drag on for years. The feds go after big fish like Microsoft, which will drag it out. Meanwhile, thousands of your Series B-sized companies that are the biggest culprits, will fly under the radar.

I think you're going to see a few states do pass laws like this. The enforcement question will still be there, but it will be on a smaller scale. Results will be varied. Meanwhile, we need to keep naming and shaming companies and recruiters who do this.

Great idea in theory, tough in practice.

Recent events isn't going to change decades of stigma and reputation. People aren't saying, "Oh cool, they purged the low performers. I'll go work for the government!"

I don’t know if you’re US-based or not but in the US, government work has the stigma of attracting the bottom of the barrel. It is nearly impossible to get fired for performance reasons. Combine low pay and high job security, and you’re not going to attract the most innovative, motivated, or competent people.

Early in my career, I was warned that if I took a job with the state of California, I’d be stuck there for my whole career. I’d be unhirable in the private sector.

Case in point, the AMS. The Bambu system is so clean. It sits on top of the printer even if you don't have an enclosure. The Prusa system requires you to lay the spools out on runners on the table, taking up a ton of desk space.

I got into 3D printing a year ago and decided on the Bambu. I started with a P1P to see if I'd like it, got an AMS, got an enclosure in the span of about 9 months. Would I have saved money if I got all of that at once? Of course. But I didn't know if I'd like 3D printing. The P1P worked so well and so easily, it was a "gateway" and did suck me in.

Yes. Interchangeable lenses. ILC just isn't as common in the common vocabulary as SLRs which has been used for decades.

Plus, I just have a habit of using the old technology acronym instead of the new one. Like SSL.

The standalone camera market outside of SLRs is too small to make significant impact on Kodak's bottom line. There's also substantial hardware manufacturing investment that they can't afford to make. Maybe they partner with a manufacturer and license the name with a lot of software control, but at the end of the day, the hardware (and software) costs are going to shave off any substantial profit. High risk, low reward.

Kodak is a chemical company these days with modest profits. They need to double down on that. Cameras are not in their wheelhouse.

> Big tech companies like Apple are more meritocratic and generally offer smart people much better deals.

It’s mindblowing how big of a gap this is for these non-tech companies. I work for a company that sold to PE. The owners walked away with the vast majority of a 1.5 billion deal.

I asked if employees were given anything. “Sure. Some got as much as 50k!” I was told.

Using some standard equity math for early engineers, I back of napkined that the 25 year tenure engineers, if they were at big tech, should have gotten low 7 figures. Nope. They got 50k out of 1.5 billion.

(No, PE had no say on how that 1.5 billion was divided up for those of you quick to blame PE.)

Only job searching through sites like LinkedIn and Indeed are just a huge waste of time. They're going to get at the very least, hundreds of applicants. Thousands if you're advertising for remote. This is all a numbers game.

People will hate to admit this, but the best ways to counter this game is leveraging your network and ending remote work. The problem is the combination of LinkedIn/Indeed and the internet creates a national, much bigger labor supply than a national labor demand pool.

This is not limited to Canonical. This is happening across the board because it's a buyer's market for labor. The game is stacked against job applicants. A posting on LinkedIn will attract hundreds of applicants, and as recruiter friends tell me, they'll get dozens of qualified people that can do the job. Blame the internet, blame globalization, blame remote work.

At best companies act in good faith but are dysfunctional/incompetent to make this an efficient process. At worst, employers are exploiting the current labor situation to their advantage.

Will this ever change back? I don't think so unless you can eliminate the internet and AI systems.

Bonds and Clemens should be excluded.

I was just about to comment on Asian countries and mobility.

If you do academics only, there's also the phenomenon where getting into the right Kindergarten-level school determines your entire school career. In many countries, your current school is a significant factor of your next school.

Imagine not getting into the right Kindergarten having life-long consequences.

I remember the controversy around Temple of Doom. It was the inspiration for PG-13.

The Board is a disgrace. For all his fault, Gelsinger had Intel at least on a path back, yes, it's going to take a lot of money because the past two decades have been missed opportunities.

And not only did the Board not do their proper due diligence on Tan, but just let him toss Gelsinger's plan out? Shareholders should sue every one of them.

Tron in 1982 also got a PG rating. Quite controversial in my mother's circle of parenting friends. "How can Disney release a PG movie like that?" said one parent.

This is why I said I'm boiling it down to the 320. It gets too complicated to throw in DA/SA

Neither is your response in good faith. Reconciliation is common practice and has happened for decades. Why are you now pointing it as a Democrat vs Republican issue?

This is a hard question to answer, but I'll try to boil it down to this specific firearm. Many handguns, like all Glocks and many Sigs, these days are "striker fired," meaning there's an internal hammer that strikes the hammer versus an external hammer. Internal hammers are more complicated than external hammers, and that includes, in the case of Glocks, two built-in safeties internally that would prevent misfires. The only way they would fire is if the trigger is pulled. Period.

There are no external safeties for the operator to engage with these handguns. They will only go off the trigger is pulled - so drops should not set it off, nor the actions in the video. You have to intentionally pull the trigger for the gun to go off, which is the ultimate last word in safeties.

There are still semiautos with external safeties hammers, the most famous being the 1911. These are what's called single actions. The trigger weight (amount of pull on the trigger) is relatively light, so they have an external safety for the operator to engage/disengage.

I personally prefer single actions, hammer cocked, safety engaged, but this is always a very, very personal preference by people that carry. I own Glocks, but I would not carry one because of the lack of external safety, however, I would never criticize anyone that does. This is 100% strictly boils down to what the person is comfortable doing.