hyperliner
hyperliner on Hacker News
Not if it’s libel or slander, both which are generically defamation.
This sounds like “You are a manager who doesn’t see the value in training typists” or “You are a refrigerator seller who doesn’t see the value in training icemen.”
“Present in the US” also has caveats at the border. A border is defined specifically in the law, which is 100 miles.
A citizen of another country is not allowed to open carry at the border just because they showed up, for example. Similarly, there is no universal right to get a student visa.
This is incorrect.
There is specific distinction between citizens and persons.
Habeas Corpus applies to persons. But there is no right that applies to every person in the world that would give them a right to get a student visa to a US university.
Even those in “upper management” are cogs.
If you do only the minimum necessary to not get fired, then wouldn’t you be the person that needs to be fired the next time the the budget is cut, since you are the lowest ROI of all, all other things equal?
Who is using Rackspace Cloud today and why?
I am not talking of managed services, but infrastructure services.
This feels like a Japanese soldier in the jungle still shooting left over ammo after the war has been over for more than 10 years.
This isn’t what “life was like for someone born in the early 1950s.”
This is what life was like for privileged white men born in the early 1950s.
Unemployment insurance is a form of insurance in US that pays you if you lose your job due to layoffs and other conditions. It is paid by you so it is not “welfare.” It is managed by each state independently and has some rules. For example, if you lose you job today and “don’t claim” unemployment insurance for two weeks, those two weeks are not paid out to you (this is in Texas). Every week, you must show that you are “actively” looking for a job. You may lose the benefit if you are not, or if a job is available but you decide not to take it. You must report on your efforts to find a job (interviews etc), and must attend some state class about looking for work.
Most states’ unemployment insurance covers up to a maximum benefit per week, and a maximum number of weeks. When I lost my job once, I was paid $325 per week.
Given how much you liked hanging with ants, I recommend you try spiders in a garden. Look for a spider web where one is hanging, toss a small piece of debris that breaks a little of the web, and watch in awe how they repair it.
But it eventually happened, which is a good thing. Society does not always change fast enough.
I didn’t not find it off putting. I found it quirky and less boring.
Drug use is not normal, useful, productive, or a desireable human right or liberty. The problem is that the PNW decided that it was. It awhile back decided that many of these behaviors were.
As an ignorant person but one who has been trying to figure out if KGs are superseded by LLMs, is there a source you can think of to figure out if both have a place in an architecture, or if LLMs are sufficient? What sort of use cases require both?
This is an industry where cost will be an issue. It reminds me of Rackspace and others trying to win with OpenStack “because open.” AWS and Azure won. Even Google is third.
The big players will win, and there will be a niche for open tools.
But don’t they have to answer to the people who funded the nonprofit?
I am ignorant, but you seem to be knowledgeable about this topic.
Not everybody has $5k to give away to charity, but they have $5k to give to De Beers.
Well, but Person B was compensated for her time.
If you hired me to build your house for $100k, and you paid me, and then you sold the house, making a profit of $300k, would you give me $150k? Likely not.
I think a better argument is below from 4ntonius8lock, who says that employees were supposed to get (a) $100k AND (b) stock of some value. But employees were not told all the rules under which (b) could be zero.
“Due to the sensitivity of personnel issues and the privacy of all involved, the investigation was kept confidential.”
Wow, there is a predator in the group, but "privacy"?
The leadership of this organization is complicit. It's disingenuous to pretend they "just found out." There are enough signals that indicate that they let "Dave be Dave." They let this continue on for years. Terminate this organization for the good of those involved and their investors (some of whom also likely knew).
The biggest issue here is not that Dave is a creep and that
he has been let go.
The biggest issue is that the leaders of this 500 Startups organization let this go on for years without taking action.
Who are the people who let their organization's logo and name appear in this guy's slides together with the words "GET YOU LAID (=SEX)"?
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/dmc500hats/how-to-pitch-a-...
It does not matter if they are men or women. THEY ARE COMPLICIT in this mess.
Very useful.
Is the issue then that there is a discrepancy between property rights and access rights that needs the CA Supreme Court to resolve?
The Denny's (previous owners) used to CHARGE for access to the beach, presumably supporting the case that access through this path is not a right.
Source: "Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.
"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."
Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."
The Denney's (previous owners) used to charge for people using their property to go into the beach. Maybe you should read instead of calling names and getting bent out of shape?
"Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.
"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."
Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."
"Joan Gallo, a former San Jose city attorney who represents the land owner, agreed that the courts should weigh in. The Deeneys had run a private business, she said, allowing invitees of their choosing onto the property, and that hadn't changed.
"It seems to us that it's an important issue to be litigated," Gallo said. "I have a strong belief that the Constitution doesn't require you to give up property rights or conduct a business you don't want to conduct."
Mark Massara — a surfer and attorney who is working with McClosky and the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy on the case — said he believed the constitutional arguments have merit. But since that approach could drag on for years (think Geffen), his team opted for "a very narrow strike to the heart of this thing."
(You may want to click in the linked article in the main article that OP posted)
"So the coastal commission tried to broker a compromise, chief of enforcement Lisa Haage said. Officials offered to consider moving the access road, to find a nonprofit to operate the entry and to close on rainy days when the beach was muddy. But the talks went nowhere."
If it was clear cut, why is the Chief of Enforcement accommodating alternatives?
But does he have that? That is the part that is unclear. Is there an easement in this property that somehow nobody seems to point to?
If they are valid, and he shots and kills an intruder, would that be trespassing and he fearing for his life be a valid legal defense?
I had read that too. It's clear that the beaches are public. But I would not trust a government employee. It's unclear to me that the Constitution guarantees my right to cross anybody's private property to access the public beach. Why can't people go through other properties doors, climb fences, etc. to enjoy the right to use a public beach? Why is this path considered public property, when it is clearly private? I think this is the issue.