It’s happening at my company right now. We just merged. I got a taste of power, performed well, then got written up for spending too much time on my power project. Now they have neutered any power I had, and I’m a glorified babysitter and messenger. The hunt now begins in earnest.
Yes, I’m in no danger of being fired it doesn’t seem. I’ve been there 6 years and have an enormous amount of knowledge of our product and operations. And it was just a ‘verbal counseling’ (which is written down, sent to HR, and added to your record; totally verbal though). So I’ll just keep on project managing timelines and crap, and collecting my Pacheck. But now I have like 8 months of successful product management under my belt to add to the resume
Working with people is a very core skill. You suggest that this came out of the blue - but I would bet that there were a lot of missed signals on the way. Escalating straight to verbal warnings and demotion in role or responsibility means you’re missing something very fundamental in what wasn’t working or was missed.
I thought the same thing at 5 years, and everyone I heard from said it was a mistake to lay me off. Last I heard, my responsibilities were being split up between 3 people. On top of that I found out I was getting underpaid, so I was a good deal on top of that :p
Anyway despite all that, I still wasn’t part of whatever vision upper management had going forward, so they gave me a sweet severance and sent me on my way. I’m not mad, but it’s definitely made me careful not to expect my job to be safe.
Yeah I can’t feel good about that kind of stuff anymore (it’s the same thing in my field with IaC - Infrastructure as Code). Even if I agree that these are good ideas, it all comes down to being able to treat workers like interchangeable cogs rather than people who can amass knowledge and expertise over time.
Then the dream: that you could sell an entire skeleton of a company with none of the old workers clinging to the bones, and another team of replaceable workers could just slot themselves in place and start making money for investors!
I’m not sure it’ll ever get that extreme, but it’s not ethics that is blocking it from happening, but material reality.
I hadn’t considered the impact of IaC type things, but I can see bean counters thinking “well it’s documented, so any monkey will do”, without being able to quantify to lost time/opportunity cost when people have to fumble through.
In my case, I’m always thinking ahead, trying to see the ways our imperfect systems are going to be a problem, and at least consider high-level options for those things, or for directional change we may see.
I don’t make any plans, just some notes, in case any of those questions come up.
Someone unfamiliar with these systems will be in “fix” mode all the time, trying determine why something doesn’t work, and reading through docs trying to comprehend things.
I’m a big fan towards pushing for IaC and configuration as code too. What you have to do is also push for policy as code and finops too keep the managers and power point pushers on their toes too. At least it’s seemed to engender some empathy from some for me.
If you don’t have docs it’s a tough competition between having your more knowledgeable devs re-explaining what they know X times to X new hires, or letting new devs figure it out on their own which is both costly in terms of their time and more importantly, risky as hell.
Bad managers love risk though. Since it usually is a choice between speed now and risk later, it only blows up in your face later, and quite spectacularly, and everyone looks like heroes while they are putting fires out on overtime.
That said good managers probably don’t tolerate that shit from bad managers under them and can sniff out a firefighter culture pretty quick.
I guess what I meant to say was, managers that value doc do exist. If they really do, they’ll let you know.
TBH I don’t get why people criticize selling out as if they wouldn’t do it, too. I don’t want to sit and amass wealth indefinitely, if I have a company and someone comes along and offers “retire rich forever” money, I’m taking it and fucking off to somewhere fun. Especially if we’re talking billions, no one will ever hear my name again.
I don’t quite understand. Are you saying it’s immoral to sell a business? Is it retiring that’s immoral? I didn’t say that everyone secretly anything, I just don’t understand why the hate.
Look, there’s no such thing as an ethical billionaire. I get that, and fully believe it. But I don’t get why people think “selling out” is a thing when it’s often basically short hand for “retiring and letting someone else make the money.”
It's not immoral to sell a business but anybody who actually has or even founded one and has an intact moral compass would not sell in a way you described.
