programmerpass

6 ms·

1.
by programmerpass 2y ago
“ we would be arguing”? I wouldn’t. I would argue it should be illegal for the police, media, and others who have significant roles in society to lie and that they should be criminally prosecuted. The only tragedy that I see is that most p
2.
by programmerpass 2y ago
What is “pro-47”?
3.
by programmerpass 2y ago
MSM is corrupt. That was the point. It does not matter the side.
4.
by programmerpass 2y ago
The reason Chevron likely compelled the Executive Order, at least in part, is because the Trump administration likely views the ability for agencies to self-resolve ambiguities in their own rules as bad and potentially obstructive to their
5.
by programmerpass 2y ago
Chevron was outrageous from purely a legal perspective. Chevron likely caused this Executive Order and rightfully so.
6.
by programmerpass 2y ago
This would apply only to the 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportatio
7.
by programmerpass 2y ago
Fascinating that Trump doesn’t even come close to breaking the record. Does anyone know what the majority of the Executive Orders related to for the high-volume presidents and if those Executive Orders were eventually reversed or not? It’s
8.
by programmerpass 2y ago
Agreed
9.
by programmerpass 2y ago
Well, it’s going to have to pass the Elon Misk audit now. Bless his efforts.
10.
by programmerpass 2y ago
This is definitely not accurate.
11.
by programmerpass 2y ago
You need to be vibe checked.
12.
by programmerpass 2y ago
Most people, based on my experience, would rather support Elon Musk than support a strategy recommended by an individual who believes that the MSM should be trusted. Not to mention that most of your sources to support your points are from f
13.
by programmerpass 2y ago
Great question. I don’t have a good answer. Could a be a “facts and circumstances” type of legislation similar to the IRS. Many IRS rules go back to the “facts and circumstances” of a particular case to evaluate all the nuances relating to
14.
by programmerpass 2y ago
If an activity is profitable but the government can prosecute you for taking place in that activity, there in no correlation. That’s the point. Advertising was dangerous because there was a perception that the previous US government would p
15.
by programmerpass 2y ago
The inverse: ensure companies that are already working with companies are not leaving them for illegitimate reasons.
16.
by programmerpass 2y ago
There should be a law in place whereby if you a prove a company was engaged in profitable advertising or activities and stopped doing those activities in response to political stances the company can be prosecuted. Not sure where this would
17.
by programmerpass 2y ago
Agreed.
18.
by programmerpass 2y ago
It was profitable to do so a year ago, it was simply dangerous politically. Now given Trump is in office and aligned with Musk, it’s politically beneficial. That seems to be the truth.
19.
by programmerpass 2y ago
“The survey highlights two interesting facts: 46% of tech employees have noticed an increase in DEI investments in 2020, and 51% companies now report on DEI metrics. However, the report also highlights the need for continued action. 14% of
20.
by programmerpass 2y ago
Well, if businesses had to prove that each hire is related to dei, which was the previous state of affairs, many would argue that is when evil creeps into business culture. So, it goes both ways, supposedly.
21.
by programmerpass 2y ago
The CNBC piece omits details that other coverage has: “The trial resulted in jurors finding that while Toptal did everything of significance it was required to do under its contract with Grosz, Grosz had breached the contract, harming Topta