No, he did not take horse dewormer paste like some person have when they had no prescription. He received prescription and took human formulation. This "horse dewormer" description is only some effort at a smear campaign.
No this probably is astroturfing a fear of what is being done with cash, try to make it seem like having cash is not normal and only for crime, then government can ban it to gain more complete control on monetary system and all transaction.
I dont think either of those is any great option but government has really damaged our banking system. Having no ability to withdraw own money or having the IRS snoop if you have more than $x in an account is so really wrong and makes me want to look elsewhere, just there dont seem to be many good alternatives.
I can not tell, is it better because he employ them or worse sense he probably pay them below market and so is "exploiting"? Sometimes it is hard to find how Californian thinks.
He might not be paying them below market- the way this often works is that the people you employ from the old country are cousins, neighbors of your parents, etc. Not people you would feel comfortable being awful to.
Agree, I am confused why the surprise that somebody bad-mouth an employer publicly and get fired for it. Ask, if you were in a business, you have a problem employee who will not stop talking to press to make a public damage against your reputation. How can you handle this when this employee will not stop? Said person is now working against your company interests and not for.
This is a big cultural disconnect. What you interpret as "bad mouthing" is actually an indication of corporate health, a mechanism for self-correcting behaviour, and pruning bad management practices that cause behaviour to deviate from objectives. However, your views are not uncommon, people like to hide their misbehavior, and it's always a challenge to root those people out.
Agreed. And Apple had a reputation for organizational health. Something went wrong. Perhaps, they scaled quickly and the leadership brought in at that time did not grasp the science behind Apple’s organizational health. Since when did Apple become the Navy? Just leave? Some of us dreamed as children to work for this company. In that dream I didn’t envision being sexually harassed and hr shielding the harasser or being paid 20% or more less than my male peers. This isn’t just an Apple issue, but they do set the example for many other companies in tech and out. As an admirer of the innovation of Apple, subpar organizational health promotes stagnation.
Its not criticism that is any problem. Its going to press to try to force some change when you are not getting entirely your way. This is a bad thing. Correct answer if this person was seriously in the interest of Apple would be write letters to shareholders/board if management has ignore the concern.
No it's not lmao. It's that the institution is the one who fills out your fucking paychecks. If I pay you to clean the kitchen, but you want to clean the bathroom, and I tell you to clean the kitchen and not clean the bathroom or you're fired, and you decide to clean the bathroom, what exactly do you think should happen?
They're not working against the company's interests. They may be working against the interests of individuals in management. For public companies like Apple - and arguably for any company larger than a sole proprietorship - those aren't the same thing.
(It is still true, of course, that management has the power to fire you and therefore picking fights with management is generally not good for your career. But that's a cold practical observation, not a statement about merit. There's a significant difference between losing a political fight and working against the company's interests.)
It’s hard for us to determine what’s in the company’s best interest. It seems to me that the ex-employee was being counterproductive, but what do I know.
The organization is the best equipped to understand the best interests over a single employee.
The challenge is that many fired employees will think they are right and the company was wrong. If there’s lawbreaking then maybe a judge will decide.
It’s like asking prisoners if they are guilty. They all say not guilty. And some are right and the institution was wrong. But typically the institution is right.
With private companies that’s the trade off. Management will decide and fire.
Along with a file sharing app where she could have moved basically any data (google drive) yes? Not a good look for her. This was work device, I am surprised people still have not learned that no personal thing can ever touch work device.
What do you believe to be a "legitimate" use for this data then once it his holding by such a company with register and bond? Most times somebody need to authorize data for HIPPA people just sign and say it is fine, why wouldn't this happen here? People become used to some site saying "this site needs access to your data"? How is there any difference except one more layer of indirection? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your statements.
I dont know if this truly is a core problem, boys have a father for role model and many other places in their community they can get one too: church, boy scouts, friends fathers, others. For a long time teacher was only a job for young unwed women, but we did not have this problem with boys, so I am thinking it's not a sole cause.
That's interesting, I always kind of assumed it was for bored housewives, because in my direct experience most of my women teachers were married to doctors & lawyers, and it seemed like they were able to pursue a career in teaching because it didn't matter that the job paid next to nothing because they had a husband with significantly more income.
> boys have a father for role model and many other places in their community they can get one too: church, boy scouts, friends fathers, others
Wow, so this is exactly what people are talking about when they say check your privilege. Do you expect children to seek out a father figure in their community and have the presences of mind to consider their options and pick a good one? I grew up in a pretty privileged community and know multiple guys who had no significant father figure, or (probably worse)a very unhealthy one. As Ive gotten older I’ve come to appreciate how unless your parents are both complete rockstar geniuses, it really helps to have a variety of both father and mother figures in your life to give you better context for how to mature and succeed in life.
> but we did not have this problem.
Yeah, I guess when the patriarchal aristocracy was virtually the only group getting advanced degrees we didn't have this problem. lol. Nevermind that society was extremely geared toward getting and staying married and was very judgemental about women who chose not to have kids and out of wedlock children in times gone by. There’s a reason we celebrate people like Marie Curie and Grace Hopper, they stood against social expectations and showed the male-dominated world what women were capable of.
