I've been using this for a while. It's good, lots better than postman's annoying attempts to force you into their cloud nonsense.
CapriciousDay
joined 5 days ago
well the publishing associations should be catching wind of this and it's already going through court so I guess we'll find out.
But if I had to guess I'd say the bourgeois court system which is loaded with Trump's picks right at the top is actually not going to let the billionaire donor go to jail
Oh great, let's just give Farage and co. a big old back door to spy on us when he inevitably stumbles into power. Can't see that being abused in any way.
Oh yeah the hosted DeepSeek has that
Wow Starmer's really fucking it.
oh interesting, but they did seed some. Distributors! Zuck go straight to yar-har jail
The very stretched use of the word "voluntary" here also leads one to inspect the meaning of "departure".
Any minute now a labour centrist type will be along to tell us that criticising Mandelson for his friendship with Epstein and all that implies is not pragmatic and is in fact unreasonable purity politics.
I think there's a balance, in that if everybody suppressed that speech and refused to take that risk of criticising then those corrupt and powerful state actors would be unchallenged.
They can then become even more powerful and may continue to encroach into private life and speech. While it may be necessary to defend yourself on the one hand, hiding entirely may also present additional dangers.
I'm very much so on this team. Single digit hours are too early, frankly.
Presumably every other country now ought to update their safety advice as it pertains to the US. Bleak.
Yep, it makes sense when you consider the real nature of management and why it actually exists.
A rich man starts a company. He hires 12 people under him. He's working a bit harder than he'd hoped, he's constantly fielding questions and such but all is well. He needs to hire two more people. This is too many for him to manage directly, so he appoints two people to manage the other twelve as two teams of 6. All is well again.
They expand up to 30 people and suddenly they find the two managers are too stretched again! So another manager has to be introduced. When the company is over about 150 people, we even need multiple layers of management to keep this whole thing afloat as suddenly there are too many managers reporting to the founder or to the managers.
Yet at no point does the person who owns the company agree to give up any real control. If someone sets a budget he doesn't like, he gives that control of the budget to someone else. Everyone in that hierarchy is acting on behalf of the owners under this arrangement.
The managers are just sat there with the mandate to make employees do more work under ever-increasing resource constraints, in the name of profit maximisation.
The management hierarchy functions as little more than a way of getting the owner's instructions down to the employees by people who can interpret them as such, and to feed issues back to whatever level has the ability to deal with them (or declare them not an issue, as is often the case).