You have a responsibility for your customers and employees and you don't just throw it into the dumpster like that because money isn't everything.
It seems as though you underestimate the appeal of billions of dollars. It’s not just the ability to never have to work again. Or power, prestige or any other nonsense. Or even just having tons of money. It’s not greed that makes it appealing.
It’s the security. The safety if knowing you’ll never have to worry about food or housing. That your parents and family will be well taken care of. Your children will be able to have it all, that you’ve set them up for success and they won’t have to struggle. It’s knowing that your best friend who was diagnosed with cancer will have the best care available, wherever that may be in the world, and won’t have to worry about food or housing or anything else while getting better.
You’re either too young to understand or are lacking in empathy.
I’m not saying being a billionaire isn’t inherently immoral. But the reason people take payouts like that are not solely down to greed.
I am old enough to remember that Apple was the pirate of Silicon Valley, and then it became the most “cooperation” company in the industry. Then it’s Google then there will be a next one. It’s probably inevitable for any company to go this route.
It’s a well travelled path for any company in the tech sphere. Start out as a disruptor and breath of fresh air in a stagnant industry and then slowly crank the dial toward enshittification over time hoping that the reputation you previously built will keep your customer base from jumping ship too quickly.
It became this in approximately 2009 - 2010, around when the founders left and the business bros took over. We’ve been seeing the slow decline since then, though it may be accelerating now.
I loved Google for so long, but they have really lost it. I switched back to Firefox last year as a meek sign of protest. My work still uses Gmail and my personal email is still Gmail, it’s gonna be rough to extricate myself. My fucking phone number is Google voice
“Don’t be evil”. Not-evil people don’t need to say such things.
That was a reference to Microsoft. They were on trial / convicted for abusing their monopoly in awful ways to screw over any potential competitors, and making the experience terrible for Microsoft users. As bad as Google might be today, they’re nowhere near as bad as Microsoft was. And, in the early years, they were definitely the anti-Microsoft in the tech world.
They’ve long been quite mediocre judging by the incredible long hours of those working there and shit quality of basically any technical framework they put out.
They have shoved tons of resources into some things (such as Android) and thus at times succeeded (though usually they don’t), but in terms of quality from a technical point of view (i.e. software design, technical architecture) their stuff looks like it was hammered together by a bunch of junior devs.
Lucky timing followed by some smart strategical decisions (and, seemingly, lots of money together with a throw everything at the wall and see what sticks management strategy) are what made Google, not excellence.
Coding standards, library standards (stuff like naming conventions), software development processes, higher level software design concerns (for example, take in account the need for change in the future as part of a software design), design libraries taking in account extrenal concerns (say, how 3rd parties actually work with them) and so on.
It’s basically the next level from software design, which in turns is the next level from coding.
The most senior position one can have in the technical career track in programming is Technical Architect.
As far as I can tell, Google doesn’t really have any of those (or they’re not at all good at their job).
Having a dedicated technical architect who hovers above the dev team handing architectural decisions down is also not always seen as an ideal construct in software development.
If you have a technical architect who does that then they are just bad at their job, but that doesn’t invalidate the importance such a position can have (if done right) in a large software development company.
They probably do, but with how expansive they are, the massive variety of acquisitions, and not being clairvoyant, it’s gotta be like herding cats.
I’ve worked in tech companies (systems management, telecom, etc) and in conventional businesses (manufacturing, distributing, production, reselling, banking, etc).
The arch teams in conventional business are more structured, formalized, as their remit is to ensure infrastructure is stable, predictable, and to practically eliminate risk.
The tech companies have arch teams whose focus is interoperability between business units, high communication, maximize utilization, etc. Risk is still a concern, but it’s not primary (unless you fuck up). Tech orgs are about flexibility.
Notable: Google Home can no longer set timers and does not understand what “stop playing” means. It’s basically only usable for asking for music to be played since it has declined so heavily.
