It's not built yet, but rumors are that it's gonna be inside a McDonald's franchise. It's going to be called the McDonald Trump Presidential Library, a public–private partnership. It's going to be great and amazing and the best library maybe ever.
The mental gymnastics to defend Trump are astonishing. But sure, Obama had classified documents (bullshit, btw). While Trump was in the White House and republicans held both chambers of Congress. Why wasn't this investigated? Was the Trump administration an abject failure? Who's to say?
So we've been through:
- there are no documents
- there are documents, but were declassified
- there are classified documents, but they've been planted by the Feds
We are here > there are classified documents for sure, but Obama had even more classified documents
The time I used vert.x in my day job was by far the best Java experience in my career. Completely different language. And the vert.x maintainers have been all around great wrt to responding to issues and/or accepting contributions. Great framework. It has it's quirks and limitations but overall I absolutely loved working with it.
But wasn't he President when he took the documents to MAL, or at the very least, when he packed them to go to MAL?
Or did he somehow take them after leaving the White House?
I don't know what charges the FBI will bring in this case, but for the sake of the nation, I hope they are something more serious than just failing to write a note saying "I authorize myself to take these documents."
@renato_mariotti: "James Comey was right when he testified that the DOJ typically does not prosecute cases involving the mishandling of classified material unless that material was deliberately transferred to a third party. That suggests to me that there is something we don't know here."
It honestly does not matter at this point. Remember when Trump said “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters"? Still holds up today and he's not even running for anything. The feds can find the most damning evidence of the most heinous crimes and will still not change the minds of the MAGA crowd. We're in the post-reason context right now.
Reason #2 - Nobody disagrees with this. The robots would probably clean better
Non-Reason #1 - There's a lot more information than the layout of the home which can be gathered by these robots. The layout of the home argument is a strawman. Of course the government knows how your rooms are partitioned. But the layout of your furniture, kids toys on the floor, water bowls for pets are just some of the things which can be detected just via blind exploration. The new models have cameras, I mean. And if you're saying 'but then all this data can already be inferred from your shopping history'. Yes, yes it can, but also another data point confirming speculative data can be valuable. Also, they can expose this data without your consent to the police and the data can be used against you in court. Think drug paraphernalia left of the floor or a stash of cash under your bed. Amazon's privacy policy states that they will share information with law enforcement in case of 'emergency'. A roomba with a camera turned on remotely is a wet dream for cops.
Non-Reason #2 - Yeah, for now.
Non-Reason #3 - `They already know this information` - they will know that information better. Whenever I hear this argument 'Oh, they already know'. No, they don't already 'know'. They have indicators about a particular piece of intelligence and now they'll have more. And the information you're talking about is the information which can be collected with the current sensors on the robot on the market. Who's to say what the future brings?
Reason #0 - That's incredibly reductionist about what a company the size of Amazon does. But sure, have it your way. They sell things. This will enable them to sell things better. But that doesn't dismiss the fact that Amazon did and does share your personal information with law enforcement without customer consent and without a warrant. And let's not forget, Amazon received the largest GDPR fine in history. I would not trust any of my data to Amazon, let alone invite them into my house.
Comments like yours, on a forum filled with people actually working on data collection related features makes me lose all hope that we'll actually reach a point in which the industry will side with the consumer.
Just to remind everyone about the 'this is fine..' comments. Amazon bought Ring: 'this is fine..' - shared footage with LEO agencies without a warrant and without consent. Amazon releases Alexa 'this is fine..' - 'Amazon and third parties are collecting and sharing Alexa voice interactions from Echo speakers with up to 41 different advertising partners'.
I've been doing on-call for more than a decade and I feel I need to offer my perspective here. I worked in teams in which I would never get paged and also teams in which I'd get 100 alerts per week.
> But why? Why do you think oncall should be paid the same as full work? Perhaps you have a different definition of oncall than me, where you expect to be paged once or twice a week, and spend maybe an hour or so fixing it each time?
When I'm oncall, I need to cancel all my social engagements for that week and delegate all my errands and such to my partner. Also not drink or take any mind altering substances. I must be 'ready' at any time of day or night. I (as well as others) sleep in the same bed with my partner. If my phone rings due to an alert, my partner is also woken up. So I need to sleep in the living room for a week. From the start, this affects my personal life to the extent that it would be unfair NOT to compensate me extra. It also affects my family way more than a regular desk job should.
