I'd say the story shows more character than anything.
Meaning "This politician sometimes knows how to realize when they're obsessed with something and will take steps to make sure they back off of it".
I like when politicians have functioning frontal lobes and can self-moderate. Usually it makes them far less extremist, or likely to be extreme in their viewpoints.
Wow.
Even more shocking was the absolutely toxic reaction you got from sycophants.
I love seeing your blogposts about cybersecurity; and I absolutely do appreciate that your blog isn't just about cybersecurity.
The worker is expected to refuse to work with companies insisting on the tipped+subpar pay schema. They chose to enter into the agreement anyways.
In general I don't usually tip because of this. It's not my place to pay them a living wage; it's the employer's job. If more Americans would take this stance and make it impossible for employers to hire at sub-minimum wages; this culture would go away.
I have to receive more than above-and-beyond service to even consider tipping; and then it's only when I have the funds to do so. I don't appreciate tipping pressure either; and I will actively not tip when people are pressuring me to do so; or when the execution of the transaction itself needlessly provides a prompt to tip when there's really no reason to tip anyone who doesn't care or provide more than their basic job in service.
Frequently there's no reason to tip in most service contexts; as there's no additional work being done; or assistance being asked of the employee. In some limited contexts there's justification for tipping; but it's very limited justification, and it really comes down to a couple questions: 'Did the employee provide a service that was far more exceptional than would be reasonably expected of them to perform', and, 'Was that performance given merely because it was asked or needed to accommodate you as a customer and your immediate and obvious needs'?
In some contexts, in some jobs, those opportunities to go above and beyond do exist. In those contexts...tip if you feel it's appropriate. In many other service jobs; the employer has brutally optimized and taken complete management over the efficiency and tasks being performed and; as such; they should assume the responsibilities of ensuring that an employee gets paid sufficiently, but also gets opportunity to get paid for reliable, superb or consistent superior performance.
What the fog is China smoking?
China is delusional here; literally drawing up lists of people it wishes it could kill.
Even weirder is the fact that they cannot accept Taiwan as a Sovereign Nation and keep playing these games with themselves.
Taiwan is not China. It never will be.
No. There's no issue legally.
You might take a hit to your reputation with that company; but if they already were presenting enough red flags for you to back out of an interview; I wouldn't consider that to be a problem.
If you cancel an interview it's not a big deal. No money changed hands. No agreement was ever reached. Their emotional feelings are irrelevant; the whole point was to help both sides decide if you could work with the other.
I use an instance that does not display or parse downvotes or permit them locally.
So I don't see the phenomenon. I don't care about downvotes. I only see the upvotes; which are a far better indicator to me as to how useful a post I made is. If someone posts trash or extremist things; I block them. If they try to argue in bad faith or with far too extremist of a viewpoint, I block them.
The bot doesn't always get the most upvotes but it does have it's uses. As someone who has used the Ground News app in the past; I have a sense of their rating scale and I do find that it helps classify things; although you should always use your own discretion and not just blindly trust the bot.
But most people who downvote this bot, do so for completely wrong reasons. Usually they're upset because they disagree with the assessment of the bot, or do not understand it's scale. Maybe they don't like their viewpoint's position being laid bare for all to see.
Maybe that should be explained more; and there's posts on Ground News' website that EXPLAINS how their rating system works. Perhaps the bot should link them.
The issue with too many streaming services is largely the same as not enough streaming services
An average person will have a wide variety of favorite shows. Let's say there's 25 of them. For this example; Access to each of these 25 shows are non-negotiable to you and you feel you MUST have access to them.
If Service A and Service B are the only options; they both get to set the price. So to get access to a "complete" collection of content that you want you're paying both of them $50 each. It's most likely that half will be available only on A and the other half on B.
Now imagine that there are 10 different services. Each service is owned by one of the big ten networks that makes your 25 favorite shows. We will call them by their number from 1 to 10. Now each of your 25 shows have 10 places they could be.
On average; each network is likely to have 2.5 shows you like. Maybe a few have made some sweet deals with others; but no one place will have even 7.5 of your favorite shows...because these deals are costly and nobody wants to make less money per view.
Now each service; because they're struggling to compete with each other will settle on a price of $10 each. But you still end up being forced to subscribe to all ten of them because no single provider has everything you want and no combination of less than all of them can provide complete access to all that you want to watch.
Even worse; any one of these ten can raise their price arbitrarily because they're tired of competing and can't break even. This means your total spend could be up to $500 eventually as they each creep towards demanding more money like a cable provider.
No shade on tea drinkers; but I prefer coffee. Iced. With cream and sugar. Yum.
Tea; if that's what you prefer, should be iced and sweetened to taste; unless you live above a certain latitude or are experiencing weather that is no warmer than (10 Celsius/50 Fahrenheit/283.15 Kelvin/509.67 Rankine/8 Réaumur/12.75 Rømer) in an 8 to 24 hour period
Firefox; being open source as it is; is not in danger.
She's such a narcissist that she couldn't stay out of the spotlight. lol.
Regardless; I doubt that any game she could develop would be any good; and I shudder to think of what deranged DRM scheme she will cook up to protect her own game. It'll probably be worse than Denuvo, knowing how unstable she is.
Genuinely, the scene is better without her hate filled screeds polluting the web. Her abilities might be appreciated more if she got some mental help and she could rejoin the scene as a positive force; not someone who lets their ego run rampant and spews hate at the slightest provocation.
Unfortunately the scene is too cowardly to NUKE her output into obscurity until she cleans her spew up.
The CEO is oftentimes a company policymaker; I think it would be foolish to ignore that fact.
I've been boycotting C-f-a for at least 15 years now; and I don't tell my friends or suggest that my family eat there either; except as an emergency uber last resort. The gas station (burritos/sushi/hot-dog-warmer) would be suggested first.
My current partner(s) know and respect my feelings for the company and they feel roughly the same anyways; and so we never eat there.