I just tried to reproduce your comment. Google home set a timer for me and play/paused my TV (chromecast with google tv) I don’t have streaming music to test it on. I do agree that the quality of Google home has gotten terrible though. It takes a lot more prompting to do simple things and has stopped some scheduling tasks as far as I can tell.
When I ask it to set a timer, it tells me that it doesn’t understand me. If I ask it to stop playing, it tells me that it doesn’t understand me. I have to just say “stop”. It also used to transfer whatever you were listening to between speakers, but cannot understand me anymore if I ask for that.
It’s unfair to discount Google’s early days. They DID have technical excellence. Search was leagues better than the competition. Gmail was an amazing leap from other providers. Android started as trash but improved rapidly. The Nexus line of phones was amazing. Google Maps was a huge improvement over what else existed. They did a lot right.
I can’t pinpoint exactly when the fall started. Was it when Pichai became CEO? When they removed “don’t be evil?” I remember a speech Pichai gave where he talked about “more wood behind fewer arrows” as why they were getting rid of employee child projects, so maybe it was that.
In my opinion, it was when anti-trust laws did not trigger upon Google acquiring YouTube because Google Video couldn’t compete. That meant it was open season on start-ups that otherwise might have grown to kill Google or other big tech companies like Apple, Facebook and Microsoft.
Gmail really wasn’t any better than Hotmail at first, it was just that they gave you a huge (at the time) amount of storage, when Hotmail users regularly had to delete old mail or attachments.
Musk: I kind of had to.
Interviewer: Did you do that because you thought that a court would make you do that.
Musk: Yes. laughs. Yes. That is the reason.
Interviewer: So you were still trying to get out of it, and then you just were advised by lawyers 'you're just gonna have to buy this'.
Musk: Yes.
Interviewer: Interesting.
Also
Musk: "I don't care about the economics at all".
Lol.
So contextually. He wanted to buy Twitter, but he did not want to pay a ridiculous price. Why he offered that price and didnt take the time to do his due diligence?
Elon Musk is a mind virus. The sooner he fucks off; the better. I cant wait to go a single month without hearing his fucking name.
Been a lot of whitewashing lately of people like Feinstein, Biden and Pelosi. And it seems like you can’t even criticize them or you get called a Trumper.
You’re getting downvoted but it’s what’s happening here. The GOP is not even an option in terms of who to vote for, so I only focus on Democrats and how to fix their issues. But no, suddenly now it’s a sin to point out any issues within your own party. It’s toe the line, or get called a Trumper.
I think Pelosi, Biden and the older generation is way too conservative and centrist, I want a more socially progressive democratic party that will push forward a more leftist agenda, led by younger, more left leaning Democrats, why is that a “Trumper” view?? Why am I not allowed to call out the people on the side I’m on?
I want a progressive agenda but how do such ideas gain traction when the opposition messaging does such a good job at mocking progressives that the mockers’ view of the agenda takes precedence over the actual agenda? Sometimes I feel like the progressive agenda comes preloaded with poison pills that are intended to give red meat to the opposition, aka is designed to fail.
Talking shit about Biden and telling everyone to vote for a third party instead is not “criticizing Dems to be better,” it’s literally how you would put Trump back in the White House
Hillary did fuck up, as did the people who refused to vote for her. It’s not an either or situation. Plenty of blame to go around.
Trump and the GOP are irredeemable trash, and the only thing wrong about Hillary calling them deplorables, is that it’s way more than half. Biden and the Democrats currently single out MAGA Republicans as being terrible fascists, but at this point, all Republicans are terrible fascists. Even the Republicans that pushed back on Trump and got kicked out of the party are terrible. The main reason the Democrats don’t say Republicans are all bad is that they still need conservatives who dislike Trump. If left wing voters become a large enough and reliable force in the party, there’s less need to rely on conservatives to maintain a majority.
I’m not seeing anyone in this thread telling anyone to vote third party.