You're mentioning the expectation to be paged once or twice a week. If those pages come at odd hours and you need to fix them on the spot, no exceptions, failure is not an option, etc.. it's still very disturbing to your personal life. Additionally, that's a parameter which is well outside of your control. I've seen oncall shifts which turned from '1-2 pages a week' to '5-10 pages a day' after the product finally got in the hands of regular users or after the team grows in size and code contributions grow suddenly. Or even better, when you're doing such a great job that your boss promotes you in the oncall tier and now you also get to do triage for alerts coming for the whole organization.
The volume of the alerts don't and shouldn't matter. If you're oncall, you're oncall, you have a responsibility to be available at all times, rain or snow, night or day. This deserves compensation. It's the same as with regular work. Do you get paid extra when you merge more PRs? Nope. You're paid relative to the value you add to the company. Even if you have weeks in which you barely do anything. You're paid for your 'availability' first, then your work.
Some companies (some I've been lucky to work at) implement some sort of follow-the-sun oncall shift and you at least get to have your sleep and generally minimal impact on your personal life. That is great and does not deserve extra compensation, because your work hours aren't altered at all.
I'm sad that labor in the US don't consider paying extra for oncall a norm. But it's not surprising, considering we did have dedicated engineers at one time who were paid to watch and maintain the health of the livesite 24/7. But then we figured we'd make regular engineers fuck their sleep cycles by adding oncall to the list of responsibilities, because it would be cheaper this way. And everybody agreed, because 'full-service ownership' and we're already paid way more than in other fields. When the latter changes (and it will), we'll still not get paid oncall and I'd love to see the discussion when that happens.
It sounds like your oncall is far stricter and noisy than those I have experienced. It genuinely sounds like it is disrupting your life to a large extent.
"failure is not an option" is not something I recognise, in the same way that sometimes features cannot be implemented as quickly as wanted, and systems are not as bugfree as I would like. But I am expected to put in a professional level of effort.
In my experience of oncall, it means carrying my laptop to social events, not drinking, and apologising if my alarm goes off in the night. For that, I accept the deal that is offered, which is less than my normal hourly rate, but still substantial given the number of hours.
If the volume of pages increased, or the required response time was lowered, I would reconsider.
> From the start, this affects my personal life to the extent that it would be unfair NOT to compensate me extra.
I don't think anyone is arguing that people oncall shouldn't be compensated extra. It's obvious that you should be compensated for being oncall, it would be criminal not to do so in my opinion.
The difference is that it's not full time employment compensation, because you're not working your normal work expectations.
You're not working overtime because you are not working your expected 9to5 duties.
Overtime would be if you were actually sitting in front of your computer actively working on your project (coding, answering emails, bugs, feature requests, etc). Just being available counts as a remunerable activity but I don't think you'd be able to convince anyone that it counts as actual overtime duties like you would if you were actually overtime. It's "doing something" more than it is "doing nothing" but it's not as involved as actually "doing work" like you normally would. Hence, you are being paid for it, but it's not your full rate.
That's a false equivalence. The court mediates the case between private parties. That's what civil court does. This is not a trial between 'the people' (the State) and Alex Jones. It's between some of the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre and Alex Jones. Jones is free to say whatever and the state cannot make laws about what he can say or cannot say, but that doesn't stop private individuals from suing him and winning.
to be fair, whilst it's true the distinction is hugely important to US concepts of free speech, it's also true it's not necessarily as material as it might seem. The state is composed of people, who have the right to sue their critics for alleged slander/libel (quite a lot of political speech involves making adversarial claims about people or corporate entities which could theoretically be ruled as malicious and factually untrue). Politicians suing other politicians or critics is unusual rather than not permitted in the US, but in other places like Singapore tort law is used consistently against prominent critics. It's possible for civil courts to be consistently biased in favour of politically-connected individuals and companies and for the consequences for criticism of them to be financially ruinous, and possible for actual criminal speech offences in other jurisdictions to have [lower] purely financial penalties, stronger presumptions in favour of the defendant and more scrupulously independent judicial processes.
It's not built yet, but rumors are that it's gonna be inside a McDonald's franchise. It's going to be called the McDonald Trump Presidential Library, a public–private partnership. It's going to be great and amazing and the best library maybe ever.