I'm sure you have fun saying that. But no, different things are actually different.
China is run by the Chinese Communist Party. The law in China is all businesses of any kind must assist whenever requested by government or party officials. That's the law. Remember, on paper it's communist - the businesses are nominally instruments of "the public" via the government officials.

"Get a warrant" isn't a thing in China. That's the United States. Fourth amendment and all that - you may have heard of it.

The US government DOES have agents. FBI agents, CIA agents, Fish and Wildlife agents. Anyone who isn't a government agent - isn't. Which is very different from China, where every business is *by law* an agent of the government.

I worked at a company that did this and it worked much better and easier than I would have expected. You mentioned expensive engineer time. We didn't spend any time on arranging it. We were all what the IRS calls "highly compensated employees".

Some people worked in the office M-W-F, some on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Everyone has a laptop, and every desk has a USB3 docking station. When you get hired, you just choose a desk that is available. Every desk has pens, a pad of paper, etc - ready to work. Sit down, plug your laptop in with one cable, and there ya go. Yeah someone else will be there when you're not.

The one difference is that you wouldn't leave a lot of personal stuff in the desk. Rather, a lot of people brought a backpack to work that contained their snacks or whatever.

I think maybe twice I showed up and saw someone sitting at the desk I normally used. So I just used another one nearby. A couple times I picked a desk in the section used by a team I was working with that day, rather than my normal desk by the CISO. I'd work with different development teams and if I was going to be working with one team all day I may as well sit with them for the day.

The vast majority of the 'greening' is happening in arid areas, where the higher concentrations of co2 allow plants to acquire co2 with less loss of water.
Increased co2 is also increasing crop yields with no additional labor or use of fertilizers.
It has also revealed an unexpected counter-balance, as plants with access to more co2 put more growth into roots. As plants decay, generally the parts above the ground go back to the air, and the parts below the ground stay to enrich the soil. As such, the more co2 in the air, the more that gets sucked out by plants to enrich the local soil long-term.

There is also the fact that humans are not the same as bacteria in a petri dish, which eat and multiply until the food is gone and it all starves; humans increase/provide production.
If I remember correctly, the average human produces approximately seven times wat they consume over their life-time, which means that the more humans there are, the more that we can afford to support, which in turn means more production, etc.

You're almost on the right track, but just got it backwards. Bigger companies like Microsoft actually make MORE money for the investors than do small companies, like your local convenience store. *GROWING* your business is how you pad your pockets.

Going out of business, or partially going out of business (shutting down departments etc) is how you make less.

You make more money by selling more products.
The greedy fuckers (like people who want to retire eventually) really want to hire MORE people at $150K who produce $200K. That $50K difference is what we call "profit".

Surprisingly though, when you intentionally make it difficult and expensive for businesses to operate in your state or city, people start to give up on trying to operate businesses there. When you make sure the California office will lose money, they shut down the California office. They'd certainly prefer to make MORE money by making and selling more stuff, which requires a bigger staff.

> This is one reason hiring can be so difficult. Just looking at past results shows what they have done, but not what they are capable of doing.

I don't *care* what they are _capable_ of doing. I care what they _do_. If they are lazy and capable of much more than what they choose to do, that doesn't help me.

Tell you what. Why don't you send me $100.
I'm *capable* of sending you $1,000 back.

> Exams are basically about studying everything up front and getting it right on the first try. But that's not how anything works.

I prefer my doctor get the surgery right the FIRST time they operate on me.

I don't know or care how many flash cards they went over or how many times they rehearsed in the MIST-VR. I do care that they get it right in the final exam (me).

> Exams are basically about studying everything up front and getting it right on the first try.

Dude you're gonna freak when you find out what flash cards are. School could have been SO much different for you. You actually *can* practice for tests. There's one test - I've been practicing for it for over ten years now. The test is NOT the first time I'm going to see these kinds of questions - and it didn't have to be for you.

TFS says:
> Originality or effort? Participation or progress? Apples and oranges at best.

