Whether the rates advertisers pay are based on the number of tickets sold. If so, shouldn't the companies paying for the ads be really pissed that the theaters are now telling the ticketholders how to avoid seeing the ads, so that eyeballs seeing the ads is no longer equivalent to # of tickets sold? Seems like AMC is kinda screwing the advertisers AND the ticket buyers.

I'm commenting on the poor reporting, not the case itself. With this type of reporting, it's impossible to tell the difference between the two.

A single anonymous employee who "noted that they are unsure if their employer exceeded its license limits" is not a suggestion of non-compliance, especially when the employee is described as a "security professional," not a sysadmin, and therefore unlikely to have license compliance as part of their job function.

A single answer of "I don't know" from an employee who isn't responsible for knowing is not *reasonable* suspicion of wrongdoing.

Could hardly have said it better.

...extortion to me. "You decided not to subscribe to our services? We're going to cause expenses for you, even if you are abiding by the terms of the perpetual license you paid for. You might as well subscribe, and this 'headache' will go away."

My intention wasn't to get into the merits or drawbacks of the minimum wage, I was simply using the legal minimum wage for calculation purposes.

In reality, I firmly believe, and I believe real economic data would back me up, that incomes have not kept up with inflation, especially in housing, health care, and food costs. More people than ever are struggling to meet just those bare necessities.

I know full well that I live in a very atypical geographical area (suburbs of NYC), but housing for example is crazy expensive here. Basement studio apartments routinely go for $1300/month or more, just base rent, no utilities. For calculation, working a 40 hour week, so approximately 172 hours a month (40 hr/wk x 4.3 weeks/mo), that means one has to earn $7.55/hr (1300 / 172 ) just to pay rent. No food, no utilities, no insurance, nothing else.

Let's add $100/wk (or $400/mo) to feed yourself (and good luck feeding yourself on $100/week), you're up to $1700/month. We'll keep utilities down to $200/mo (again good luck, especially if you consider internet access a utility, which is more and more essential every day), so we're up to $1900. Have a car, even one with no car payment? Another $200/mo minimum (here) for insurance. Sum so far, $2100/mo. Heath insurance? I think it's likely that the majority of people are not having their health insurance fully covered by their employer. We'll keep that at a reasonable $200/mo, giving a little leeway to include some co-pays, etc in that number. We're up to $2300/mo just for the most basic living costs: Lodging, food, utilities, insurance. That's with literally nothing else, and saving $0 a month. And, since that's what one would be paying out, that $2300 has to be the *after* taxes number.

So, yes, I would have to agree with you that we are all (with the possible exception of the already wealthy) worse than we were 25 years ago. I don't have a solution for that, but I will reiterate that we should stop equating "living wage" with "comfortable".

You are equating the terms "livable" and "comfortable." They don't mean the same thing. Livable means enough income to be able to pay for a place to live, the attendant necessary utilities (water/electricity/heat) and sufficient food to eat.

With the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hr (which, btw, hasn't changed since 2009), which equates to approximately $1250/mo before taxes ($7.25 x 40 x 4.3 = $1247), people are hard-pressed to meet those basic needs, and therefore, I wouldn't call that a livable wage.

Allow me to clarify my position. The only thing I'm suggesting is that someone being hired be told what is expected of them before being hired. It's then up to them whether to accept the job or not.

If a potential employer won't tell a potential hire what is expected of them, that's a company that's very likely to take advantage of that person.

The "normal employment agreement" you referenced IS a written, legal agreement. All I am saying, in that case, is that, like any other legal document, it is important to read it and understand it fully. If it contains provisions that the potential hire finds unacceptable, then they shouldn't take the job. I'm *not* suggesting that a potential hire should attempt negotiations of the standard employment agreement. I agree with you that in most cases, such negotiation is not realistic. What I'm saying is one should do their best to know precisely what they are signing up for before taking the job and signing a legal document.

For the record, I believe it is imperative to fully read and understand *any* legal document before signing it. It has caused other parties involved with the document to get frustrated with me at times, but I'll be damned if I'm going to put my signature on anything legally binding before I understand it and decide the terms are acceptable.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should "lay out their demands for working hours." In every position, one needs some flexibility. However, especially in white collar jobs, employment contracts are not uncommon, and these should spell out the employee's responsibilities as well as the employer's requirements. When someone is hired, it is under certain obligations for both sides. What's being described above is expectations made by the employer *after* the employee has been hired.

To look at it another way: if someone signed any kind of legal contract (employment or otherwise), then the other party behaves outside the parameters of the contract, would that be acceptable? If no, then it shouldn't be acceptable when an employer states the conditions of employment at hire time, and then expects more afterwards.

If a worker is willing to accept being hired without written conditions, then it leaves them open for abuse.

It's up to you, the employee, to set your own boundaries, preferably from day 1. Make it clear what you find acceptable to be asked to do and what you find unacceptable. Don't be unreasonable, of course, like saying "there will never be a situation I am willing to work outside 9am-5pm." Emergencies do truly happen sometimes. Employers won't by default take your life and well-being into account, but good ones will respect you if you are clear about your boundaries. If you have an employer that doesn't respect that, they don't respect *you*, and perhaps that isn't the best place to work.

Is AI getting pretty good at repetitive tasks? Yes. However, those tasks are not what most people call intelligence. Of all the time I've been around, the best (IMO) description I've heard of "intelligence" is "problem-solving ability." At this, I've not seen AI become particularly good. It can be quite good at collecting/collating/analyzing/presenting analysis of large data sets, but deciding what to do with that information, I've not encountered it being good at.

I'd be very interested in how you got sequoia running on non-Apple hardware. (this is honest curiosity, not snark in any way)

You can always use =/= (i.e. "KDE =/= Linux")

We should all know by this point that "lifetime" in the sense of a service and/or support means the lifetime of the company, not the lifetime of the consumer/licensee/user. At the very least in the practical sense. Even if it meant in the legal sense, what difference does that make when there's no one left to sue, or a company with no assets? You might win the case, but be completely unable to collect any judgment.

I can only speak for myself, but my issue with this is that the company (Google in this case) feels free to change the rules when they feel like it. Not necessarily based on actual job performance. If a company decided to do that to me, based on a non-performance-related evaluation, I'd seriously be looking to leave. I am not even commenting on remote work here. Is the employee living up to their end of the bargain, job-wise? Are they diligent about performing their job duties in a high-quality way, in what was a previously approved manner? If the answer is yes, then the company is in the wrong IMO to change the terms.