Letting someone go because they aren't productive enough to keep isn't a layoff, it's being fired.

All that remains are the employees who either lack the confidence in their skills to feel that they are employable elsewhere... or those employees who lack the skills.

While I can certainly see how the first one would happen, if one actually lacks the skills to do their job, then shouldn't they have been fired already? Not being productive enough *is* a reason to let someone go.

I think it much more likely that they are wanting to trim some fat off of their employment expenses, and doing this is a quick and easy way to get some people to voluntarily quit without looking too conspicuously like constructive dismissal.

I'd argue that the above comment might rank as one of the most insightful observations about this situation that a layperson could reasonably expect to make.

Apparently dressing well improves the holistic ambiance of a brain struggling with esoteric things like coding.

With fertilizer like that, I'm sure their lawns are looking great in spite of the drought. On a scale of 1 to 10 on the shittitude meter, that's probably like a 12 or 13.

Javascript's eval can be very useful in general, and in fact, the most useful form of it is when you *are* invoking it on dynamically generated code that simply cannot be as concisely expressed in any other way. That's not to say it's impossible, but it can often be a darn sight more convoluted to not use eval in Javascript to get a particular job done than it would be to write it using statically compilable code. Some may argue that this is a flaw in the design of the language itself, but I would personally be reluctant to quickly discard the feature entirely simply because of its potential for abuse in this particular way. I would suggest that there are almost certainly other ways to achieve the desired ends, but they most probably involve much more complex intermediate goals.

Blocking eval itself isn't generally a solution anyways, since javascript within the browser could invoke 'document write' to place additional code into the page where it is executing, and then simply directly call a function that it dynamically added to the page using such a technique to achieve the exact same thing as what could be done using eval.

I suspect the longer term solution is for browsers to sandbox javascript pretty tightly.... malicious code that detects such sandboxing as an attempt to evade detection as such may not get detected by the browser as problematic, but still won't be able to accomplish anything because it will still be inside of the sandbox, and when the code tries to do something that is prohibited, it can be immediately flagged at that time rather than just trying to detect it at page load time.

Which, regardless of anything that Uber might want to claim about themselves, is only applicable if the drivers are not licensed as cab drivers within the province, and even then, their beef is with the drivers, not the company.

So all that proves is that traffic was sent to imitate an ad view, not that the ads were actually displayed anywhere.

Which portions of the Highway Traffic Act are they alleged to actually be in violation of?

If they were no more specific in their actual allegation than the article was, Uber can win this one easily.

Forensiq, an online technology firm fighting fraud for advertisers, found over 5,000 apps displayed unseen ads...

If the ads were unseen, how do they know they were displayed in the first place?

from TFA, mass of the planet is 5x Earth Mass.

I'm not sure what you were reading.... From the page linked to the summary:

Scientists do not know if Kepler-452b can support life or not. What is known about the planet is that it is about 60 percent larger than Earth, placing it in a class of planets dubbed "super-Earths." While its mass and composition are not yet determined, previous research suggests that planets the size of Kepler-452b have a better than even chance of being rocky.

So I'm not sure where you got 5 times the mass from.

In fact, if we assume composition similar to earth, a planet 1.6 times the size of earth would have 4.096 (1.6 cubed) times the mass of earth

Because gravitational pull falls with the square of the distance, we could divide 1.6 cubed times the mass of earth by the square of 1.6 gives us exactly 1.6 times earth's gravitational pull at the surface of the planet. Thus, assuming identical composition, surface gravity scales linearly with diameter. While it probably doesn't have absolutely identical composition to Earth, there is not yet any compelling reason at this time to speculate that its composition would be drastically different either. Certainly if its density were 25% heavier than that of earth, then the mass (and surface gravity) would be exactly as you described. According to the page, we do not know that information yet, however.

It certainly is in two-party consent jurisdictions.

Yes, but because gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, by being further from the center of mass in a larger planet, the net gravitational effect where the density of the planet is otherwise the same is scales linearly with the diameter. Assuming earth-like composition, the planet is 1.6G at its surface.

.... when the issue of openly recording people who are in a public place is still legally questionable?

... now they know how they would react. Mission accomplished, right?