When it comes down to voting for Biden or whatever racist shitbag the GOP trots out, I’m going to vote for Biden. But don’t tell me I’m not allowed to criticize him or the party. Acting like a political party is above criticism comes off as fascist.
And before you get on to me about only criticizing Democrats, I think we can all agree that Republicans are worse, but if we aren’t allowed to call out Dems on shit, then we truly don’t have a democracy anymore.
I get the impulse that talking shit about a political candidate is turning people off of voting or voting for the realistic candidate, but I would argue that doing shit like keeping old politicians in office does a lot more to turn people off of voting. If we want people to vote, then they need to be inspired by a candidate and feel good about voting. And of course they don’t feel inspired when they hear criticisms about both parties, but clearly just telling people that they have to vote for someone to keep someone like Trump from office only seems to work for reelection, but it didn’t stop him from getting in office in the first place. I’m pretty confident that Trump won’t be president again, I’m not so confident about the next guy like him.
I’m not confident he won’t win against the crappy candidates dnc keeps trotting out, andi doubt I’ll vote either party, but thank you for voicing the rest of my thoughts about it so well.
I took a brief look at the post history of the person I was responding to, that is what my comment was based on. Never anywhere did I suggest you shouldn’t criticize Democrats, of course all our elected leaders should be scrutinized.
And of course Feinstein should have retired years ago, just like Ginsburg should’ve retired while Obama was president.
What I was arguing against is that guy"s “Biden is all bad, vote Green party” perspective, which only helps elect a Republican
You’re being downvoted, but you’re right. Definitely far left here, on average. My theory is that the people who stuck around after the reddit boycott tend to be more “woke”, to use a dumbass term.
As much as I like the sentiment, it really isn’t true. There’s way too many theocratic fascists, liberal stooges that sell out their country for power, and combinations of the two in control of most of the world. There are a number of European countries where this is the case, but Europe isn’t the world. Outside of some counties in the global south that have elected socialists through democratic means (only to be ousted by the right), genuine leftist governments get destroyed or coopted most of the time.
Especially with regards to social issues like LGBTQ rights and discrimination of ethnic minorities, the USA is farther along in the conversation than even some of those European countries.
Left in the USA is constrained by the fact that the status quo is extremely right wing, so things like healthcare reforms and limits on corporations that progressives advocate are right wing in relation to all possible positions. However, policies as far right as the GOP’s are common globally.
Especially with regards to social issues like LGBTQ rights and discrimination of ethnic minorities, the USA is farther along in the conversation than even some of those European countries.
You’re absolutely right about that. The leftist paradise of the Netherlands (who I have praised elsewhere) is (was?) a great example of this. You’ll have dance clubs that will let white folks in, but if a Moroccan shows up they suddenly ask for them to show their membership card, a card that, of course, can’t be purchased then and there.
On the other hand, most Euro countries have cops that aren’t interested in playing no-strings attached murderball, unlike our cops.
People really don't know what "left" is suppose to mean. Socialism is suppose to be a real political position, not a slur. What is consider liberal these days is really right-wing politics.
My reddit and lemmy history strongly disagrees with you. Any criticism of dems is met with downvotes. Ill also argue that excusing shitty behavior from those on the left because “they’re not as bad as republicans” is lesser of two evils bullshit that has enabled us to continue slipping further and further in the wrong direction, as a whole.
Yeah, my reddit and lemmy history strongly disagree with you too, chachi. I’ve literally never been called out for criticizing democrats. But then again I don’t engage in weak “both sides” bullshit like you do.
And it’s funny how you initially said criticizing democrats gets you called a maga bootlicker, but now you say it’s just “downvotes”.
My point was you make it out as if comments and downvotes are exclusive. As if downvoting doesn’t send a message in itself.