You said:
> I want effort factored in to my doctors and engineers

I don't. I want RESULTS, period.

My 8 year old daughter could try really, really, really hard to design an airplane. Lots of effort. I ain't trying to fly in it. I'll stick with engineers who design planes that actually fly safely. Engineers who get right results.

Donald Trump could put in lots and lots of effort trying to guess what surgery I need, and try really hard to do the surgery correctly. Not for me. I'll go to a doctor who actually gets the diagnosis correct, and performs the surgery correctly.

I'll *applaud* effort. I'll buy results.

Not just with critical things like airplanes and surgeries of course. I buy a phone that actually works. I don't *care* how hard someone *tried* to design a phone. I'm not spending $150 on a phone that doesn't boot. I want results. I'll buy the phone that works well, from the folks who actually got good results. I don't care if it was easy for them or hard for them. I care about the results they deliver- does the phone boot or not? I don't buy a phone that doesn't boot.

It is *a* computer.
It is not *your* computer.

It is Microsoft's computer. It will do what *Microsoft* tells it to do.

When Trump was president he would have LOVED to have the government shut down all the "disinformation" he didn't approve of.

I see a different failure.

> the researchers found that the use of these UV emitting devices for just one 20-minute session led to between 20 and 30 percent cell death, while three consecutive 20-minute exposures caused between 65 and 70 percent of the exposed cells to die.

Their lab methodology says 20%-30% of your cells will die in one session, 70% if you decide to get a different color.

Don't you think customers would have noticed that their hands are dead?

Killing 20%-70% of your skin in a few minutes would be very obvious.

When your lab result is so blatantly opposite real world experience, your research is - wrong.

Veritasium explains why most published research is wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Between 2000 and ~2015 the earth grew ~15% greener, representing an area roughly the size of the United States turning green. This is especially notable in dryer areas which previously had difficulty supporting plant life.

This has also resulted in an increase in crop production without any associated increase in watering, fertilizer, etc.

This is caused by higher co2. Plants need to open up(stomata) to inhale co2, and in the process, they lose water. Due to higher concentrations of co2, plants can lose less water while getting the same amount of co2, allowing them to live in more arid environments.

That said, how is the planet getting greener and increased crop production(both due to increased co2 availability in the atmosphere) supposed to lead to starvation?

Also, it looks like plants grown with higher co2 tend to grow more extensive root networks(as opposed to stem and leaves). When plants die, the carbon in their roots tends to stay in the soil(making it more fertile) while carbon in above-ground parts tend to return to the atmosphere. So plants provide a (slow) negative feed-back loop on atmospheric co2.
--------
While there is no doubt that some human-caused environment changes are bad(Rivers catching fire for example), the current assumption that all human caused changes are inherently bad(even if they improve both biodiversity and human well-being), is inherently genocidal(and thus evil).

If you want a 15-minute news cycle (with things that may or may not be true, in varying degrees), read Fox News or CNN.

If you want a 24-48 hour news cycle with things that are mostly true but dumbed down, read ABC News.

If you want sometimes intelligent analysis of the nerdy news of the week (and BS headlines), read Slashdot.

Slashdot isn't about whatever happened in the 20 minutes. It's about discussing the news of the week, or recent weeks, with fellow nerds.

Yep, since the topic is non-competes, I totally thought your reply was about that, without reading carefully what you said. Total brain fart there, and copying the wording you used without stopping to think what it means.

And of course I had to go and be a rude about it. Being rude and totally wrong at the same time isn't a good look, is it.

I should be rude less, partly because I'll sometimes be wrong and I don't like being both wrong and rude at the same time.

I had a brain fart while reading your post and read "all NDAs" as "all non-competes".

It fails to recognize that some non-competes are perfectly reasonable.

As you said, it doesn't get rid off all NDAs.

What part of of "This Part 910 shall supersede any statute, regulation, order, or interpretation" do you have a hard time understanding?

Or you you again just making up random shit, straight from your ass, without bothering to even read it, after I told you I read it and so that problem?