I think holding a grudge is not good for anyone. However, remembering details about who wrongs you and over what is important--you take measures to avoid letting them take advantage of you again. They have damaged your trust in them.
Your trust level in people should reflect how they've treated you. It should be possible to earn back trust over mistakes when someone truly regrets wrongdoing, but people should understand that this takes time and consistency. Anyone who doesn't understand this is not worthy of your trust.
Now, it's trying to stop fingerprinting (also called canvas fingerprinting), which first appeared in the digital zeitgeist a decade ago.
Can anyone with knowledge on this stuff share whether it's too little, too late for many of us? Since data has been gathered in this way for up to a decade already, will this do any good?
I think the article was updated since this post was made:
>
>
> Trump already faced 31 counts of illegally retaining national defense information, but prosecutors have added a 32nd to the list. That count centers on a now-infamous conversation Trump allegedly had at his golf club and summer residence in Bedminster, N.J., in July 2021, focused on what has been described by others as a secret military document concerning Iran.
> In that conversation, which was recorded, Trump allegedly said: “As president I could have declassified it. ... Now I can’t, you know, but this is still secret.”
>
>
Pretty damning.
I would like the ability to stream and watch on-demand Premier League matches in the US from a single subscription. Apple TV+ or whichever provider, doesn't matter to me, I just want to be able to watch the footy as my schedule permits.
Edit: Spelling
You give him too much credit, he didn't write the song. In fact, he only wrote four songs from his ten albums, most recently in 2009. Like most of his country contemporaries he's not an artist, just a pandering performer.
She doesn't have any sense at all, does she? She has no business even running a bake sale. I'll never understand why so many choose to be represented by morons.
Yes, good, let the projection flow through you
In addition to other points, the election machine wants it this way. Advertisers, lawyers, staff, venues, news organizations, and all the other hangers on make good money from the nonsense.
So I agree with you, changes are completely necessary. I just don't see how when the money makers pay off those who could make real changes.
I suppose employee value is for any given company to decide. Companies that determine there is value in having employees onsite, and as we know there are plenty of them out there, may place more value on their in-office employees--even if they allow certain positions to be remote.
From what I've seen many remote advocates don't want to discuss the extra benefits they receive from working remotely as compared with their in-office peers, but it's true nonetheless.
I say all this not because I'm anti-WFH, but because I advocate equal compensation for all employees. Folks who expect equal pay while also having zero or reduced commute burden are thinking only of themselves as I see it. Commuting is a pain in the ass, the costs are always rising, and it's been a problem that employers have passed on to workers for entirely too long. So as long as employees find ways like WFH to mitigate the problem, all employees should benefit in some way. Fair is fair for all, not just some.