There is nothing authentic about this. It is all trashy clickbait. The kid died due to cancerous complications from the clot shot. Next!
Sad to think that Slashdot, once the home of geeky intelligentsia, has become as trash-filled as the rest of the internet.
We found that we can keep large parts of our economy running without millions of people having to mindlessly shuffle from their homes to an office everyday. But now that is being unwound because it is apparently imperative that we bump into each other at the water cooler.
I actually know people who hate working from home and are ready to go back to the office, but haven't yet.
How can you hate working from home ? What's not to like?
Who are these people? I never heard of a single one of them. Bring back Shatner, as ship's chief legal council to negotiate with the aliens, he always shoots first
Considering that Pike commanded the Enterprise for 15 years before Kirk, and post-TOS introduced numerous other species (Aenar are from Andoria--introduced in 'Enterprise') it's inevitiable they would be on board. You saw Dr. M'Benga (expert in Vulcan Physiology) in two episodes of TOS, ('A Private Little War' and 'That Which Survives'). You don't think McCoy was the only doctor on a ship the size of Enterprise do you?
You seriously never heard of Nurse Chapel (Majel Barett-Rodenberry) or Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) from TOS? The other characters other than them, one must assume are 'poetic license' (other than 'Number One', who was also played by Majel Barrett-Rodenberry in the Pilot episode) taken by the writers.
I'm assuming Strange New Worlds takes place around 2250, when Pike first took command. That would make Kirk about 17--since he was born in 2233. He wasn't even in Starfleet then. In fact, he didn't enter the Academy until 2252.
If this is only applied to ex-employees, then nothing wrong whatsoever. If there are actual 'associate' positions in Apple, then this could be viewed as a demotion. Since the word 'associate' is vague, it is not inaccurate.
Except that it is wrong---because the gatekeepers (or their software) that compare your CV versus these databases will decide you're lying if it says 'Associate', when you were the 'Director of Technical Mumbo Jumbo'--which is what your CV says you did there.
You shouldn't judge an applicant based on what their former employer says about them the same way you shouldn't trust a person based on what their ex says about them. Of course, good luck explaining that when you don't even get to the interview because a "job verification service" decides that you "lied" on your CV.
Nailed it..
Sorry cupcake. You might be "Big Swinging D***" in your delusional mind, but the database only calls you "associate"! Love it.
(Slightly off-topic, I know.) The more someone is obsessed with having the right title on their business card, the more of a problematic sociopath they will turn out to be. I've learned that if it starts with a fight over a meaningless title, it will get worse from there.
Deliver results. That is what matters. Your title does not.
'Titles' absolutely do matter---to the gatekeepers. If you're applying for 'Director of Technical Mumbo Jumbo' for Spacely Sprockets, then HR (more likely their HR Software) will have screened you 14 ways to Sunday. And, if your CV/Resume says you were 'Director of Technical Mumbo Jumbo' at Apple as one of your past jobs, but they're now labeling you as 'Associate', you can bet the gatekeepers (or their software) are going to reject your CV/Resume and you won't even be considered for an interview at Spacely Sprockets.
Omicron has already been found in Belgium. It's "coming from Europe" sooner or later.
Yup..a good friend of mine who works in Public Health posted to FB:
"Nu/Omicron is not new to the world, just new to the public. It has been on the surveillance radar for a bit Travel Bans aren't likely to help. There is still a lot to learn about this variant. Don't panic, get your vaccine/booster when you can."
I call bullshit on this article. The author doesn't know what they're talking about. Ask yourselves, what are they actually comparing & with what data?
The author of this article has cobbled together findings from areas of educational research that are unrelated, given equal weight to survey data, & conflated the emergency remote teaching, that faculty engaged in during COVID surges, with carefully designed & developed online degree & post-graduate course & programmes. I read this research. It's part of my job. The findings are context specific & often mixed. There are pros & cons to both face to face & online learning & neither is a general winner; sometimes face to face is better, sometimes online. We see bigger differences depending on the quality of the course content & tutor support than the medium it's administered in.
A very important point to mention here is that universities generally don't gather data on students' learning gains, i.e. pre-, post- & delayed post-testing to see how much they've learned during a course or programme, so, even though it would be foolish to aggregate that data, it doesn't exist & so it's impossible to say which is generally better than the other in terms of academic performance.
As far as I understand, the most challenging thing about online learning is that students are required to be much more self-disciplined & organised than on face to face programmes (This would mean that elite universities with very high enrollment criteria & therefore more disciplined & skilled students are likely to fare much better in online learning than community colleges which have to take a more diverse range of abilities). However, a lot of face to face programmes these days also include online components &/or entire courses that are online, simply because sometimes it works just as well or better than face to face.
