Technically, you would need at least two. So far, the count is zero.

Except Amazon hasn't actually threatened anyone. No rational person would believe, in light of complete absence of evidence to the contrary, that the intent of this clause is to prevent someone from working as a cashier at Walmart. Preemptively suing Amazon because there is an infinitesimal chance that they might sue you, is not going to get very far. The judge should throw the case out and order you to reimburse Amazon for their legal expense. We have enough frivolous nonsense in our courts.

... and your problem is a completely broken development process. Code should be tested as it is written. You should never waste time reviewing code that has not passed unit tests, functional tests, regression tests, etc. Hallway usability testing should be done even before the design review.

Testing is an integral part of every development step, not something you tack on the end.

No it doesn't. Non-competes limit your ability to make a living. People are more important than corporations.

I notice you didn't name any instances.

You are right, but they are used for that..

A company should keep its employees by paying well, and by making it a good place to work. If the only way you can keep employees is by making them sign non-competes, then your company is a lousy company to begin with, and the world would be made better by having someone compete with it.

More likely they would pay out $0 to all zero of the plaintiffs that actually have a case.

Even a "slap on the wrist" would be excessive, since there isn't any evidence that they have done anything wrong. It is not a crime to be big, and nobody should be fined just because they can afford it.

Yup. All the lawyer has to do is find all zero of the warehouse workers that were actually sued or damaged in any way.

I realize that we are all supposed to be outraged, and equate this to the blood of the workers being used to lubricate the machinery of capitalism. But this is just some standard legal boilerplate, that nobody noticed before, because it has no actual real world consequences.

... which is about as useful as saying that the sky is blue. That nothing is 100% safe is already obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

You seem to implying that "one in a million" is basically the same as "one in a trillion" because either is "not perfect". There are more than 100,000 flights per day. So "one in a million" is once every ten days. "One is a trillion" is once every 27,000 years.

Well, if your production code is open source, then storing your code on GitHub seems like a reasonable approach ... for backup.

While you are correct, I defy you to come up with an example of a form of government (that has been in use) that doesn't/didn't lead to authoritarianism.

In the US it took less than 10 years (see "The Whiskey Rebellion"). The only thing that slowed down the process was the existence of an "open border" along the west. Closed borders foster authroitarianism, whatever the form of government.

Actually, I believe that there ARE forms of government that don't necessarily drift towards authoritarianism, but they would all have the characteristic that desiring power didn't increase your chance of getting it.

Much less frequently than they urinate, and even less frequently with proper planning, like pooping before the flight and avoiding foods likely to cause gastrointestinal problems. For instance, military rations (MREs) containing beans, are specifically marked as "not for pre-flight use".

I have flown dozens of trans-Pacific, trans-Atlantic, and trans-continental flights. I had to urinate on all of them. I don't recall ever needing to crap inflight.

If a $10 pilot urinal solves 90% of the problem, it shouldn't be rejected just because it isn't a 100% solution.

... and when they do commit suicide, they are far less likely to kill other people as they do so. Murder-suicide is an almost exclusively male predilection.

Btw, I have flown on several commercial flights with female pilots.

The military has had mix gender flight crews for decades. They are professionals. They deal with it.

In practice, no. New technology almost never is applicable to only a single product. It allows many products to be made more efficiently, and allows new products to be made that didn't even exist before. So there is a broad advance in demand for labor that can employ that technology.

Another was to see that this is true, is to open your eyes and look at the real world. Countries with high productivity are uniformly prosperous. Countries with low productivity are uniformly poor. Higher productivity not only results in higher living standards, but it is the ONLY thing that results in higher living standards. To claim that it causes poverty, is not only profoundly ignorant or economic theory, but also indicates an astoundingly weak grip on reality.

If the probability of a suicidal crew member is one in a million, then the probably of two is one in a trillion. That is close enough to zero that it doesn't matter. The plane would be more likely to be hit by a meteor.

No rational person is expecting 100% perfection. But there are about a half dozen incidents that appear to be intentional crashes by the flight crew. So these incidents are roughly as common as terrorism. We are spending billions to keep terrorists from crashing planes. We are spending $0 to keep pilots from crashing planes. That is not sensible.