This looks uncomfortable and humiliating. Now if they were to make it in the form of a suppository…

All flags are an expression of opinion. Even the pride flag has different versions that include or exclude different sub-cultures and allies.

This is a case where it’s the government that’s wearing the proverbial cross necklace, not another employee.

Neither are a governmental function. I think that’s the operative comparison to be made here.

We are not an opinion, but I don’t think that’s really a fair summary of my position anyway.

I kind of have to take the plaintiff’s side. The government shouldn’t be flying pride flags any more than they should be installing Nativity scenes. This isn’t about agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion being expressed, but about whether the government should be expressing an opinion at all.

And really all he asked for was to work remotely for the month the flags were up, not to have them removed. I think that actually might fall within the “reasonable accommodation” laws he’s invoking here.

What are you suggesting should have been done here?

“Pissing in the soup” doesn’t really work here unless you’re adulterating the software with something malicious.

To be fair, there are important differences between open source and closed source software.

I’m curious how it’s considered a “layoff” if it’s based on performance rather than the job itself being eliminated.

Krombiception, of course.

…you do have krombiception, don’t you?

“Not do anything useful” would be more accurate than “do nothing”. But that’s just my tl;dr.

[…] the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.

The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies […]

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/

tl;dr:

1. The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
2. The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
3. The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory

But the resolution passed anyway, which is why world hunger has disappeared.

I am also that guy, and it was more like 17 years ago.

Reminds me of the old trick on HTML forms where you use CSS to make one of the form fields invisible to humans and reject any submission that filled in that field.

Man it sure is crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.

Surprised the article didn’t point out that the “Tim” axis is also pointing in the wrong direction.

The economic bubble being created between the AI and hardware companies is going to pop and take out huge swathes of the broader economy, a la mortgages in 2008.