If you're paid $5, it's worth $5. To you. Yes, your employer will want to derive more value from your labor, of course, and your cost to them is more than your direct wages. This is all obvious, isn't it?

Just as, from time to time, you may find you require more compensation for your labor, and so seek opportunity to earn more. Or your employer may decide your labor isn't worth as much as you think it is, or even that it's no longer necessary to them. This sort of market exists in many places...

If you're paid$

Marx would be proud...

Hey, it's math. Finding another solution is called theoretical math. More winning?

Expecting to be paid $5 for $4 worth of work seems radical.

Oh, 'muh productivity'? If you can do 5 hours work in 4 hours, maybe you should do the 6 1/4 hrs worth of work in the 5 hours you were paid for? Winning?

Look, I get the attraction of being paid for 40 hours but only working 32 hours. Yes. Only, maybe, no. Maybe a 6 hour day, so I can be denied support for another 2 hours a day.

And, yet, they are hired. And, yet, candidates perceived as older are not favored. It doesn't matter why to the older candidates, trust me.

So it's just money.

Many/most/all of these papers are published by academicians. Their employers, these institutions, can't be bothered to preserve the work they benefit from and profit from?

This is the problem. The scientists and their institutions really do not value their own work. But in America these institutions are conquered by the Left, which only values itself.

TFA and summery claim that 'Those whose plaques contained microplastics or nanoplastics' suffered form more problems. Yet I'm told, repeatedly, that these microparticles of plastics are ubiquitous, found in all regions, and there are some reports that they are found in all subjects, not limited to humans.

Ok, so which is it, some of us are not contaminated, or all of us are contaminated? And then, a follow-up, some of us who are contaminated will suffer more from increased risk of stroke etc., and some will not?

Or, plainly, is all this opinion, or poorly done studies? I'm pretty sure microplastics are not good for us, but we're not yet dropping like flies.

The abuse of carry -on allowances is offensive. One overhead, one under the seat, fair enough. I scored a great overnight bag at a work event that perfectly fits carry -on rules except for s free discount carriers that ignore their own rules and charge you anyways, and those I reject so no biggie.

To many people think they can carry on 3 items, shove two overhead, and someone only late to the gate it late in line gets stiffed. Pus. Set the rules and enforce them. I can pack around them fine, and my sling bag I've always counted as an item.

"Don't confuse closed specification with closed source."

I don't. Yet, your description seems to point out it is impossible for this version of HDMI to have an open source driver set, that must disclose the proprietary and closed specifications.

I'm not sure this is a difference with a distinction. Closed, restricted specs, must lead to only closed source drivers. Woops. Same effect.

Or, simply, more money.

I'm betting it is about money. To view the specs, you have to join the club. To join the club, you hafta pay. And the legion of open source contributors haven't found a way to create a group to obtain that license without offending their libertarian streak of independence and freedom. Which I applaud, they know their purpose, and I applaud them for it.

But, if you wanna play with HDMI, sooner or later, you pay. By definition, it's closed source. And they don't care.

You're right. The FCC would most likely only get interested when this attack is used more than a few times.

But when they get interested, it may be expensive.

Did I miss something? Did the complainer respond to the sound level?

Don't have to be loud to be obnoxious.