This happened years ago.
This happened years ago.
If he couldn't get a job making 75% of what he was making
Yeah, because being specialized in microchips is an easily transferable skill. I bet, by that logic, that most rocket scientists are leeches as soon as their labs move.
When you're given about 5 months to move, *while* the economy is down, and cannot afford to wait more until it goes back up because you need the money right now to pay a premium for the new one in a place where you have to wait several months to get a contractor due to the huge influx of people (and pay more to those contractors than you would under normal conditions), things get way outside optimal. You're basically stepping from the 4th-sigma of the left tail of the Gaussian distribution directly to the 4th-sigma of the right tail. So, yeah, you lose money, the hope being you lose less than you would otherwise.
People who are near retirement would probably be better off holding on to their home and retiring earlier than planned rather than taking what is potentially the loss of one or more years' income in a single hit.
By close I mean about 10 years from. They did the math and concluded him finding another, local, lower paying, 50+years-old-accepting, IT job, so as to keep their former house, would result in a higher financial loss on the long run. They'd end up retiring in a much worse condition right when health-related bills increase exponentially.
And that, mind, under Obamacare reasoning. It's shaping to become even more prescient under the proposed Trumpcare if that goes all the way into being approved.
This is exactly how Reddit did it.
And Intel. The husband of a friend of mine (and his family with him) were forcibly moved several States over so as to keep his job when they closed several offices all around the US, causing them to sell their former home for a fraction of it's value and purchase a new one, smaller, and for an inflated price due to the huge influx of people there stressing the local house market.
The alternative offered? To "quit" his job and lose severance and other benefits.
Why he (and them) complied? Because he's near retirement age and doing anything else would be end-of-life economic suicide.
As for all the former employees who "quit", that certainly looked amazing on the responsible executives' resume. Not to mention the bonuses due to all the cost savings etc.
Shareholder capitalism is an illness.
It's easy to do your own programming on your own computer. It's only through the trap of sloppiness one would use their employer's equipment. That's one reason it's nice the California law focuses on that: make some minimal effort to partition your life, and in return get some (unfortunately minimal) protection. Likewise, "free time" for someone on salary is meaningless. The problem is entirely "existing or prospective," which this policy doesn't seem to change from the California baseline. It's onerous because:
- you are likely to be interested in similar things to your work, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the job.
- for large companies the category is incredibly broad. For example, at Google it would cover basically anything, so the pattern of discretion that their judgement committee exercises determines how onerous this rule is, not the law, and not the policy.
Well, this may be something that is more unique to GitHub (and similar companies - GitLab, BitBucket, etc) where the companies product is something it's employees would like to use on their own for their own projects. Essentially, if they were an employee of GitHub under most normal policies they wouldn't be able to use GitHub for their personal work or contributing to projects hosted by GitHub as that would be using "company resources". So the change is slight in that it is really just allowing their employees to use their product - which has become a standard in the industry - for the employee's personal works without GitHub being able to claim ownership of random things.
And in all honesty, when I talk to employers about jobs I make sure to have something similar - I have my own projects that I am working on, and while I avoid using company resources for those projects, I still want clarity that it's mine and the company can't take it or I don't sign.
It's a nice snarky response, but not appropriate for lab technologies. Lab prototypes are not exactly like commercial cells; they tend to be heavy and/or require a lot of supporting hardware and/or are sensitive to their operating conditions and/or other issues. The potential of a technology that's been researched in the lab requires analysis; turning it into finished commercial products takes money. You can't just say "send me a working battery" as if things pop straight from lab tech to some sealed product that blows refined commercial products off the market.
Thankfully, at least from reading the paper, the tech being utilized here doesn't sound particularly complicated to build. Hopefully there will be some outside attempts to reproduce it soon. If outside attempts confirm the results, then it can start to come time to think about making it into actual battery products. Although they're going to need to have a firm understanding of exactly what's going on in order to be able to optimize it. If outside attempts can't reproduce it? Then there's a good chance it'll go down the cold fusion route.
To which they could just invite him to the lab. The snarky response is mostly to keep away people that are just tossing out theories with no proof. Musk would probably be glad to stop by and see a working prototype, get the explanation, and then participate in the validation phases. But it keeps away the people asking for research money saying "I can do X if you give me $YYYYYYYYY" - he's not interested in funding that.
They milk their prior reputation.
In any scam, there's always an enabling mark with the deep pockets.
In this case, the mark is the tired sectors of button-down industry (presently known as The Swamp & its canyon suburbs) that only hire the Big Bucks Diploma from Big Bucks School, while the bargain bin is stuffed to the brim with brilliant scions of cheap alternative education.
Milk + MOOC = mook
Mozilla is largely use to be used by tech-savvy people. I use it because I can mod the living daylights out of it, from about:config, to the way it acts, looks, performs using on-baord tweaks or add-ons. No other browser allows this level of customisation. Mozilla are losing users because they cannot leave well enough alone.
FTFY. With changes Mozilla is making, they are quickly killing their long time user-base. By FF57 they will have probably 50% of their current users.
I've been a long fan of Firefox due to the TabGroups (Panorama) functionality. FF57 will see an end to that as the new API that the add-ons must use can't support it. Add on to that the massive memory/cpu bloating that has gone on lately, and Firefox is being replaced more and more with Chrome.
I've come to the conclusion that there's only about 500 Linux desktop users in the WORLD who have PulseAudio problems. They're all the same people posting on forums about it.
Every other Linux desktop user uses the distro default which is usually PulseAudio, and it works.
KDE-based distros do not. They use GStreamer instead because of the hell that is PulseAudio.
While I quite like PulseAudio, does it even run on anything but ALSA? And would therefore maintaining the old ALSA-only codepath in parallel not be much of an imposition?
Qt and KDE replaced dependency on PulseAudio and GStreamer with Phonon (developed by KDE, and for a while part of Qt) because supporting multiple backends was a PITA and PulseAudio made it even worse.
Anyone in their right mind would not use PulseAudio - another bastard child of Poettering that he developed before systemd.
What benefit do Firefox users get?
Future compatibility for when systemd wraps pulseaudio into itself. You know it's coming.
GIven PulseAudio was also written by Poettering I'm surprised it hasn't been already.
That said, PulseAudio is another bastard that needs to die a horrible death. KDE/Qt riped it out long ago because of the issues in favor of GStreamer.
Don't feel sorry for these people.
Check Luke 14:13-14. Done? Now, read Matthew 7:1-3 again. When you're done, let's merge both by referring to Proverbs 21:13. Harsh, eh?
Americans have a very weird concept of what Christianity is all about. Assuming it's true, most will have a very... interesting... experience once Judgment Day arrives.
Welcome to the third world.
Actual third world here. 40 years old and $18k income. I usually purchase ebooks when they're reasonably priced, meaning about $10 or less. When they cost $150 (or $39 for an article) because they're Harvard-library-priced, yeah, I pirate it. Also: when there's no ebook version (I love the underground movement that scans old out-of-print books); or when there is but it isn't sold to my region for some reason; or when it's priced higher for my region.
God help us all.
So, why are you spending money on an Internet connection and on a computing device, when you could have donated them to charity? Also, why are you using your free time here, instead of going to a homeless shelter to teach them? And have you opened up your home for them so that they have a better place to live?
Given your reference to God, let me point you to Luke 18:10-14 and Matthew 7:1-3. It's interesting how many Christians forget those verses and similar ones exist.
Any programming language is at its best before it is implemented and used.