And that's bad because?

Proofreading and editing takes a fraction of the time it takes to generate sincerity from scratch.

If Obama didn't push for ACA, we would not be at this point we are now. Even if he did not succeed to get everyone on board, he moved the needle. The conversion is steering in the right direction.

And like the other replier said, the president sets the guidance for congress and their party. They make it clear what they want to pass and what won't pass, then congress will work towards those goals/ compromises. Ex, If the president clearly indicates she is pro choice, any anti abortion legislation is going to be vetoed so no one is spending political capital trying to push for it, grandstand aside.

The entire premise is BS because Biden has a list of accomplishments from infrastructure to debt forgiveness, progressive drug guidance, progress in gender/race equality, departments like the ftc and irs being competently run again with actual resources, to judge appointments. Hmm I wonder to who's benefit it is to ignore all that and label him "not Trump"?

She did not indicate anything of the sort, just that she did not want to take part in it. Beyond that is speculation. She is asking for documentation proving they did not use her voice without permission to train the AI. That's perfectly fair.

You're hired! - Valve

Definitely reads like an early April fool's

Found the person that doesn't read the article!

The article is confusing but it sounds like the union wants both C and G at the table, but C and G both agree that C should be the employer and G doesn't need to join the talks. So C is saying, if you really want G to join, you'll have to wait until the appeals are finished.

I'm guessing the union doesn't want to negotiate with C, have C go to G with the terms and G refuse and just causing endless delays in a game of telephone bargaining.

Paying for commute expense is already a solved problem.

Some examples, a fixed amount based on data provided every month for commute. (200 dollars a month or whatever)

Or if a company wants to be both stingy and generous at the same time, make you expense your gas or public transportation every month up to a certain limit.

It doesn't matter if you move to a different part of town. The cost is negligible to a business.

A third party isn't them though. I get what you are saying because LMG writes the check, but realistically that's the best anyone can do. Why would the government get involved? Specifically why would taxpayers pay to help rehabilitate a private company's reputation?

Private independent auditors are in every industry and a standard practice.

Oh, and as long as we're being cynical, let's say you got your wish and a government entity does the investigation. Odds are they would just contract it out to these same people. Same results, only everyone gets to charge more for their services.

Aside from ordering a third party investigator, how else can a company prove to itself and everyone that they are serious about corrective action?

You're essentially saying they are guilty of everything and no matter the findings which haven't even begun, there is a conspiracy. I don't see how that cynicism is productive.

To further this thought, it makes it really easy for any motivated party to profile accounts.

Create an account that posts intentionally politically motivated news or comments.

Rinse and repeat a few times and now you the data you want.