If they need a PIP to come to Jesus, then they are typically too far gone (if they were ever there in the first place). If someone is so dense that direct feedback, a bad performance review, and ongoing coaching doesn't do it, they probably aren't someone you want on your team anyways.

If the PIP has easily obtainable goals, then you are just setting yourself up for another one soon. Because most employees know that PIPs are usually pre-firing paperwork, they are going to start looking for another job even if they do manage to emerge from it. What's the point of all that hassle if they are leaving either way?

Putting someone on a PIP with the purpose of improving someone's performance is misusing a PIP. The reasons PIPs were created in the first place was to document poor performance so the employer can protect themselves from claims when they fire someone. Any employee who hasn't been living under a rock understands this. Being put on a PIP is a firing with a defined lead time. So you shouldn't have been surprised when it blew up. Instigating an HR investigation was a way of fighting back and preserving potential claims against the employer. Sure, maybe a select few employees manage to emerge from a PIP. That may be by design so they can make the argument in a court proceeding that the PIP program isn't a sham.

If you actually want to improve performance of someone on your team, you work with someone informally. No need to get HR involved unless you've already given up.

The motor vehicle theft rate in Texas is actually above the national average at around 400/100,000 inhabitants vs around 300 nationally. It turns out mindless tough talk does not actually deter crime like people think it does.

Don't believe media sensationalism. Car theft peaked in 1991 at a rate of 659/100,000 residents. While there was a 2022 spike, we are at less than half that now:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcounciloncj.org%2Fwp-con...

A lot of the increase came from the revelation that many Hyundais and Kias shipped without any security in the ignition. There was supposed to be a chip to perform an electronic "handshake", but none was to be found. A USB key would work to start the car.

All vehicles can be rendered helpless by flooding or a big snowstorm. Theoretically, a robotaxi with radar could be safer than a human driver in very heavy rain because it could retain good vision when a human is almost blind. Fully camera based systems like Tesla would have problems.

In practice, a lot of "poor performance" is actually people who have a conflict with their boss for whatever reason. The boss wants them gone and then goes to HR asking to fire them. HR says they need to be put on a PIP first.

Even with at-will employment, anybody can claim they were fired for an illegal reason (racial, gender, pregnancy, or age discrimination, whistleblower retaliation). Even if the claim has no merit, it costs money to defend a lawsuit (but a plaintiff attorney may take the case on contingency so it may cost nothing for the fired employee). If the employer has nothing to document the reason for termination it makes it much harder to defend against a discrimination claim.

Some people still don't get that the purpose of a PIP isn't to improve performance. The purpose of a PIP is to document poor performance so they can reduce their liability exposure when they fire you. If you get put on a PIP, you immediately start your job search because the chances of getting off the PIP are extremely low. This just removes the pretense.

I'm a lawyer.

The first-year curriculum is indeed foundational, but first year courses aren't necessarily more "basic" than second and third year courses. In fact, because it has been two years between your first-year classes and the bar exam, you are more likely to have a poor memory of those early classes. A lot of the bar exam relies on memorization, and a rule from your first-year class does noes not necessarily carry over into later classes.

For example, the rule against perpetuities is an infamous concept taught in first year property class but not generally covered in upper-level classes. It's an old common law (derived from centuries of old English cases) set of rules that seek to prevent someone from controlling the use of their property indefinitely from beyond the grave. For example, if you put in your will "I donate my house to the local animal shelter and it must be used as a home for pets forever", that would be invalid- you can't mandate what your heirs (and their heirs) do with the house forever. While the policy makes sense, the rules in practice can be fiendishly complex and the vocabulary of trusts and estates is full of obscure terminology and Latin phrases that belie the old roots of this area of law. If you do not practice trusts and estates law, it is highly unlikely you will ever deal with the rule against perpetuities in your legal career. However, because of its complexity, the rule against perpetuities is a favorite of bar examiners.