A little less melodramatic, please. They aren't telling children themselves to find it, only that there are more options beyond school.
>it really helps to have a variety of both father and mother figures in your life to give you better context for how to mature and succeed in life.
Isn't that exactly what the GP is saying, and relates to the question they are asking? We have more options than just school for male role models, so why would a lack of male role models in just school be the problem?
>I grew up in a pretty privileged community and know multiple guys who had no significant father figure, or (probably worse)a very unhealthy one.
And here is the real crux of it all. The argument that it doesn't matter where the role model is coming from, as long as the children have one. Yet one can argue in recent years, the family unit has been breaking down. Not just in the form of broken homes and divorces causing fathers to lose touch with their kids, but also expecting society and education to raise kids despite the severe lack in father figures (read: boy-positive male teachers).
>Showed the male-dominated world what women were capable of.
As an aside, where men were dominating the top, they were also dominating the bottom. And they still are dominating both the top and the bottom. The whole "patriarchy" thing isn't as rose-colored for men as people like to believe it is, and such statements contribute to the current narrative which leaves the boys described in the article on the wayside.
So much condescension in your response, no I am not expecting a child to find role model, only that there is more place than public school where child finds the role model. This is exactly why I had a list of others, church, boy scouts, etc. I knew some growing up who had no good father figure, these were places they find them. I think we must limit degree to which government employee acts as role model for child.
I do not think child participates in "patriarchal aristocracy", I only say that me and many other people I know have found other role model than biological father even without having male teacher. I do not know why there is pertinence on children out of wedlock, we mostly still see it as bad but I think you have already some anger on this subject and it has no relation here. Are you making statements that government school must provide male role model so women can have children without marriage and those children have role model? In loco parentis is not the intended normal course for all children to such an extent.
>This is exactly why I had a list of others, church, boy scouts, etc.
And this is exactly why I said you are acting privileged, most of my friends have no religion and I dont even know anyone who was in the scouts. Going to a friend's house wasnt easy, male teachers absolutely helped, in a big way. I'm glad that worked for those guys, but that's hardly universal. Not everyone has a community to support them.
>I think we must limit degree to which government employee acts as role model for child.
Care to elaborate as to why you think that? I have the diametrically opposite opinion. Looking at this data, society is currently failing boys, I think that providing more role models is a step in the right direction. If the government doesnt do it for those less fortunate boys, who will?
>I do not know why there is pertinence on children out of wedlock, we mostly still see it as bad but I think you have already some anger on this subject and it has no relation here.
What? I have anger on this subject? nah. Please don't make assumptions about how others feel, its pretty rude and destructive.
We're talking about societal trends of boys having less father figures, that absolutely has relavence here. I also find your presumption of seeing single mothers as bad as pretty... archaic. Live and let live.
> I do not think child participates in "patriarchal aristocracy
I'm sorry, I guess I was clear enough, my point was directed at:
>>>For a long time teacher was only a job for young unwed women, but we did not have this problem with boys
When being a teacher was only a job for young unmarried women and we weren't having this problem with boys, elite academics absolutely was the realm of the patriarchal aristocracy. To be very clear, I'm positing that we didnt have this problem because academics used to be sexist and classist. Times change, society changes and government needs to adapt.
I think the government with their gerrymandering redistricting are the one committing the most obvious of election frauds. However, the reporting on gerrymandering depnds on the source of information on if it exists or not. Just a quick look at a map of the Texas districts should be evidence enough.
Gerrymandering is obviously reprehensible and should be abolished (as should the system by which politicians get a say in drawing districts). That being said, it is a stretch to say politicians are committing "election fraud" because of gerrymandering. The process by which districts are drawn is sadly legal.
The supreme court cast of Davis v. Bandemer, while establishing that partisan gerrymandering violates the Equal Protection Clause and is a justiciable matter, it failed to agree on a clear standard for the judicial review of the class of claims of a political nature to which such cases belong. Thus, that supreme court case effectively has no teeth and the partisan system by which we draw districts currently is sadly illegal.
Thus, it is incorrect to say politicians are committing election fraud through gerrymandering.
miller v johnson would be a case you should look up, from 1995, which made gerrymandering illegal. so it is absolutely correct to state they are committing election fraud, if they are using a federally illegal action to get elected.
cases of suspected gerrymandering are taken to court, often lost by the election fraudsters, and districts are then more fairly withdrawn. this does not stop the gop, and to a smaller extent the libs, from continually doing it. the only penalty for doing it, is they lose the election they would have lost without the fraud. there is no downside to trying.
the process by which districts are drawn is absolutely not legal if gerrymandering is used.
here's the issue with places like texas: no one is suing to redraw the lines, because the population is of low iq, of high anger, and easily manipulated to actually support this illegal action.
>failed to agree on a clear standard for the judicial review
which has nothing to do with making something legal or not. gerrymandering is illegal. the standard for judicial review is left open, and up to the judge in each case
>the partisan system by which we draw districts currently is sadly illegal.
>it is a stretch to say politicians are committing "election fraud" because of gerrymandering
it's a stretch to say people getting elected using an illegal process are committing election fraud. gotcha. you're very good at stretching. mental gymnast?
