If your job really requires that you get hundreds of emails a day, odds are, you really should be replaced by a robot.
But it's the robots sending the emails.... they take the work as far as they can based on filtering and rules, then email out when they need a real human to help figure out what needs to happen next with something. Then a human might take 10 of those and summarize them into a few lines explaining it to everyone else on the emails.
Surely I'm not the only one on
Now if they don't demand exclusivity... or if you and a "friend" can submit very similar bugs to each program separately and reap multiple rewards...
Yeah, this sounds as much like a DDOS as the Healthcare.gov rollout.
Guys, it's not a DDOS just because people are trying to use the web site and it sucks so bad that they can't...
And according to that same exact website (which is heavily anti-gun biased by design), this year there have been over 4x the number of defensive use incidents (where they only count "verified" defensive incidents, not the much looser criteria they use for "mass" shootings) as there have been "mass" shootings (defined as 4 or more people hurt) and 5x as many officer involved shootings.
So I guess by your logic, we need to ban the police officer emoji in order to reduce violence???
Also, your comparison between lists with 4+ people and Canada "massacres" is comparing completely different things. The Canada list is incomplete (says right on the page) and is also not a list of 4+ injuries like the first list.
But no surprise to the lack of logic in someone who apparently dislikes both free speech and the right to defend yourself. I guess with this post you get an "A" in your "Human Diversity in Math" course.
People who don't care about honesty and the free exchange of ideas false "report" sites they don't like as having malware, deceptive contents, whatever they can so that the automated filters in Google, anti-virus, etc.. prevent people from visiting them.
The practice not only (temporarily) blocks sites which shouldn't be blocked, but also gets people used to assuming a blocked site is much more likely to be a false positive and thus bypass the blocking. A great lose/lose scenario from these idiots.
Next you'll be trying to tell us people are actually individuals, not just Borg-like members of various collectives determined by their skin color or Party affiliation. You may have to report for re-education if you work in a government, media or academic setting.
On a related topic, basically for at least the next four years we're screwed in terms of having a decent President, so I finally decided to vote based on a longer view of things and try and get the best new Supreme Court justices. Those will have much longer lasting effect than what one President otherwise does.
Why would any employer want to do anything other than hire the best, most qualified employee for a given job?
In this specific case, because the individuals who run Facebook are racist and sexist. They believe what color your skin is, what your ethnically related genetic makeup is and/or what sex you are all matter more than your individual personal characteristics, skills, talents, intelligence, etc...
Trump would be a disaster... ok, but that doesn't mean Hillary would be a disaster is any less true.
It's been interesting to see how much people rely on saying bad (and at least somewhat, although usually not totally) true things about the "other" candidate, but usually fail to make the case at all as to why "their" candidate is any better.
The candidates don't exist in a vacuum. Saying Candidate X is horribly Y doesn't actually compare them to their opponents and thus feels more like calling names than having a reasoned discussion.
I'd listen to more of this if it actually brought up something which wasn't already public knowledge, or tried to at least do some kind of comparison rather than just being a one-sided political attack.
I guess this week we're punishing people for "unintentional" failures to comply with regulations again?
No, the FBI let Hillary off the hook.... what were we talking about again?
“I’m going to stop a car,” the officer says on the recording. “I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.”
“The two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery,” the officer says. “The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide set nose,” the officer continues.
Here's a photo of the gun in the video.
How many parts of the "story" have to be lies before you stop believing the person telling it and trying to make money off of it?
Or maybe armed robbery suspects (real reason for being pulled over, as per the police radio calls, not a broken taillight) shouldn't pull a gun (you can barely see it in the video, but it's there) on police during a stop?
There are many examples of poor judgement or outright criminality on the part of police. This incident isn't necessarily one of them. The GF streaming the video and her and other family members raising gofundme money have been flat out lying to cash in on the anti-police sentiment.
"I'm growing older, but not up." -- Jimmy Buffett