The crux of your response? Saying that your personal online experience has been different than mine and somehow invalidates it? Was it really worth addressing? Maybe pay more attention to the comments you read through? You having not experienced it means nothing to those that have
Pretty sure the whole point of them sharing a personal anecdote wasn’t to invalidate yours so much as to point out that your experience is, in fact, anecdotal and therefore not concrete enough of a justification to make the blanket statement of “you can’t criticize Dems on left-leaning social media” (paraphrased).
It’s certainly your lived experience, but to generalize entire platforms based on it is asinine. Need more data to make a statement like that and not be challenged.
I understand where you’re coming from, but myself making a statement that I have experienced something first hand and witnessed others experience such responses to criticism means a lot more than someone saying they have never. It’s like someone saying I was bullied in high-school to then have others say I was never bullied in school, bullies don’t exist. It’s an irrelevant statement and is only trying to dismiss one’s experiences.
Apologies for the late reply, I guess I didn’t have notifications set up correctly.
I think I see the point you’re making, but I don’t think that it contradicts my point. Your analogy isn’t quite applicable here because no one is saying vocal-toxic-leftists don’t exist, we’re saying that just because you have seen vocal-toxic-leftists you can’t defensibly generalize large groups with such little evidence.
It’s early and I haven’t had coffee, so I apologize again if what I said isn’t so clear.
Nobody is talking about the other side, that’s exactly my point. I’m talking about this side, forget the GOP and their idiocy, worry about the people you want in power, not those other idiots. Why is it that every criticism of the party I vote for, means in somehow on the side of republicans? Jesus fuck, people like Pelosi will be in power till they die because of people like you, who clearly want no change since you’re not even allowing criticism.
I think you missed Maeve’s sarcasm, which was supposed to be obvious from the up- and down-casing of the letters in her words. When someone writes in that way deliberately, they’re making fun of people who would write the same sentence with a straight face.
You’ll find, historically, Dems question themselves a lot more on average. As “Dems need to fall in love” with the party plan, they end up asking way more questions than the “GoPniks need to fall in line” bunch.
So, you may easily decide that you DON’T get called a trumper just by asking questions. It’s in the nature to review and discuss things.
Being called a Trumper for criticising a democrat is no different than Christians who say you’re a devil worshiper if you don’t worship the Christian god. Just because I criticize a democrat, doesn’t mean I’m a republican. It’s not a knife edge. Someone like Pelosi is not anywhere near leftist enough for me, but if I criticize her for that, I’m somehow a Trump supporter?? How does that make sense?
The author of this article is almost certainly a democrat. And if you mention senile politicians without mentioning Trump, you are invariably a Trumper.
I mean when we’re all on the same side, must I add the most obvious ones? I’m not talking about the GOP and Trump, they’re far gone off the crazy cliff, they’re not saveable. I’m worried about the politicians I want to vote for, and point out the ones that make me angry and need a kick in the ass within the party I vote for.
Biden is not even in the same league of asshattery as Pelosi and Feinstein, despite a long career and being in the Executive twice. I’ll never forget Pelosi talking down to a high school student who asked her a question about economic equity—I don’t remember the kid’s question, but her response is seared into my brain. She got pissy and said “America is a capitalist country” like capitalism was handed down from god on high or enshrined in the Constitution. It was contemptuously delivered, to a degree as bad as I once heard Rick Santorum speak to a student who asked him about LGBTQ rights.
Feinstein was a regressive in a lot of ways, perhaps she escaped being labeled a DINO because her votes were more important than her sometimes asinine rhetoric.
I’ll never forget Pelosi talking down to a high school student who asked her a question about economic equity—I don’t remember the kid’s question, but her response is seared into my brain. She got pissy and said “America is a capitalist country” like capitalism was handed down from god on high or enshrined in the Constitution.
What economic system would you recommend beyond capitalism? Are there any large countries that have successfully implemented this?
For economic systems, it seems like just about every country mixes capitalism and socialism, and some of those economies lean more towards one rather than the other.
