@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

Does not have a yacht

9 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

Extant hominids, anyway. I don't think it affects the arguments over the Neanderthal or whether H. Habilis and H. Erectus are the same species.

The Meisner effect occurs at the time the superconductor is cooled. So there's no perpetual motion... but also not more than a momentary thrust.

On a small scale, things like Angie's List exist.

Angie's List, as it once was, hasn't existed for years. It's now basically just an advertising service for contractors.

If you can't pay an employee 10% more then you certainly can't afford to replace them.

There are two different meanings of "can't" here, as the exiting worker likely intuits. It turns out companies can often afford to hire replacements when they "can't" give raises to existing employees. This is because when they're hiring replacements they're considering the consequences of not getting the work done versus the cost of the replacemenet, whereas when they're considering raises they're considering the consequences of paying more money versus just... not.

Medium sized to large companies just don't have the agility to do it. Mostly as @Mantergeistmann notes, it's HR departments "working to the industry best practices", but there's probably also a feeling among management types that if the techies want more they should fight for it they way they (management types) do. The way it does work is imperfect but adequate; if you want more money you jump ship more often (up to a point, usually a minimum of 2 years at a stint). The companies complain, the employees who move don't care, the employees who don't move complain and the employers don't care.

The even crazier thing here is you often don't need huge wage bumps. In my experience, even a 10-15% raise is enough to keep people and keep them happy.

That's just not done. HR doctrine has annual raises much smaller than that within a band, and larger raises only with promotion to a new band. Promotions are spaced at a minimum of 2 years. (Of course there's exceptions, but fighting for them is likely harder than switching jobs). So unless you promote them immediately on being trained, they're underpaid.

What I'm getting at is that underclass girls in blue states tend to be black and/or Hispanic.

Migrants attempting rape gangs on underclass girls in blue states would have the problem that the underclass is also Cathedral-protected.

Also, I am a bit skeptical of this whole "from clueless windows admin to in-demand cloud specialist in a few months" story. I mean, you can train a button pusher to push new buttons, but at the end of the day you will still have a button pusher.

Running a standard cloud installation is button-pushing. Building and running a nonstandard/bespoke datacenter, even if unwise, requires a lot more ability. So it's not a surprise the people doing the latter were able to learn to do the former. Now they're still high-ability, but know how to push an additional set of buttons, so they're worth more than either your run-of-the-mill button-pusher or what they were before.

It doesn't matter to the employee whether it's worth it to the employer to pay him the $105k. As long as someone else is willing to pay it, it makes sense for the employee to leave.

But the phenomenon of "I can make 1.03X by staying, and 1.20X by leaving" is so common in tech (and often applies to employees going both ways between similar jobs in two companies) that most of the time it probably is employers taking advantage of employee reluctance to switch jobs rather than employee cost exceeding value.

The median rapist in the US serves 4.2 years and US leftists think this is too long.

The table shows that "Rape/sexual assault" has a median of 4.2 years before first release, which is the second-longest (shorter than murder by a lot, longer than negligent homicide by a little). However, not all of that is rape. Some sexual assault is just rape by another name, but "sexual assault" also includes lesser offenses such as groping.

He's been posting too long to be a young man, though he hasn't yet made the transition to bitter old man.

A hedge fund buying up small (and likely struggling) engineering firms and divesting them of their IT infrastructure to cut costs is likely not really a good place for existing employees to be. Them leaving once the transition is complete is probably what the management of the corporate raider wants anyway -- then they can hire cheap juniors who know nothing but the cloud in their place.

As common as middle-aged adult men who aren't hardened criminals themselves are in UK prisons.

"Reasonable accommodations" are whatever the activists say they are, and fighting about it in court will cost a lot of time and money. It makes far more sense just to bend the knee right away, because you're going to have to anyway.

You get imprisoned and raped too, and your kid continues to be.

Most people I know would agree that the correct response to that situation is kulakrevolt-approved, I guess I could understand that not every dad actually did it, but none of them?

Governments nowadays have overwhelming force, and have had it for a while. Law-abiding people know that, and don't resist, because that can only make it worse.

The Americans with Disabilities Act says you must.

At the undergraduate level, academic merit is about learning, not developing new stuff.

Americans would have been totally satisfied with a Germanicus-style punitive campaign.

Which, in hindsight, is I think all we should have done. Wipe out Al Queda. Wipe out the Taliban who protected them. Leave. The remaining Taliban, or at least whatever faction came out on top, would likely think twice before protecting terrorists from the US again. The US has an image of itself that we don't DO that sort of thing. But what we actually did was worse for nearly all concerned.

The fact that they explicitly discriminated by race as long as they could legally do so indicates mens rea; that they sought to exclude Black Americans for being Black Americans.

No, mens rea does not work that way. That you were doing something now-illegal before it was illegal is not an element of any future offense. In any case, it does not matter; the reasoning of the decision was based on the judges' conclusion that they were not, in fact, intentionally discriminating. Griggs found that disparate impact was illegal in itself, not because it was evidence of disparate intent.

Ass or not, the court accepted it. Perhaps they felt Duke Power was not using the Wonderlic as a proxy for race, but had been using race as a proxy for what the Wonderlic measures.

Now you're telling me there's just a $10-$15 per hour market inefficiency that no one cares to exploit? No, I'm not buying that one.

Some commenters wonder if this is the way exploded car batteries burn

No. Lithium-ion cells tend to "vent with flame" -- that is, the burning electrolyte shoots out of an engineered weak spot (or a damaged spot) in the case, with flames and a lot of white smoke. More like a rocket than a bomb. There are lots of videos on YouTube, and I've accidentally lit one off myself.

Background checks are not so expensive as to require an agency to actually employ the nanny. A broker model with a one time fee for placement would make much more sense for the connection problem. But having an employee brings you under myriad regulations, and that's why people pay an agency instead.