collingreen

Don't worry, this time it will be totally different.

Snark aside, I wish you the best and hope you don't get laid off in the next round. Do good work, keep your network and resume fresh, and hope for the best.

Im not sure if it's hilarious or sad to hear "I didn't think the ~leopards~ robot dogs would eat MY face!"

Folks aren't generally expecting this kind of thing in my personal experience either. I wonder if it's something about people not expecting lies/deceit/abuse they haven't personally thought of before. We all can consider lying or stealing or even picking a pocket but very few consider massive, sociopathic abuse and corruption so it doesn't trigger that suspicion sometimes.

I cannot get people in my life to take any digital privacy seriously. A good example is when I couldn't convince a friend about the LG TV sampling your screen and phoning home, even with all the articles recently. I think this is why we like magic, fall for scams, and don't demand more from our politicians.

They aren't confused about how difficult it is to avoid same sex options in game. They spelled it out clearly - they decided "mainstream appeal" should not even bring up the option and doing so is probably pressure from people they don't like ("activists").

Karens aren't misunderstanding how to mind their own business or live-and-let-live; they are trying to enforce what they see as (or wish were) social norms and don't give a damn about the perspective of the folks on the receiving end of their chirping.

This is a thing already

Yes but wasn't she only convicted of defrauding investors and no harm was found to customers or other businesses like the partnership with walgreens?

It means a group of people unlikely to be stopped and turned away at that gate. My assumption is white, middle class, dressed boring but clean, decent car without damage, with young kid(s), no/light tattoos, no motorcyckes in the back and no drug/booze/gun stickers or visible stuff. Basically someone the Karen's won't call to complain about.

Other people deserve access to public land too but might not pass the vibe check of the private guards, which is what op was lamenting as well.

I think most folks are actually in the middle and generally agree. Anyone who thinks one of the us political parties is completely innocent is lying, either to you or themselves.

That being said, I think it's worth noticing if one party does more bad things than the other and I also think speaking up with your values is worth it and maybe even a duty we owe the people who built this country before us.

Either way, your first responsibility is your own mental health so you have full support from this internet stranger.

Don't forget that social security has been raided and won't even be available for those of us reaching middle age right now and the people we keep electing who say they will do something about it have shown over and over and over that they actually won't.

Anomie plus helplessness plus a feeling of a rug pull of the laws/equality/character of our country. I am not suicidal but wow I get it.

Going around consumer protection law is the claim for a terrible practice, obviously not "hiring people".

It's silly or misleading to imply nothing has changed in this administration compared to the last one with regard to enforcement of laws and regulations. So many laws changed or ignored and regulatory agencies gutted, dropped, or silenced. The very next link on hn after this article for me is about the cftc being told not to investigate certain oil deals.

Please don't try to convince people to accept the current abuses of the system as inevitable or "both sides" when they clearly aren't.

I think the point is that it is an acquihire in purpose (want to team, not the assets) but would be blocked by the government so they did a thing that looks a LOT like an acquisition (paid off the shareholders, took the team) without technically being one specifically in order to avoid regulation. It's an "aquihire" in everything except name and the issue is that it was done in order to get around consumer protection laws. Google got what they wanted. The investors got what they wanted. The people got screwed.

I was following along with your sentiment until the last, childish paragraph which really took the wind out of the sails.

I guess your point is you support things, not on a legal /impartial basis but on your perception of underdog/righteousness. Also, people who don't understand your initial post are psychopaths.

Fair enough, but that's a pretty shaky foundation upon which to build the law.

Are you sure? Post doesn't mention "it would be hard", it says commenter thinks it would be unreasonable.