> Ms. Tully was on an income-based repayment plan, which allows many borrowers to have their remaining debt forgiven after 20 years of making qualifying payments. She was paying $60 per month when she defaulted. This amount, to many, may seem manageable. But for her, it remained psychologically burdensome.
$60 a month for 20 years, and then the debt is forgiven doesn’t sound burdensome at all. Perhaps if she doesn’t return to the US it won’t matter, but it seems a small price to pay monthly to make returning to your home one day a whole lot less stressful.
The psychological burden comes from the endless harassment and attempted scamming from the lenders. They don't just accept your IDR and let you quietly pay $60/mo forever. It's 20 years of endless threatening calls, "urgent notices," surprise debits that must be fought. They'll delay or outright "lose" your annual recertification paperwork every year, reverting you to to some outrageously high "default" plan.
Plus the threat that a hostile administration might come in and change who qualifies for IDR at any point, which just happened and is causing a massive spike in defaults.
I genuinely couldn’t figure out why the article highlighted her. If it were any other publication, I’d suspect rage baiting. But maybe HN sees something I didn’t.
The NYT had a rough patch a while back but it's incredibly good nowadays. They absolutely didn't have to include the details here (like $60/month) but did because they care about the truth.
I can't speak to the institution but the only public statements on their website relate to this particular trial. It could be this is the first ever trial they have monitored in this way; it might also be a group that will only ever monitor this one trial.
I guess I was expecting a Matt Levine-style breakdown of why the trial was run improperly and why an appellate court would be expected to strike it down. Instead we have vague statements that could have come from an elected’s staff.
Yeah we're dealing with a mud fight between two highly resourced adversaries who are practiced in bullshit underhanded tactics and influence operations.
Nah, its one source of funding. The oil giants pump there money in bonkers oppossition- one Greta Thunberg glueing herself to a public street does more damage to that cause then the whole of counter propaganda ever could. And it prevents the debate about resonable measures like free public transport.
That same account[0] has also already lost at least 100k betting on similar middle eastern conflict markets. Not at all ruling out insider information, certainly looks suspicious, but it’s easy just to find one big win or winner.
If you're looking for insiders it's generally helpful to start with the "survivors". Not because insiders can't lose but because winning insiders are those effectively exploiting their unfair knowledge. You need filters, so concentrate on the worst offenders first.
Of course, not all winners are insiders. You still need to filter more, but it's definitely the first filter. Big winners are the second, for the same reason: scale of exploitation.
In a follow-up tweet they show there is a sticker saying that DHL opened the box, too, seemingly before the US Customs. The tweet shows the image and reads: "So I found this label on the side of the box. Of course, the boxes were all left blank. Not sure anymore if this intentional destruction of property was the work of a @DHLexpress employee or @CBP employee…”.
That’s inaccurate. Amongst NATO countries, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden and Turkey have mandatory military service, and Croatia is bringing it back. There’s also non-NATO countries like Austria, Belarus, Cyprus, and Switzerland with mandatory military service.
Of those countries, Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania all have borders with Russia. The remainder - the majority of both the NATO countries and of the European states with service generally - do not have a border with Russia.
> There are plenty of other places to talk politics, religion, or share personal opinions. Work is best kept for work.
We could all use a bit more compartmentalization. This idea of "bring your whole self everywhere" is just a recipe for conflict and dysfunction. No two people are that compatible, let alone N people in a group.
Work should be about work, and work topics (which includes things like working conditions an unionization). Maybe you have a work friend you talk politics too, but that's a little non-work bubble at work. That's definitely not:
> hundreds of Google workers, outraged by the federal government’s mass deportation campaign...went public with a call for their leadership to cut ties with ICE. The employees are also demanding that Google acknowledge the violence, hold a town hall on the topic, and enact policy to protect vulnerable members of its workforce, including contractors and cafeteria and data center workers This week, the number of supporters has passed 1,200...
Work should also mind it's own business about non-work. If you're an activist on X, Y, or Z, it's none of your boss's business. If people are mad at you on twitter for saying A, B, or C, your boss shouldn't fire you for it (even if the mob demands appeasement). Employees should also not be nosy about what their coworkers think or do outside or work, if they're not mature enough to handle what they find out professionally (e.g. feeling the mere presence or someone who thinks X, Y, or Z creates a hostile environment, even if they never express or act on those thoughts).
And even if you're outside of work, if you're in a club about model airplanes (or instance), stick to model airplanes, etc. Don't bring up the latest outrage of the Bush or Obama administration.
I agree, though if all someone has to go on is that I stayed silent, it might be difficult to conclude whether I am uninterested, indifferent, or scared stiff.
Yes, but cencorship is also politics. What happens if someone just tries to stay apolitical and "work safe" and are still cencored? Any attempt at fighting this will be categorized as "political", "difficult" or worse.
Remember when they "censored" the guy who had the gall to write "men and women are a little different" at Google. There's an object lesson here, even if you disagreed with that guy.
This article is not about who was mentioned in the files or emails, but who was sending and receiving emails. Even then, it limits itself to only the top email senders and receipients. Trump might be mentioned often in the emails, but if he is not among the top couple of hundred senders/receivers of emails, then he’s not going to be mentioned in this article.
You'd think the guy that appears >1M times in the files would at least have its existence acknowledged in any article about who was in Epstein's sphere.
reply