Perhaps a better discussion would be over what the best mixture is rather than the simple: “Capitalism/Socialism is bad” that people seem to argue so much over.
I was hoping for an actual discussion rather than a link to a 20 min video like that.
That 20 min video was all “capitalism is bad” and only for a few seconds near the end where he proposes “Communist Realism” without even attempting to explain what it is or compare any sort of pros and cons.
So to summarize the video for anyone else who doesn’t want to waste their time (in the context of the questions I proposed):
What economic system would you recommend beyond capitalism?
Video: “Communist Realism, buy my book”
Are there any large countries that have successfully implemented this?
Video: “No, they weren’t given a chance because capitalist countries overthrew them in one way or another.”
Perhaps a better discussion would be over what the best mixture is rather than the simple: “Capitalism/Socialism is bad” that people seem to argue so much over.
The video didn’t really address this other than:
Video: “Capitalism bad, people are stuck thinking there’s nothing else”…
Ah, thanks… the questioner wasn’t a high school student, but appears to be in their 20s. Pelosi’s response is less flagrantly contemptuous than I remember, but revealed her to be a dyed-in-the-wool corporatist, which was equally upsetting and has colored my perception of her ever since. Feinstein basically wanted to publicly flay Snowden and took such an extreme view of state secrets (among other things), and I was always curious about the politics that led her to get reelected term after term.
“On Sept. 29, Dianne Feinstein, 90, died of natural causes. She had cast a vote in the Senate less than a day prior.”
Banger first two sentences. As an observer not from the US, this feels like Emperors New Clothes to me. But instead of a naked emperor, you have paraded a corpse through the senate and acted as if she was a fighter like Xena, Warrior Princess or something.
I agree that we need younger people in these positions. We need those more in touch with what the average person is going through these days.
However, I disagree that we should set a hard age limit. If anything have them take some sort of cognitive exam every few years once they hit a certain age.
You need an impartial hard limit. Otherwise you get people like trump getting doctors to lie about their health. Sorry if you’re in good health and get the boot, but you knew what the limits were when you signed on.
Makes sense. Perhaps it could be something variable based on the average lifespan of the people in the country… it might even give them a little incentive to come up with a working healthcare system if it means they get to stay in office a little longer.
That’s a good idea. But cynical me says people in power like to keep that power, and they’d manipulate and restrict what data they used to calculate that average as it applies to their tenure.
True, but you can only fudge the numbers so much. And it would help to keep things in check if medical advancements are made in a way that only allows the rich to have a drastically longer lifespans.
You’d really want a hard number right around 65-70. People by that age have some level of cognitive decline, there’s evidence that around 50 is where it starts going down.
Right, what I mean by “based on the lifespan of the people” would be more of a percentage… not the full expected average lifespan.
So, for example, it could be 80% of the average life expectancy in the U.S. which looks to be around 76, so that would put the cap around 61.
But perhaps we could base it on studies of cognitive decline instead. If some future medicine is discovered (that most people have access to) which would allow everyone to continue functioning well at an older age, then I don’t have a problem if the average person is still doing well at an older age. In this case we could use some percentage of the average age of cognitive decline instead.
I am in favour of both age and term limits for politicians. For one, if regular people are supposed to retire at 65ish and realistically often struggle to find work once they go past their 40s, there is no reason why politicians should be allowed to stay in their jobs through their 70s and sometimes 80s.
And I am in favour of term limits because it would keep the career politicians out of the game. Very few of them are any good.
Politicians who know that their political career is about to end have the nasty habit of doing favors for their big corporation of choice, knowing that they’ll receive a cushy board position in return afterwards.
If you want to establish term limits, you also need to establish some sort of accountability for the time afterwards.
Accountability is needed with or without term limits. Too many politicians are deep in the pockets of big businesses. “Professional board member” is already one of the most popular sinecures for spent politicians. Term limits aren’t a silver bullet for general politician misconduct. Everything needs checks and balances, and politics has way too little of it.
