To expand here. I've been mugged. The kids who did it certainly need help, and that help can't just be someone giving them some money or other soft response, but longterm incarceration won't do anyone any favors. It won't help them, it won't help me, it won't help our criminal system costs, and it won't make the neighborhood safer.

What they need is a system that requires them to accept responsibility for their actions and to make restitutions for them so they don't feel guilty for life. That's called restorative justice.

Well, the ORIGIN of the US prison system was around the idea of reform. You were giving people time away from society where they could be "penitent" about their actions, and via reflection, come to more clearly consider where they had gone wrong. It's where we got "penitentiary".

Obviously I agree this is not how things played out, and everyone should be well aware that modern prisons serve only two possible uses. 1 - removal from regular society 2 - punishment.

Personally I find 1 to be a legitimate thing for some classes of crime, while i feel that most forms of 2, punishment, don't work to reduce crime.

robbery?

"Theft of trade secret" is a thing.

It's kind of an odd concept. When you accept that exclusive ownership of something is a intellectual property thing, then someone who shares it while under a contract to not do so is depriving you of that exclusion. Your trade secret is no longer secret and your advantage is taken away from you.

This stuff stems from guild laws, like the secrets of making good parmigiano-reggiano or whatever that were supposed to be kept within the organization and were only shared with you if you agreed to abide by these terms.

Personally, it seems quite awkward to use the verb "theft" in this context, and I would not choose to do so, but it is established usage. Additionally, I find the whole protected trade secret concept sort of awkward, but I might not fully grasp what it is needed to protect in a modern context.

Maybe he worked abroad at some point?

Being able to quickly execute arithmetic is a basic skill that everyone should be pushed to master.

However it has jack all to do with algebra II.

You're mistaking correlation with causation. Inability to quickly add and subtract doesn't really prevent one from understanding algebra. It's just that your students who never truly mastered basic arithmetic are not really truly mastering any of the math they're encountering.

Speed has little to do with it. It's a red herring for most areas of math. Better grasp does typically result in faster execution for the individual, but that does not imply that the slower individuals you encounter do not have a good grasp.

The kooky part is rejecting documentation of same.

This is kind of a miss.

There's a pretty able transit system that goes from San Francisco to Mountain View. It's called Caltrain. It's not perfect, and at off-hours it has more headway between trains than is highly desirable but it's extremely energy efficient and quite affordable as far as rail systems go.

The real reason that the existing transport systems don't serve Google workers well is that Google HQ is over 3 miles away from the nearest train station.

The inefficiency is all down in the suburb, not in the city.

It's not a "bus line". It's a point to point service that causes parts of SF to become artificially more desirable to Google employees than they would be otherwise, whose wealth is propped up by Wall Street investment patterns.

This causes those particular neighborhoods to have housing costs move out-of-reach of median incomes.

Whether or not you see this as unjust is a matter of debate, but it's not equivalent to a city bus route, which is a resource for everyone.

The taste would be far more palatable if the Google workers were working in SF, and thus Google was paying taxes on the work of these employees in SF. That would bring proportional funds into the city to cover infrastructure costs. Unfortunately, Google can pay lower office costs in the south bay because of the sprawl pattern.

Hiding the information is a management error.

Programmers want and appreciate transparency for its own sake and will be happier still with the thank you bosues AND clearly understanding what's going on.

However if the engingeers are a small minority of employees, that might no work because that kind of transparency does not work for all employee types.

Corporate speak is full of nonsense code words use to mean things other than what they mean. Job postings are nearly the thickest.

"Need Passionate Self-Starter who is a rock-star team-player who wants to change the world!"

This stuff has been nonsense since before I was born.

Or, looking at it from another perspective:

You can get a full workday with less time wasted. If you stand up for yourself this means you can live in a city you want to live in, and have a rewarding job, and not have many hours a day spent driving a car.

Seriously, no one likes driving hours a day in commute-traffic. Avoiding that is something any sane person wants.

People who work for Google is not a race.

It's a class thing.

Also you used the incorrect "your", it should have been "you're".

TO SOLITARY WITH YOU!

Well, to be fair, in the broad view, we have more than enough people.

I'm not sure the current situation is great, but some incentive against reproducing isn't all bad.