Predicting the future is literally a core upper management job duty. It was fairly obvious and should’ve been assumed that interest rates would eventually rise.
Isn’t over-hiring a form of management incompetence?
Money was too cheap, tech companies are now slapped with larger debt servicing costs and a less captive audience. Growth focused and delusion forecasting done by companies weren’t grounded in reality or pragmatism. This led to things like over-hiring.
Just seems like bad practice for them to not scream test this first. Disable the databases for 48 hours, enable them for a week, then delete them. That would give people the same alerts as randomly deleting it but allow them to gracefully recover.
Hey there, live chat is still available on some of the pages. Could you let me know where you're missing it?
That said, we try to get most support requests via https://helpdesk.codeship.com (or the widget shown in app), since complex technical problems are usually not that easy to resolve using a live chat tool.
That isn't really correct, as I understand it. The staffers get background checks, the senators and representatives take a secrecy oath in lieu of a process administered by the executive.
And really, with the separation of powers, how else would it work? The legislators are supposed to oversee things the executive does, do you think that it would be constitutional for the executive to tell the legislature to go fly a kite if the legislature asked to be told things? That, itself, could/would be unconstitutional...
Is someone with a presidential pardon still considered a felon? I know the pardon does not erase the conviction, but since a pardon seems to erase the most significant consequences, does it erase all consequences?
A pardon erases prison time, it does not erase any fines resulting from said crime, and also is admitting guilt to the crime[1]. One of the biggest things a pardon does as a result of that (like a guilty plea does as well) is open you up to civil suits. Also, accepting a pardon prevents you from pleading the 5th on any further or follow up charges related to said crime. It is a pretty slippery slope actually. Your question is an interesting one, but one better suited for a Constitutional law scholar such as Professor Lawrence Tribe (runs the constitutional law program at Harvard).
Thank you for pointing that out. It does look like Obama commuted her sentence, and did not pardon her. I guess I had either heard or remembered incorrectly.
My original question wasn't about the actual conviction, but rather about all penalties typically associated with the conviction. I've found several other sources online, though I don't know how credible because IANAL, that suggest a pardon could restore rights typically lost to felons, like the right to vote.
Why do you think the right to vote is related to the ability to run for federal office? They don't appear to be. I'm no sort of legal expert myself but it seems states have significant say in who gets to vote - a thread that runs through the entirety of US history, is the subject of several constitutional amendments and continues to this day.
The qualifications to run for Congress, on the other hand, are explicitly spelled out in the original document. It's not clear to me anything other than a federal law can add any additional restrictions like, say, the Hatch Act does.
I threw this in mostly as a hedge so that someone who knows better doesn't slap me around with the Hatch act.
It seems like the converse is true, though, states don't get to define qualifications - U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)
"Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications."
Outside a certain community of Americans, it's an incredibly tacky word that really grates whenever I read it.
Why anyone think it's the slightest bit professional to use it in official communications is mind boggling. It was sort of trendy for a little bit on Reddit with a certain type of abrasive and annoying American, but thankfully it seems to becoming uncool again.
It is also an extremely imperialistic word. Americans use it, it feels as if it only refers to Americans, and Google is only listening to Americans.
It isn't only used in America, but I would agree that it is predominantly known for that. Usage of the word appears to be increasing. It fulfills a role in the English language that no other word seems to hit as easily. It'd be nice if the word were more publicly acceptable. I didn't grow up in the south but always found the word to be useful.
Keep in mind it's American southern slang and not everyone can necessarily help that they use it. It's effectively an accent. Be careful what y'alls implying about its usage (;
Yeah, ever since the Middle English combination of orthography issues (eth/thorn versus y) and religious literature accidentally merged the old singular second person pronoun (thou) and the plural one (you), English has missed an important counting word. `y'all` might not be the best solution to that missing hole, but it's the best one we (all) have around these days.
"youse" falls into the bad pattern of also picking up "guys" or "all" as hangers on, in my opinion, defeating the purpose. ("youse guys" being the terrible patriarchic movie Mafioso cliché, and "youse all" a terrible Frankensteinian monster I've heard far too frequently.)
"yinz" to me looks and sounds more like a weird pharmaceutical than an English word, and y'all aren't going to convince me otherwise. ;)
But of course, my opinion is biased by geography and familiarity.
These large companies could afford to move off of React if they had to. Smaller companies could be severely impacted by having to move a core product off of React quickly. I don't know why people are using Google as an example of it being safe to use for a 10 person company.
Okay sure, they could “afford” it, but that doesn’t mean they would want to. And if there’s even a feeling on the legal team that some day it might be an issue, why not just use what you’d someday have to switch to and start investing in that ecosystem instead? That would be making a business decision that you know could be flushing years worth of work and investment down the toilet just because.
Besides, isn’t the wording in this clause immediate loss of use? You’d either have to take the time to convert your app to something else before you sue them, which would still take a long time and give them the time to build/perfect your new lethal competitor, or sue them and shut your business down until you converted it to something, which is equally lethal.
No. Apache 2.0 indemnifies you only in relation to the patents held by contributors to that project.
In more concrete terms, if you see some project is licensed under Apache 2.0, then you can still be sued for using it, because while you may have a guarantee that its contributors won't sue you, it doesn't make anybody else's patents go away.
In slightly more concrete terms than that, if Project X causes Facebook to be sued by Corp Y because Facebook is using that project, then Facebook has no protection if it is not a Corp Y project nor have they ever contributed to it.
In real life, Corp Y is Yahoo, who sued Facebook several years ago on a bunch of patent-related matters. Facebook then went on a tear building up a war chest and crafting the PATENTS text so that it could never happen again.