I honestly think there are now a few of those “Weekend at Bernie’s” scenarios playing out in congress. McConnell comes to mind as the most obvious, he has already had a couple of public examples of him losing his cognitive abilities, but everyone pretends not to notice and they keep tripping over themselves trying to cover for him, similar to how they did with Feinstein.
I am not allowed to say hateful things here I think, but man I really hope McConnell lives a long life. He seems to be in perfect health and enjoys living by the looks of it, and I want that joy to continue for him as long as possible :) :) :)
Something awful must have happened to you as a child to refer to an old lady you’ve never met that way. IDGAF about politics. Have some respect for your damned self.
Bro you’re not even responding to the person who said the original comment that you were responding to. She was a cunt don’t let her age make her into a saint in your eyes. She was a greedy self-serving cunt her entire adult life. To show her respect is to kneel and submit to this bullshit continuing for another 90 years.
Ok I agree it doesn’t matter what she was. You defended her and said we disrespect ourselves for calling an “old lady a cunt”. Which is it? Is it not ok to call a cunt a cunt because they’re old? Just because you don’t like the language we choose to use to describe this person doesn’t put you on a moral high ground. I think she was a cunt care to discuss otherwise? No? Then kindly fuck off 👌
My ENTIRE assertion is that it’s isn’t decent to refer to an elder person person who has passed away in this fashion. Not that she deserves respect but rather that one should respect ones self by behaving in a nobler manner, at least nobler than this.
And you are raising your nose over my whole point. Fuck respecting elders for being old, most old people sure when you’re talking about normal people but when it comes to these leaches on society they don’t get a pass just because they are dinosaurs, their age and the fact they stay in office til the day they croak is half the god damn problem and your sticking your nose up at the language people choose to use. We are fucking fed up and you are a concern troll.
for power ever one of her votes for the last 3 years should be invalidated.
I think you missed one letter and a dot there.
Are we at stage “invalidating votes of senile old coots” yet? Have you SEEN how many crusty bastards are in there? I’d say the Dems would LOVE this as the demographic helps them immensely.
I understand that this eviction moratorium was “hard” on these guys.
So hard that they had *checks notes… enough money afterwards to throw a big celebration that the eviction moratorium was finally over.
I understand that not all tenants are great. I’ve seen the aftermath.
But sorry, this is a business, shitty tenants are literally the risk you’re willing to take by choosing to own a rental. Fucking grow a pair, bunch of fucking whiners.
“But we made marginally less money than we would have! We still have enough money to throw a big party about it, though!”
There’s tone deaf and there’s whatever the fuck this is.
It’s funny how much landlords complain about shitty tenants after they took a whole 5 minutes to vet their renter and didn’t even meet them to hand over the key.
It’s one thing to take a risk of a shitty tenant. It’s another to have a shitty tenant who is abusing emergency rules free of consequences.
Some asshole who signs a lease, trashes the place, refuses to pay a dime in rent and then refuses to vacate just ends up getting subsidized by everyone who doesn’t do any of that.
I get that landlords aren’t the most sympathetic group always but eviction is a necessary legal remedy to keep rental housing affordable and available for responsible people.
Either the courts need to be processing evictions in a timely manner and following the law or landlords need to be able to regain their property by other means. Having the government tell them that they are forced to keep providing services to an abusive tenant who is taking advantage will just force out anyone too small to amortize out that risk to hundreds of other tenants and ensure the entire rental market is owned by faceless investors and giant megacorps and that rental prices will continue to skyrocket.
Yeah, there’s more houses than people in the US. Are you going to relocate people from vibrant city centers to dying small towns with dilapidated, vacant houses with leaking roofs and bad electricals? Not everyone wants to live in Buttfuck, Kansas
Wasn’t California the state that decided it’s ok to not serve homosexuals based on fairy tales?