Agreed. Had there been this option when I went to college (after spending time in the US Navy), I would likely have graduated. All the coursework I did in my Electronics 'A' Schools in the Navy was done as individualized Self-Study (granted, we were in classrooms, but we weren't talking to each other and everyone worked at their own pace)--with the notable exception of Submarine School, but that's a slightly different animal. My 'C' Schools had 10 or fewer students in them and were instructor led. When I got home after my stint and went to college, it was the 200 student Psych and English courses, and 700 student Freshman Calculus classes that soured my experience and I quit after 1 year. Granted, my Navy Experience ultimately led me to a decent full-time career in IT, but everything I learned about networking and the ultimate path I settled on was nothing but pure OJT and self-study for certification exams. No classes, no degree, and I make a decent middle-class salary.
Why shouldn't people involved in healthcare be working for a profit?
Oh..that's right....cause, you know, people need it.
I guess everyone involved in providing food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation, telecommunications and everything else people need should all be working without profit too.
It's not the workers who get the profit. Employee salaries and benefits are costs. Profit is what you have left over and goes either to re-investment in the institution or to the owners for doing basically nothing. There is no good reason for a hospital to be run as a for-profit institution. Fees for service should be structured to cover costs plus a little over the top to grow an endowment and pay for future repairs and new infrastructure. Cut the capital class out of healthcare delivery.
And don't forget that many of the Hospitals are actually part of 'healthcare groups' traded on the US Stock market--we must keep those shareholders happy
: Just part amicably.
Because frankly: The bigger a country, the fewer things its people will have in common, the less happy they will be. And the more force needs to be applied so everyone obey the one-rulebook-to-rule-them-all.
Hey, maybe you could even do it gradually. Give states more and more autonomy. Give counties a choice which state they want to be part with. Even if not adjacent! And stop when you found the sweet spot.
I had a poly-sci professor in the 1980's state that he fully expected the US to "Balkanize" within the next 75-100 years, because of that very reason: there was too much political division that would never find common ground. We're about halfway to that 75-year mark and I suspect he was right. I've seen not a few political comments on this. Fully 26% of the country is politically disengaged, Another 26% is either Traditional or Passively Liberal, 19% are Conservative, while Moderates make up about 15%. The "Wings" if you will--the progressive left and devoted conservatives make up 8% and 6% respectively.
The Red/Blue division is far greater than even a decade ago. If you look at maps of how people voted, we could divide into as many as 24 different red or blue 'regions'. Federal, State, and even local governments would likely dissolve and be replaced by some form of regional government. The form this might take would be mind-boggling. There could be regions where business is unregulated, while others would be regulated down to minute levels. Or, regions where gun ownership is completely illegal (at worst) or severely limited (at best). Whole new modes of inter-regional commerce would need to be developed. The effects of such a breakup would be staggering--and frankly could be dangerous on not only at the local level, but also at a global level.
Sadly, I don't think there is any doubt this will happen, the only question is when will it happen, and what form will it take. I doubt I will live to see it come to fruition, but my children could see the beginning and my grand-children would have to survive through it, and that frightens me.
Treating companies such as web hosts as 'just companies' ignores the fact that they have effectively become societal infrastructure. When you support them in de-platforming people and groups 'because rights', you are buying into the notion that corporations are real people deserving of the same rights held by private citizens. They aren't - they are powerful entities that need to be controlled and sometimes held in check for the good of society. If people and groups must be de-platformed because they're engaged in the social media equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, then it must be governments that do it transparently and via due process - not corporations doing it on a whim. Letting corporations get away with this kind of behaviour sets a very dangerous precedent and is another step in the devolution of State powers to the private sector. Europeans understand this - that's why even Angela Merkel has condemned the de-platforming of Trump, a man whom she surely detests.
The problem here is that a line has to be drawn somewhere. If Parler were allowed to continue, then the cult of Trump (and make no mistake, it is a cult) has a powerful means by which to grow. Allowing 'free reign' is never good, but then the opposite is just as bad. Without a middle ground, you end up growing another Jim Jones or worse--another Hitler. Make no mistake, this cult is armed and as we have seen, very dangerous. Last week was a test, and once the dust blew over, if Amazon, Apple, and Google had not taken the steps they did, we would have seen a much worse outcome in a few weeks or months. There would have been dead legislators, make no mistake. This group has the building plans; shoot, they were (allegedly) given a guided tour, and there is VIDEO of people telling others where certain legislators offices are.
Revolution for the right reason is righteous, but revolution by the White Supremacist cult would spell the worst sort of disaster. I agree that the companies need to be held in some sort of check for the good of society, but just like you have to euthanize a rabid pet, what was done to Parler was a necessary evil. You just have to hold your nose.
I have a very small mind and must live with it. -- E. Dijkstra
