So your argument is that the department specifically hired non-qualified women to work in your department, because they were women. And that there were qualified men who were turned down for the position specifically because they were men.

I call BS. Do you have any evidence for this claim beyond misogyny? A bad hire is a bad hire, and frankly in the past couple of years it has been hard to find any qualified people to fill positions. Gender has nothing to do with it.

And secondly, there should be a system in place in your work area that routes needs to people who are not on vacation. And if they are not capable, then they should have a system for getting them the training they need so they are capable. All of this could be easily handled by a competent manager, which is even harder to find than qualified workers.

Need citation. Personally, I wouldn't consider a Macbook Air for the kids - it's a lot of money to be out when they drop it off the back of their bike on the way to a friend's. But the Neo, much more appealing at that price point, and perhaps more durable, and they don't need Air-level power for the stuff they're doing anyway. And for many people, it's probably between the Neo and an entry-level PC or Chromebook, at a similar price-point, rather than comparison to the Air.

Have you ever received a legitimate job offer, or even a nibble, from an employer that you might actually consider working for, that came through LinkedIn?

Me neither.

You'd be much better served by posting your resume or having it on file with a few employers you would consider and who are legitimate.

Why would 'gender politics' mean you have to answer your phone and address urgent work problems while on a 2-day vacation?

No, I wouldn't argue for either of those points. But I would argue that you work for a terribly-managed, poorly-led company that I want to know the name of so I can pull my investments out. And I would argue you aren't a very good team lead or manager if you can't be away for a few days without an emergency arising that requires your Immediate Attention to Fix.

Sorry. If you worked for a good company and were a good leader, you could step away and take leave and not have to worry about things going well while you were away.

Sure, and to say boomers don't care about climate is a generalization, there are those who care more and those who care less...but even those leaders who cared more, such as Biden and Obama, they are often held back from much of their environmental efforts by the boomer-controlled Congress.

Trump has complete control of Congress and the Supreme Court, and his agenda is clearly anti-climate, and there's been little effort by Congress to slow him down or hold him accountable for anything.

Blaming dead people is completely unproductive. But boomers have all the power right now in the U.S. - they control Congress, the President's Office, and they control a huge, disproportionate amount of the nation's housing, stocks, and overall wealth. Companies are falling over themselves to appeal to boomers because that's where all the disposable income is. Pharmaceutical companies are investing in erectile medicines, cancer treatments, and other syndromes of old age, rather than vaccines and preventive medicines that help younger people, because boomers (and Medicare) will pay for it. And those companies exist to make a profit.

If boomers cared deeply about climate change, they have the power and the money to make it happen. We'd all be driving electric vehicles and we'd have cheap solar panels on our homes and drinking out of truly renewable and recyclable materials (not plastic).

Instead, they've chosen to accumulate wealth, prop up their home prices, engage in leisure and travel, and enjoy the good life. Looks like fun. But they won't be here to suffer the consequences of these choices. My kids will.

So what you're saying is I need to be careful how much salt I put on my morning bowl of crunchy, frosted microplastics?

Why does everything have to be a "bombshell" or "breaking now!" or "this just in" or "shocking new report!"

I guess because we now live in an attention economy and a headline of "some scientists criticize work of other scientists" isn't really catchy enough. Much more honest, but doesn't drive clicks, I guess.

Sigh.

Well, he is a boomer.

We've known for decades about climate change and what causes it, and yet they continued to pump more and more oil and dig up coal, all for that sweet sweet profit.

The biggest problem with screen-based classrooms is that the devices themselves are not designed for that purpose. There's too many games, chats, reminders, notices, updates, etc. etc. etc. that make it a fun and engaging device as a toy but terrible for maintaining concentration and focus on specific content. It is also more difficult for the teacher to be able to quickly look across a group of 30 and see who is doing the assigned task when the screens are all pointed away from the teacher (toward the student).

There are some features that are missing in physical books, such as the ability to long-tap on a word and get a definition, but those sorts of benefits do not outweigh the downsides.

Most modern appliances seem to be junk. Samsung seems to have a decent reputation in online reviews, but most repair people we talk to do not recommend Samsung products, with similar sentiment from online repair people (https://prudentreviews.com/reliable-refrigerator-brands/), and we can't even find a local Samsung repair shop (even though their products are sold by all the big box stores). Samsung also lies in their advertising (such as calling things made out of aluminum "cast iron." What, do you think I'm too dumb to hold up a magnet to it to check your claim that it's "cast iron"?). Would not purchase anything by Samsung ever again.

That reminds me..."Hey Siri, add bananas to the grocery list."

Seems like they are missing the most important step, which is verifying that those in the photo have consented! Sort of like keeping the car at the rental agency when I have a reservation...kind of the most important step.

I don't know what they would do if a parent signed the waiver but the child disagreed with the parent, or if the person taking the photo asked for permission on the spot and the child consented (even though they had a no photos status).

It depends on the state and it depends on the activity. For example, in my state children (of any age) can be put to work in a business owned by their parents but they cannot legally work in any other business, even with parental permission, until 14 (16 for some specific areas of work).

The question is whether parents an exploit their children for the parents' benefit. If you've ever watched behind the scenes videos of children / family / momma blogs or content creators, it is clear that the children are often bullied, forced, compelled, tricked, etc. to perform for the camera so the parent can make $$. Beyond abusive in many cases.