gingerrr

16 ms·

31.
by gingerrr 3y ago
It's both. I'd also done the same with multis but kept a "casuals" multi for the defaults + populars, and it had been declining in quality for a while - but it genuinely fell off a sharp cliff with the Great Purge, even
32.
by gingerrr 3y ago
Most states have some form of regulation against constructive dismissal/termination/discharge (term of art varies), but I don't know of a list. Would be good to have!
33.
by gingerrr 3y ago
It's something usually managed at the state level, so depends where they are in the US. In California constructive termination standing is very much a thing.
34.
by gingerrr 3y ago
I do like the idea theoretically as a deterrent against bad actors abusing the law to bully weaker parties - but the difficult part is in the details of implementation: how do you separate intent to abuse from incompetence? Also confusing
35.
by gingerrr 3y ago
As the linked article notes, it's explicitly against the California State Bar Code of Conduct to condition criminal proceedings on requiring a civil outcome, so while not technically illegal it's censurable - that's against t
36.
by gingerrr 3y ago
> "if any piece of this contract is invalid it doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract". Severability (the ability to "sever" part of a contract, leaving the remainder intact so long as it's not fundamen
37.
by gingerrr 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37189872
38.
by gingerrr 3y ago
It's going both directions - that's how polarization works, and this is an increasingly polarizing topic.
39.
by gingerrr 3y ago
> separating for you and following Are you counting the fact that those are now different UI tabs as a new "feature"? Twitter always had the ability to switch between chronological feed of just accounts you followed, and an a
40.
by gingerrr 3y ago
Circles were a near-exact lift of the same-named feature from Google Plus. You could (can still?) set up ring privilege layers of your followers or specific subgroupings and send tweets only visible to those in that group.
41.
by gingerrr 3y ago
Cheers, appreciate you clarifying!!
42.
by gingerrr 3y ago
It's not like their original comment is that opaque, but here's my attempt to break down (translate?): Are we going to continue to allow capitalist enterprise to have a say in public policy conversation (concessions stands outside
43.
by gingerrr 3y ago
That text you quoted appears literally nowhere in the source you cited. Which is Wikipedia. I combed all the article sources cited in that entry. And turns out the only source for the claims of criminal history was a single anonymous police
44.
by gingerrr 3y ago
They already have exactly this, it's called "Communities" and not very heavily used. edit: great idea though it functions pretty much exactly as you described, get into product if you're not yet!
45.
by gingerrr 3y ago
Moreover - <a series of incredible escalatory claims with absolutely zero sources>. This comment fails to contribute meaningful discussion at best, and at worst is openly attempting to spread misinformation.
46.
by gingerrr 3y ago
so there was still no violence, nor any actual victims of his driving, just traffic violations, and all you have to offer is appeals to emotion over hypothetical victims? it's pretty clear you have a narrative agenda and don't c
47.
by gingerrr 3y ago
Where in any of that account was any violence committed? Traffic violations. You're calling that violence. So we should be charging everyone who runs a stop sign with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon now?
48.
by gingerrr 3y ago
Pretty incredible that you were able to ascertain the cause of the economic decline of that area over the last decade was entirely due to the 2020 pandemic, all within the span of a 6 hour layover. Hope you make plenty of money with that su
49.
by gingerrr 3y ago
The article you linked quite literally says: > There may be situations in which a court decides that those protections do not apply to a given piece of content Which is all someone needs to lose, is section 230 protections over 1 piece o
50.
by gingerrr 3y ago
> As a consumer in the bay area, I know WestField SF will be neglected. I guess this one was too self-evident, as that feels like it was a truism even before the foreclosure considering the overall direction the entire area has already
51.
by gingerrr 3y ago
> what makes you think they'll stay open even if they weren't leaving? The fact that their lender probably wants to squeeze any return they can out of it and they stand to lose far more money leaving it with lights off than at
52.
by gingerrr 3y ago
Still haven't found the comment! I'm no lawyer, but iirc it was that paid moderators making content approvals would end up turning them into publishers, where bc they're volunteers they're currently 3rd parties to Redd
53.
by gingerrr 3y ago
Ah ok, I may have been trying to look too deeply then if they were just alluding to the noxious side effects of any write-off. I guess this seemed like the obvious next step for them, to me. Considering recent store closures, operational co
54.
by gingerrr 3y ago
I read a comment on one of the many other threads over the last week that paying moderators changes Reddit's liability under section 230 to be stricter. With volunteer moderators, the mods themselves are considered users instead of emp
55.
by gingerrr 3y ago
To whom? Yes to Westfield's bottom line, but both you and another commenter have replied this as if it has self-evident corollaries. Why is the difference meaningful to anyone who isn't the corporation already planning on exiting
56.
by gingerrr 3y ago
Where did you read the mall is closing? The final paragraph in the linked article indicates things are staying open, Westfield isn't shutting anything down, just deciding to back out of repaying the remainder of their loan. It's a
57.
by gingerrr 3y ago
fundamental reading comprehension failure on my part, thanks for the correction.
58.
by gingerrr 3y ago
edit: wow I can't read, apparently. or scrolled too aggressively when reading, either way they absolutely mentioned it. -- Seems like journalistic malpractice that all these recent pieces trumpeting the SF downtown location closing don
59.
by gingerrr 3y ago
You have to click on the kebab menu next to the result title - you should see a modal popup titled "About this result". Then you either have to expand the "More Options" collapsed at the top to see the "Cached"
60.
by gingerrr 3y ago
It might be an overblown solution to the issues raised here, but org-matrixed companies don't tend to suffer from the same "title matches but responsibilities wildly differ" problems internally. At least not to the same degre

More ›