On the other hand, criminal law (typically a 2nd or 3rd year class) is actually relatively straightforward from a conceptual standpoint. It's mostly a list of crimes and the elements that make them, plus a few foundational concepts. Because you probably took it more recently, it's more fresh in your head and as such criminal law questions tend not to be feared by bar takers to the same degree as property questions.

Every single component of the college admissions process could be considered problematic in isolation:

Exams: tougher on people without access to expensive test prep services, some people may suffer from test anxiety or other disabilities that impact their ability to perform in the standardized exam format.

Grades: schools vary wildly by rigor, grading practices, and comparative student bodies. An "A" may mean something wildly different at one school compared to another.

Essays: Can just be written by Chat GPT or your highly-paid consultant

Extra-curriculars: can be gamed and curated

But the fact of the matter is that most college admissions is not particularly competitive. Even many flagship state universities admit the majority of applicants, and some offer automatic admission to students above a relatively low bar. The state universities that do require essays likely only reference them in rare cases. It's only very small (often special interest) schools or the super elite (that are trying to parse many students who look perfect on paper) where they come into serious play. I can understand why Julliard would want an essay from someone looking to become a playwrite. I can also understand why Stanford might want a tiebreaker comparing two students with 1600SAT who were valedictorians. There's no sense in taking that away.

I also think the "overcoming hardship" thing probably gets as many eyerolls from admissions committees as genuine advantages. Unless you have a truly unusual hardship (i.e. raised in foster care, spent your childhood homeless, etc.), most committees are smart enough not to break out the world's tiniest violin for you and admit out of pity. For the rest of students, they mostly want to see if you can string a few paragraphs together (although Chat GPT makes it difficult to effectively test in a cold application), and they want to see if your goals make any sense with the school. Your essay on how much you admire the philosophy of Nietzsche probably doesn't make you a fit at Liberty U.

I think you are too old to remember accurately. The first movie was released in 1977. The second was 1980. No Star Wars movie was released in 1981.

Curious whether anybody tried to buy a few thousand bottles and try to take possession. Also curious on the math of how many square feet of land they own and how many bottles they have sold. Would there come a point where they have "sold" all of their land based on an ordinary forecast of production?

Yes, but "sin taxes" are collected as consumption taxes and don't impose the same complexity as doing incentives in the income tax.

Electricity is fungible. If you add to the supply, you drive down prices everywhere. It doesn't matter what one specific producer is allowed to charge.

I think there's at least a 1/4 of the electorate who would cheer our "very own Auschwitz." They certainly don't seem to be upset about people being sent to camps abroad without due process. Nor do they seem upset about the prospect of doing it to American citizens as long as they are people the Trump administration says are bad people.

While it's not like there was accurate public opinion polling in WWII Germany, it's pretty clear that Hitler still had fairly broad public support right up until the end. And most of the people participating in the Holocaust were unrepentant or in denial for decades after the end of the propaganda.

People keep pretending like it was the Democrats focusing on culture war issues, but it has very much been the GOP doing so. The Harris campaign was mostly about kitchen table issues and preservation of Democracy. Trans rights were not even close to a centerpiece of the campaign. It's frankly amazing that the pundit class has gone along with this hook line and sinker.

Fundamentally, the line of attack is a straw man. If the GOP does or says something hateful against a social minority and the Democrats meekly protest, then they insist that the Democrats have taken some extreme position intended to privilege that minority. If the Democrats say "we shouldn't discriminate against sexual minorities because of who they are" that gets transmuted into "Democrats want to put litter boxes in schools for furries" or "Democrats want to turn your kids trans." And the rubes eat it up because it feels good to hate on people who are different from you.

Stepping back, the obsession with trans people is insane. No matter what you think of trans people, the number of people with such severe cases of gender dysphoria that they are willing to experience extreme social ostracism to treat it is miniscule. People were getting worked up about a few dozen trans athletes in obscure sports out of tens of thousands of athletes who never competed against a trans people in their entire lives. In fact, I would wager most of the people foaming at the mouth about trans people have never had more than a passing interaction with a real trans person in their entire lives.