Either they were not negotiating in good faith ... or they are low life bottom feeders to put a company (not a competitor) out of business.

one of the problems with the six foot perimeter inside a building is that the hvac is recirculating the air so that the entire building becomes an infected stew of virus floating around - if someone brings the virus into the building. 6 foot perimeter is probably good outside though.

your point is that if you don't have older family/close friend and you don't have a single person in your life with a preexisting condition, then you get to skip the lockdown? Nobody in your life that you couldn't abandon for enough time for this to resolve (vaccine 12-18 months) ?

What's the chance of that being true? And if it is true, is that likely to be true for enough people that it matters in this conversation? My goodness, I don't expect to find large percentage of our population to have no family that they care about when about 20% of the population is over 60. That doesn't even account for the percentage of the population with complicating pre-conditions - which I can't find statistics for but let's say it's another 20% since the complicating pre-conditions include high blood pressure which is the bane of those over 40. So now, we give a free pass to people from the lock down, if they agree not to have any personal interactions with 40% of the population? (this boggle my mind the probability of unintended consequences in that idea)

So if you are socially disconnected from anyone over 60 and anyone who is vulnerable to illness, you should get a free pass? And how do we ensure the thoughtless or irresponsible or immature folks don't lay claim the free pass and then bring the virus to those who are vulnerable?

Supposing we can control a segmented lockdown, can we get this economy running without 40% of the population? The grandmas who do daycare? the older workers in every industry? the younger workers with high blood pressure or immunity disorders or ...

I get that we need to get this economy running again. People deserve their rights - the government didn't even go through the proper steps to lock the population down. But that aside, I love a lot of people who would be vulnerable if we just went back to the old normal. It's not just a matter of how many lives lost if we stay locked down (because people will die because of the lockdown) vs how many lives lost if we just go back to the old normal.

this is about how to responsibly deal with the situation we've been handed.

At the time that the lockdown started in any state (I live in Washington, you live in Michigan) it wasn't obvious who was infected... how long they had been infected or how broadly they'd spread the virus.

Lockdown gave us time to measure what had already happened.

I agree, we could unlock a boat load of the counties based on their current cases. However, that means that people in locked down counties will be coming in to get services and spreading the virus. This would not be a perfect solution and may have unintended consequences.

nobody is yelling. Let's just get along.
Your decisions affect my life - your freedoms come with responsibilities. I think we have to have a better way long term to fix this but it's not just "I am going to do what I want to do and let the sick and elderly stay out of my way". Your home is not in question. My home is not in question. Our communities are in question. How do we share a community, safely?

your final statement appears to not account for how your choice to go to work (or elsewhere) could bring the virus home to someone you love or someone your neighbor loves and take them out. It's not only about your freedom to work - it's also about not contaminating your home / neighborhood (and taking away the choices that they have made to try to survive).

I tend to agree with much of what you have said, with a few reservations:

1. if those that believe they would survive the virus given the run of our ecosystem (and by definition, the elderly/sick are completely isolated, indefinitely) then we have created a 2 class system - with one highly favored.

2. How does it work, in a practical sense, to try to separate those that are young/healthy from those that are elderly/sick in families? Especially, where families are the support network for all - the healthy care for the sick and grandma provides day care for the children of the young?

3. How do the high risk folks get services from the community (let alone socialize or have any quality of life)? - right now some counties in my state are in phase 2 (meaning hair salons are open) but my family can't get a hair cut because we are in a high risk group and there are people who are infected getting their hair cut too. How does that go on long term? Currently, doctors are separating those with the virus from those without the virus (an imperfect practice for sure) and actively trying to prevent sick medical workers from working. How would that work across all industries and work over the long term?

4. I have reservations about a vaccine "fixing this situation" for two reasons:

a) there is no guarantee that this virus won't mutate or that the vaccine will produce long term immunity. Other novel corona viruses tend to mutate year after year. So we get a shot (like a flu shot every year and hope it's targeting the actual virus mutations)?

b) there are reasons to think that covid-19 is just one in a number of viruses that are a) highly transmittable and b) highly impactful (fatal or damaging).

I tend to agree with you. Anyone who loves someone in on of the high risk groups (over 60 or having pre-existing conditions) will look at this situation differently from someone who is young, healthy and without any compassion for those in the high risk groups. Those that congregate to socialize and perpetuate the outbreak (rather than letting it die off) are making the outbreak last longer and kill more people (just maybe not themselves or anyone they love).

How many people do Irell & Manella want to die while a sham of a patent is protected?

It is reasonable to expect FB to verify the veracity of a political ad? What about non-political ads? How much should FB spend to prove the veracity of an ad? How should FB guarantee that it will treat all ads fairly when FB (as an entity) disagrees with the political position? How should FB guarantee that it will treat all ads fairly when the people reviewing the ad (or developing the software to review the ad) are opposed to the ad's political position?

how have they dealt with the 170k new shaded areas that will reduce the sunlight reaching the ocean?

and PASCAL, BASH, Awk/Grep/Sed (etc), Python, T-SQL

BASIC, Fortran, Cobol, C, C++, Javascript, Perl, PHP, HTML, PLSQL, Ruby, Groovy

I am in my early 60's and have been in software development since 1981. I dipped my toe into management but found that first line managers get laid off before the engineers so I decided to stay in the technical area. Currently, I'm working as a software architect where I can use both my technical acumen as well as some soft skills. Coding is still my first love although I don't get to do it anymore. Over the past decades, I have earned a master's in software engineering and also co-founded a mobile app company (nights and weekends) both of which helped me to keep sharpening my skills which helped me stay relevant. It's also fortunate that I don't look my age so I can blend in.

He is in opposition to the company's values and argues to exclude over half the human population from his profession. He gives conservatives a bad name. His language implies that women tend to be neurotic. He doesn't show any argument about what makes a good software engineer. His arguments are based on how he views the software development environment that was built in the testosterone laden past. He seems irrational and will be resistant to changing his viewpoint. Because he holds these views so strongly, it would be a risk to put him into a role where his views would affect his judgment to the detriment of Google's goals. He can't be promoted to leadership of a team or management. He can't mentor an engineer of either gender. He can't be on an interview team. His usefulness to Google is diminished. I vote he leave Google peaceably or be terminated at will. I speak as a female software engineer with 36 years of experience in a number of domains including printer firmware, CIM, business applications, mobile applications and mostly backend server software. I have a BSCS and MSSE earned the hard way. I have led teams and managed them as well but my first love is software development. I have experienced the bro culture first hand over the decades - this is tiresome and a waste of energy. The first programmers were women by the way. The interesting aspect of this situation, for me, is that this memo floated around Google for several weeks with no one in leadership stepping up to address it. It wasn't until it was leaked to the public that there is all this reaction. Why?