wizzairflyer

I'm very curious to have a peek but isn't downloading stolen material a crime? And wouldn't this be compounded by the fact that with torrent systems you are also helping redistributing it further?

You are totally allowed to store ammo at your house.

The ones that you get when you go do your mandatory shooting rehearsal have to be completly expanded but you can just buy a case and bring it back home.

With some friends we were going to the shooting range quite a lot and bought like 1000 rounds and stored them at one of my friend's place to take advantage of a bulk discount.

It "at-will" in the sense that your employer doesn't need to justify firing you. But I wouldn' compare it to what they have in some states in the US.

However you still have at least 1 month notice, and often more depending on the industry and seniority. Here in Zürich the standard in tech seems to be 3 month (anecdata though).

Where it gets kinda business friendly is that if you are fired for an illegal reason, it's up to you to prove that you were instead of your employer having to prove he fired you for something reasonable. The settlements are also nothing that would deter a company to behave badly I guess.

There is also a good tradition of union-like structure in the professions that need it (the ones where one is easily replaceable basically) that give workers a nice protection and benefits. It's not like in France of course but it's far from the US, based on the stories I gleaned about on HN.

I live in Switzerland and the legal status of (tech) employee is roughly the same to what you describe. I wonder if the difference isn't that firing people "at-will" just is less culturally accepted here. I feel we're in kind of a weird spot between Japan and the US in terms of how the general public conceives the relationship between an employee and an employer.

It's not the first article I read on HN about an upcoming recession. This is for sure self-centered but the questions I end up asking myself are mainly how it'll affect my life and career.

Questions like if there was a recession tomorrow would I still be able to apply at a cushy well-paid faang job or if it is even smart to switch job now since the newer you are the more likely your are to be cut off if there is a need for downsizing.

I've never lived through a recession as a working individual hence why the prospect makes me nervous. I figure that, over the course of one's life, one goes through a few of them and that (mostly) everyone seems to make it out ok but if someone has some insights to share I'll be grateful.

I see your point but I don't really see this as a problem.

If you're going to play this game for a significant amount of time, I think it is only fair that you pay it. The question is then if it's worth $70, which I would guess it is.

I agree on the idea, but where to draw the line?

A direct report is definitely a bad idea, but what if it's someone who reports to one of your reports?

Or someone who report to another manager?

etc.

At some point it should become ok. Completely forbidding people to find romance at the workplace would make it feel so gray, especially given the time you sink in it.

My (admittedly naive) understanding of the ordeal leads me to believe that it is that the 1st would not segfault but the second will since declaring it as a const pointer will create additional memory constraints.

Testing it on my machine with the following code seems to validate this hypothesis.

  //file: test.c
  #include <stdio.h>
  const void * const_pointer = &const_pointer;
  void * const const_value   = &const_value;
  
  int main()
  {
      printf("%p\n", const_pointer);
      *(int*)const_pointer = 0;
      printf("%p\n", const_pointer);
  
      printf("---------------------------\n");
  
      printf("%p\n", const_value);
      *(int*)const_value = 0;
      printf("%p\n", const_value);
      return 0;
  }
  
  Result:
  
  $ gcc test.c
  test.c:4:30: warning: initialization discards ‘const’ qualifier from pointer target type [-Wdiscarded-qualifiers]
  void * const const_value   = &const_value;
                              ^

  $ ./a.out
  0x55b29ebfc010
  0x55b200000000
  ---------------------------
  0x55b29ebfbdb8

  Command terminated

As to why the first one doesn't also result in a segfault, I don't know.

There's also the fact that maybe you wouldn't take the high-ridership bus/train that the low-ridership bus connects you to, but instead just car directly to your destination, resulting in higher overall emissions.

Then shouldn't you look at whether the act violence involves two people of criminal background instead of looking at their gender?

Just because someone is subjected to violence from someone who shares some group characteristics doesn't mean it's not worth investigating or that he or she is somehow responsible for this violence.

A similar logic could be applied to black men on black men violence, to cite other answer that you got.

To push it further I what stops us from using the same reasoning to say that it's not worth investigating domestic violence in the case of same-race couple? In the end it's just whites hurting whites.

Currently animals raised for meat consumption get B12 injections too. What vegan do is just making the loop more efficient by taking the "injection" themselves.

> Women weren't drafted because the government didn't mandate it. Trump avoided the draft by receiving a questionable diagnosis from a doctor.

For something to be justified it needs to be more than just government mandated. If the government mandated to only draft black men, would you call a black man with a questionable diagnosis of bone spur in the feet a draft dodger?

All of Trump's behaviour when it comes to the Vietnam war could be criticized without using the term draft dodger, especially without using it like it's usually used, i.e. with the implication that having draft dodged is bad, which imo is quite an hypocritical stance to have for someone opposed to the Vietnam war.

I'm just focusing on the draft dodger treatment here, the rest of Trump character can be criticized very well without relying on the draft dodging card.

See my response to danso for why I think draft dodging should get this kind of treatment.

And again, I'm not blaming the women for following the law of the land, I'm merely highlighting the disputable fairness of the law of the land of the time and how it might be used as a way to justify dodging, especially given the context of the war.

I am not blaming the women for not having served. What I wanted to highlight with the "draft dodge" between quotes is that the reason they weren't drafted is as void as pretending that you had bone spurs, from a modern progressive standpoint. I'll concede that women didn't have a lot of representation back in the day, but so did a lot of the men required to serve. And they nonetheless did have the right to vote, so they do share part of the collective responsibility for the behaviour of elected politicians.

From a modern, progressive point of view, it seems obvious that if you are going to require people to serve then everyone should serve, regardless of race, gender or social status. This was not the case during the Vietnam era, and I think that draft dodging should thus be seen more as civil disobedience than something shameful. However, the framing it is given when used to shame politicians by progressive outlets such as the NYT is far from that, I think it is hypocritical to fight for equality yet fail to recognize how young men, and young men alone, were buried under this obligation.