Manuel_D
> “Run-Rate Revenue” is an operating metric that refers to the estimated annualized value of our revenue-generating activity as of a measurement date, calculated as the sum of (i) our consumption-based fees during the trailing 28-day period ended on the measurement date, multiplied by 13, and (ii) our aggregate monthly subscription fees as of the measurement date, multiplied by 12. For purposes of calculating Run-Rate Revenue, consumption-based fees and subscription-based fees are derived from customer usage and active subscriptions.
Unlike the phone GPS location data, ALPRs are cameras set up in public locations recording what anyone with their own two eyes and a notepad could observe.
A database can be used to stalk someone, but that doesn't make it a 4th Amendment violation. Remember, a cop can just tail you and follow you without a warrant too.
And at the end of the day people still buy baofengs and operate them at 5 watts on FRS and GMRS channels unlicensed all the time, I'm not set of any enforcement.
Regardless, the Quansheng UV-K5 is largely supplanting the Baofeng as the go-to entry level HT, the 3rd party firmware for that radio is pretty impressive.
Furthermore, disparate impact theory has been largely rolled back in recent years.
> They spend a lot of time and effort actively recruiting and seeking out employees from underrepresented minority groups, meaning that it is effectively easier for minority groups to get interviews at this company for this position, but still tries to hire based on actual ability and talent once they get to the interview stage
Discriminating against candidates on the basis of protected class at the application review stage is no less illegal than discriminating during interviews.
#2 may or many not be illegal, depending what you mean by, "goes out of their way to interview a greater proportion of historically disadvantaged minority groups than necessarily would naturally apply to their positions." If this involves using protected class as a factor, in any way, on which candidates to advance to interviews, then yes it is illegal discrimination.
But plenty of companies very publicly instituted policies to financially penalize their employees if they fail to meet gender quotas. Remember, a policy of giving a bonus when an "inclusion milestone" of X% women in technical roles is reached is fundamentally the same thing as instituting a penalty when that X% quota is missed.
* Creating separate interview pipelines for "diverse" candidates, with multiple chances to re-try failed interviews (Asian and white male applicants get one chance).
* Financial penalties when quotas on the basis of race and gender were not met. Of course, the company portrayed them as bonuses rewarded for reaching inclusion milestones, but ultimately a bonus and a penalty are indistinguishable.
* Designating separate headcount pools for women and URM hires.
What was even more concerning was that the people who were privately the biggest proponents of these practices would, like you, publicly condemn the idea that DEI involves discrimination as racist and misogynist.
I don't see a government losing face, I see a bunch of online commenters demonstrating they don't understand that city council meetings have rules.
> Cambridge Analytica then arranged an informed consent process for research in which several hundred thousand Facebook users would agree to complete a survey for payment that was only for academic use.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
I guess the approach here is to shrink down the VR glasses and make them look more like normal glasses from a distance. But I still don't think I'd wear one of these walking around the mall or airport. Reduction in FOV is also a big negative. I'm not really sure where one would use this device over a Quest or the Ray Ban Display. It occupies this awkward middle point where it's not a transparent glass display, but it's also makes a lot of compromises compared to the rest of the VR line.
But that's an injustice! Hyde should get to flout the rules. Because her position is a "correct" one. Because it's wrong for the government to evenly enforce the rules on public comment periods, and instead they ought to selectively enforce the rules to your liking.
There's nothing more to be said here. You're just repeating the same talking points you've said in this comment chain.
Similarly, there seems to be no scheduled public comments period with abortion as the topic.
Of course, neither of these grants anti-flock or anti-abortion activists the right to make off-topic comments on unrelated meetings. Like I said, apparently it's an injustice when the government evenly applies its rules.
What I'm ignoring is that apparently we're supposed to see it as an injustice when the government evenly enforces its rules, instead of selectively enforcing them to permit off-topic comments when those comments express the "correct" views.
Disregard for procedure and rules sounds fine when it's people you agree with that engage in this behavior. But when you're the one who doesn't get a chance to speak because of people ranting about abortion in the meeting that's supposed to be your opportunity to make your voice heard to the city council I bet your views on procedure will flip 180 degrees!
What do you mean "it assumes that the 'activists' a. had their own public comments section"? In this scenario, neither the anti-flock nor anti-abortion activists appear to have had a public comments section on their respective topics. You're the one assuming that anti-abortion activists did have their own public comments section, which I cannot find any evidence for.
Whether or not they "monopolize" the meeting is just a question of degrees - just assume that the anti-abortion activists dominate the meeting to the same degree as the Flock critics in this scenario.