russelluresti

In reality, even that isn't equal. A poor person who has moved out of the city because they can't afford housing inside of it losing their license would probably mean losing their job, as public transportation options may not even be available. A wealthy person could just hire an Uber everywhere and wouldn't even notice the cost.

While the punishment is equal, the impact it would have on different populations is unequal (which is the same issue with a fine of an absolute amount).

Afternoon hangout is Red Rock cafe, as many have mentioned. Evening hang out is Steins Beer Garden (usually on the outdoor patio - you'll find a lot of big groups there).

So, I would preface any advice with being clear on what your goals are and what you mean exactly by "learn Spanish." Do you mean get by conversationally? Are you looking for fluency certification? Do you want to attend a Spanish-speaking university or work in a Spanish-speaking office? Do you need to read and write Spanish, or just speak it? All of these things will have different needs, different vocabulary, and different methods.

My advice here is mainly for learning conversational Spanish.

Work one-on-one with a language tutor. For vocabulary practice, use a spaced-repetition system like Fluent Forever (I think Memrise has the same system).

But the biggest thing you can do to learn - speak the language. That's the most important part.

The solution to this is pretty simple - Facebook should work with the sites it uses as fact-checkers to have a new marking of "Satire". Just having values of "True" and "False" aren't good enough if you're trying to use those sites as tools against fake news.

Wasn't me, but a friend of mine worked from Germany for a couple of years. He worked for a company in the US that had offices throughout the world (it was a shipping company). A bit of his work involved working with other teams, so he had a bit of insight into those teams. He noticed that there were openings for positions similar to his in the foreign offices and reached out to the managers. He had to prepare a CV for them, but he was able to transfer there relatively easily.

This is my concern as well. Most people using LinkedIn use it in a way that keeps it devoid of political flame wars, pictures of you throwing up after a night of drinking, check-ins at the movies you're going to, etc. But Facebook is just rife with personal life information. I don't even use Facebook all that much, but I can guarantee that I wouldn't want to apply for a job using my FB profile.

Same here. Defaulted to off. They could be running an experiment. Roll it out to X percent of people, default half on and see who turns it off, default half off and see who turns it on.

I've worked in SV for the last 3 years at one of the top 5 tech companies, and I haven't seen much drug use, personally. I would say that there's a significant percentage that have/had medical marijuana cards and would either smoke or partake in edibles, but marijuana use is the only drug I've seen first-hand. I haven't even heard of anyone doing other drugs here, though I'm sure it happens.

This is simple, then. If it's not a disaster, it doesn't need federal relief funds. Let Texas pay for this damage through their own taxes.

Regarding the "is it okay to fire this engineer" argument the author is making - here's what I'd ask the author. If you were managing the team this person was on, would you feel comfortable placing a female engineer on the team to work with him knowing the he fundamentally believes women are inadequate engineers?

That answer should be "No."

By that alone, that engineer has created a toxic team environment.

You can't put a female engineer on his team, he can't work across teams with other female engineers, he shouldn't be interviewing potential female engineers given his obvious bias against them, etc.

If this isn't a reason to fire someone - what is?

In case anyone was wondering whether or not "professional asshole" is a career - here you go.

Well, for blind users, an audio book would suffice. For blind + deaf, braille would be the only option, and if a library couldn't provide that option, there would need to be a resolution.

In most cases, the resolution is to provide the material in the format required to the user. This is usually a trivial matter as books can be ordered in braille fairly easily.

The university decided that making their content available to all users was too difficult, so their resolution is to make it available to no one. A library could do the same and that resolution would be legal. It's just stupid. Which is why people are saying what the university is doing is stupid.