Most companies have no idea who is an "under-performer".
Standard procedure is that you are "laid off". Being given a plan of improvement or being paid to exit as an option, is HIGHLY irregular.

> Defending not calling idiots the idiots they are is defending idiocy.

Not acting or admonishing unwarranted action, is not defending some imagined opposing ideal.

This is why you get modded down. Your ill-considered zealotry is indistinguishable from unbounded provocative drivel.

You are a classic troll, even when you refuse to recognize your own behavior. These tiny miseries are your own doing.

Sometimes it's a fierce burn. UK's Misfits had a 2 season planned arc, which was amazing for the time. After that a bunch of the talent quite out and it fell apart. It lasted 3 more seasons until it mercifully ended. Hey, didn't Iwan Rheon appear in another show like that?

I've worked at JPMC as a business associate, then as a software developer.
I asked other developers why they continued to work there when they could jump to most other companies to:

* Make more money
* Have a more flexible schedule or working arrangement
* Get better health benefits
* Get the same (or better) retirement benefits
* Still go back to JPMC if they were in dire need of a job

Many people did leave, over time. Most were complacent, liked the prestige and didn't believe it would be a simple transition.

I got a year padded on my resume then immediately jumped to make 25% more + wfh, at a job I still have well over 5 years later. I've interviewed since then to strong arm raises to another 25% on top.

I can't understand this blind fear to making your life better. I think software developers prefer low risk engagements, once they get comfortable. This may be most people with a comfortable job.

Nobody said to throw away the law. You are both deliciously ignorant and delusional. Gl with that.

> they need the evil-scientists-in-league-with-big-government to feel good and cope with the problems CoViD-19 caused.

I don't care. The situation is a lot like a basic murder mystery. The simplest answer is the likeliest multiplied by the interests of those involved.
Proving there is no definitive answer is fine and good. This doesn't change my view of the world.

> there's a special place in hell for people who work in that space.

I've been working in that space since 2005. Yeah, I dipped my toe into Medical, Gaming, Production (commercials), Finance for awhile over the decades. It's common knowledge that every industry is greedy. Advertising gets cut last. I deal with the world as it is.

Digital Advertising is the safest, simplest (despite large organizations trying to make it more complicated), reliable way to get a paycheck as far as I can tell.

> it's going to normalize corporate surveillance for the purpose of advertising as an acceptable business model - which it really, REALLY isn't

Many advertising businesses have started with this in mind. Good luck with yours.

The amount of plastic (packaging, et al) has gotten out of control. I'm sick of needing tools to get to things I purchase. If you visit Europe, you can see how it doesn't need to be this way.

> You're either screwing over taxpayers by making them pay back the loans

The original lenders sold the loans, which largely ended up in Navient. Why? Because the loans were tied to high risk borrowers and the loans were a liabilty related to schools committing fraud. Navient likes low income/high risk loans. Part of the Navient business model is to rely on individuals who dont know any better or cant afford counsel. Navient will be happy to allow a borrowerto to pay anything (you can haggle down to 5$ a month) in perpetuity.

I know this is a little complicated for you to understand, but nullifying improper loans doesnt cost taxpayers (Navient) anything. Buyers take a risk when purchasong bulk loans. Are you too young to remember 2007? Risk is priced in and if you want to be irresponsible, thats a voluntary risk. Any borrower can bankrupt out of these kinds of loan at anytime, so the ability to discharge, has always been available...again, Navient preys on low income borrowers who are unlikely to retain a bankruptcy lawyer. They get really aggresive with the family if the borrower dies.

I dont think you have the slightest idea of what is going on, or why. It is frightening to imagine you voting. Assuming that lenders involved in fraud should be entitled to poisoned gains, is immoral in the most childish of ways. ie Finders keepers losers weepers, is not a stable economic model.

Also, I'm jealous.

> as long as you can resist the high pressure tactics on the add-on stuff

I have in-store shopped at BBY multiple times. I don't experience this, in the slightest.

> Jon Stewart is corny and his politics has not kept up with the evolving
political climate.

That's a matter of opinion, not fact. I mean, other than daily talk radio,
how does he not keep up?

> This is a meaningless, self-serving stance from a lazy pundit.

This was a highly regarded rumor, before his statements. I'm not sure how
this is self-serving.

> Jon Stewart has worked for the same small group of network executives at
Viacom/Comedy Central/Waner for decades

What are you implying? He is an adult with his own vested interests.
Working for people, whose views you agree with, isn't landmark.

You've gone to a lot of trouble to try to put him in a bad light. It isn't
compelling.

Anything speech that you think causes harm can be put on a shirt and sold. It is not the speech that is causing harm. There are a few prior restraint laws that are immoral, but thats the world. Either way, it isnt conmplicated enough to need clearing

The harm that might occur, has nothing to do with the speech per se, but the actions of someone with the content. There's no dissonance, except what you want there to be. Good luck with that.

> Yes, because they are forms of speech that can harm a person.

Still no. It's not the speech that's persecuted. Like most US laws, it's about the liability. If there is no harm, there is usually no crime to prosecute. Even if there is harm, it's more often civil rather than criminal, eg Doxxing (which is a massive problem if you aren't rich). Just because you have to speak to perform certain crimes, doesn't make the speech itself harmful.