You can define it that way, but the problem is that the authors of the article didn’t give a definition. For example, I think they think the term means to do what’s in your job description and contract. And they think that workers should be going above and beyond that. But if they were forced to spell it out, then people would ask why companies don’t change the job description or contract, because obviously it’s ridiculous to ask people to do what you didn’t ask them to do.
“kills” … This is still occurring, let’s use the present tense.
Exactly. Workers are doing their jobs! Gasp!
Holy f***, God forbid making settings menus that actually get you to where you want to go, definitely wouldn’t want to do that, much better to AI.
You might be out of touch, but it depends on what you mean about approaching people. For example, it’s perfectly reasonable to talk to anyone at all for a wide variety of reasons, including things related to your hobbies or your jobs or simply because you’re waiting for the bus. Conversation is generally a safe thing to do with other human beings. If you are specifically avoiding conversations with people because they are women, then I think you should rethink your position.
Maybe your parents are asking you to start flirting with people, which is totally different from simply talking to them. If that’s the topic, then it makes sense to be somewhat more careful about the time and place.
It’s not just you. The title gets causation totally wrong. If people made bad assumptions about how technology would change in the future, it’s their assumptions that are the problem, not reality.
Racism, like the wind, has always been with us. Only a closet racist would claim otherwise.
There is homeless all around the world. Except maybe Antarctica.
Easy for manufacturers to deGoogle. Trivial.
If you’re asking what Apple can do, a lot.
In civil litigation, one of the big steps is discovery, where each party is trying to gather information that they want to use. That can take several months or longer, especially when the two parties disagree on what information ought to be shared.
During discovery, and at other times, each party will file motions asking for certain things, certain rules to be imposed, for example. And then the other party will file a response motion. And then maybe the judge will schedule oral arguments, or maybe they won’t, and the judge will make a ruling. Because the deadlines are usually on the orders of months, and at the very least weeks, it’s easy for the process to get drawn out.
And the judge is typically working other cases. So even if they get some documents on Monday, they might not be able to schedule a meeting until 3 weeks from now, for example. But even if they could rush, there’s typically not a huge necessity to do so. In this situation, the judge could impose massive financial sanctions on Apple for past conduct, should they choose to do so. In the end, this is all about money and because of that it can be resolved by making one party pay the other a lot of money. So delaying is a tactic but it doesn’t necessarily save you money in the end, not if you lose, because the duration of the bad behavior is longer and therefore you owe more.
I agree. And there is also a situation like this, where even if the claim is truthful, It doesn’t actually change anything. He could shift from being the CEO to being the number one advisor to the company, and given his ownership, it would still be the same in effect.
There are many more things people can do, and many are. The problem is, going 100% prepper is a failing strategy, too. So how far to go? It is a difficult situation.
Um, prepare for a lack of … anything imported. Or don’t! It’s your life.
But they don’t have to suck it up, not really. They can just stop buying entire classes of items. The question is what Americans will now live without.
What makes you think they think that? Odd…
The words have meaning. Of that. We can be certain. But I think you’re asking about people’s values, and doesn’t that always depend on the people in question?
Of course everything depends on the situation, but I see people supporting their family and community on a regular basis. It’s so obvious that many people really do want to make life better for people around them. It’s not like they do that 24/7. On the other hand, there are a lot of selfish assholes who only think about themselves out there, too. And some people will talk about community for selfish reasons, too.
It’s been like this my entire life. I don’t see things degenerating. But I don’t live where you live, I don’t know the people you know.
You mentioned the word country, but I have no idea what sort of background you have. Were you raised to be hyper patriotic? I think patriotism is generally evil because it frequently leads to nationalism and therefore racism and xenophobia. So if you’re suggesting that there is less patriotism in the world, then I think it’s a good thing.
Of course the NRA has been quiet. They always do this, because they’re not about to people. Do you remember when California passed stricter gun laws? Because black people were buying guns? That happened like 50 years ago. The NRA was silent then and they are silent now.
Of course it’s always good to point out the hypocrisy. But let’s also remember the historical context, that this is consistent with the organization’s values and it always has been and it always will be.
No, you often cannot replace the rights of marriage with other paperwork. But even if you could, does not that already answer your question? I think so…
If you want that legal framework and marriage provides it in a simple package, then maybe that’s the way to go.
Um, subreddits remain because they still have subscribers. That’s all.
What a terrible headline. All of us? No. Next.