Because this seems to be much more grounded in reality.
it’s always been ok for a private business to pick and choose. choice is nothing if you don’t have the choice to be a flaming asshole. (and i say this as a bisexual person, but one who has long followed lawyers and egalitarian stuff because it’s interesting and it sometimes directly changes the world i live in). the police union is one of the biggest scourges in this country. a private business doesn’t have to serve them either. but of course, they will whine and intimidate and do all their other bullcrap.
“NO COPS ALLOWED. That’s the confirmed policy of the bakery chain Reem’s,” the union said in its post. “One of our officers was denied service last weekend because he was in uniform. Reem’s confirms that they will not serve anyone armed and in uniform. Presumably, this includes members of the US Military.”
That is the response of the police union via twitter or whatever.
They seem to think that cops == soldiers.
Which is gross as cops are civilians and soldiers are not. Soldiers understand trigger discipline and cops do not.
neighbors include Starbucks, United Market, Bank of America ATM, Redwood Credit Union, FedEx Kinko’s, Rite Aid, UPS Store, T-Mobile, Trader Joe’s, Jasmine Market, CVS, Peet’s Coffee. Because you now live in a strip mall.
I have many of the same neighbors but I just live in an apartment complex situated between 3 strip malls.
Honestly, other than the price and the parking situation, I’ve thought it would be kinda cool to lease a random shop in one of those shopping centers and just live in it lol
Washington Post is the only newspaper app I have, mainly because I have a free subscription. I have really enjoyed it thusfar and use it as my usual source for news. It’s “War In Ukraine” was a great section till they really toned down the coverage of it. This is really concerning and this was a great story by sfgate. I am about to be much more skeptical of what I am seeing by them.
NPRs “up first” podcast today had an entire section about this today.
I’ll never know though. I tried to read this on my phone with root level AdAway installed, and the window that the article appeared in was 30% of the page, the rest ads. I would close them trying to read the article, and more would appear every time I scrolled. I closed the British Airways ad at the bottom 5 times and it reappeared within 5 seconds each time.
I got to the part where the author makes a joke about how many ads SFGate has, at least.
The Washington Post has written twice this spring about allegations that have cropped up in British court proceedings involving its new publisher and CEO, Will Lewis. In both instances Lewis pushed his newsroom chief hard not to run the story.
According to several people at the newspaper, then-Executive Editor Sally Buzbee emerged rattled from both discussions in March and in May. Lewis’ efforts were first reported by the New York Times. The second Post article in May, which was thorough and detailed, ran just days before Lewis announced his priorities for the paper, which is financially troubled.
On Thursday, a spokesperson for Lewis denied the publisher had pressured his editor, saying, “That is not true. That is not what happened.”
Buzbee did not recuse herself from the stories, which were overseen by Managing Editor Matea Gold, and drew upon reporters from three desks. Lewis did not block the story from running. He unexpectedly announced Buzbee’s departure on Sunday night, about three-and-a-half weeks after the longer story ran, along with a restructuring of the newsroom’s leadership structure.
It is not the first time that Lewis has engaged in intense efforts to head off coverage about him in ways that many U.S. journalists would consider deeply inappropriate.
…
In December, I wrote the first comprehensive piece based on new documents cited in a London courtroom alleging that Lewis had helped cover up a scandal involving widespread criminal practices at media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s British tabloids. (Lewis has previously denied the allegations.)
At that time, Lewis had just been named publisher and CEO by Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, but had not yet started. In several conversations, Lewis repeatedly — and heatedly —offered to give me an exclusive interview about the Post’s future, as long as I dropped the story about the allegations.
At that time, the same spokesperson, who works directly for Lewis from the U.K. and has advised him since his days at the Wall Street Journal, confirmed to me that an explicit offer was on the table: drop the story, get the interview.
NPR published the story nonetheless. On Thursday, the spokesperson declined comment about that offer.
sfgate.com
Hot