Even longer than that.

But gas means money, so fuck anyone and everything else that might get in the way.

I mean, shit, at least lionize some blinkered fanatic like Stonewall Jackson.

Jackson was a 19th century Christian jihadist.

On the other hand… instead of Lee or Jackson, James Longstreet is right there.

Finding new and different applications for the Musk RTO technology!

The Rock, Sean Connery

I love this!

I also thought Matrix, but Neo would be Gonzo and Morpheus would be still played by Laurence Fishburne.

Oh man, I feel like the energy between the Muppets and Viggo Mortenson would make me pick him instead.

Animal could play Gimli, Sam the Eagle is Gandalf.

My favorite summary and comparison of two movies was something along the lines of:

"In The Muppet Christmas Carol, Michael Caine plays it absolutely straight, as if there were no Muppets at all, and as if he were completely surrounded by nothing but classically trained professional actors…

…in Muppet Treasure Island, on the other hand, Tim Curry plays it as if he himself were a Muppet."

A company I used to work for touted their profit sharing program as a major incentive when I was hired. Basically, any profits over X% in any giver quarter, a portion of the profits beyond X were shared proportionally with the employees. Simple and effective.

Well my first quarter there apparently I was not included because I hadn’t worked there the full quarter. Okay, whatever. The next quarter I did indeed get a modest bonus, nothing crazy, but nice.

After that, the market surged and we were working on what would definitely be one of our best quarters in years. Well the ownership saw that and at our quarterly recap meeting, they announced “upgrades” to the bonus formula: going forward, they’d share an even larger percentage of profits over X%…but now instead of X being a fixed percentage, it was a variable moving target that they would set at the beginning of each quarter based on projections.

Projections that, by the way, they didn’t share with the class until halfway through each quarter.

Conveniently, from there on out, their projections were always so accurate that the bonuses basically completely went away.

The second-to-last straw for me was one quarter when the market was really bad, yet our people worked hard and somehow in a down market, our company surged against the tides and had an amazing quarter. We were all proud of our work and looking forward to that bonus.

Well in the fucking meeting where they gave out the bonus, they announced that it was such a unique situation that they revised their projections a second time, once at the midpoint of the quarter…and again just two weeks ago. For me, that meant that a bonus roughly estimated to be about $1,500 ended up being a check for $33.

I was so tempted to just throw the check in the trash on my way out of that meeting.

Thus I refreshed my resume and started looking. Found a great role in government work and began the months-long pre-employment process. In the quarter that happened next, morale was utterly shot and our company had a down quarter. We still did well, mind you, and better than our competition and the market in general, but we only had slight growth (in a quarter where many competitors had contraction). Of course we missed the pie-in-the-sky projection and got no bonus that quarter.

Then, as it worked out, I was set to give my 2 week notice, and my boss scheduled my annual review for that exact day.

Went in, was told I was doing a great job, helping the company, blah blah blah…but that in the next year moving forward, they wanted me to take half the workload of another worker they’d recently terminated and didn’t plan to replace. Additionally, the new ERP system, that I’d been asking to be trained on for months…well they weren’t going to train me on it, but instead, I’d be expected to learn the old system, to help pick up the workload of other employees as they learned the new system. So my workload was set to more than double, while not getting the training I’d requested (not even like paid courses, just let me sit in on the meetings and have access to the material)…and of course in this market, the best they could do for me was a 1.3% annual raise. Boss said he was sorry and wished he could give me more of a raise but even he was only getting a 6% raise.

Then he asked if I had any feedback for him before we wrapped up and it felt incredible to say, “Yeah, well…I’m not going to be doing any of that extra work you just told me about, because two weeks from now I’m not going to be here anymore. Consider this my 2 week notice.”

I think their argument is that the tax revenue is still owed, whether it’s collected or not. So the IRS could absolutely get back on track post Trump and pursue these unpaid taxes.

I’m starting to think maybe the username isn’t just a username, and the account is literally for a wall panel to express its views.

Of the entire list, I guess I’d pick Grassley.

At least he’s from the old school of partisan bickering.

Remember when Obama wearing a tan suit was enough to keep the right frothing at the mouth for weeks?

Uh…great story?

It wasn’t until I saw this pic that I realized that a platypus and a tardigrade look alike.

Which is why we need an update to the tax system to add brackets to cover the entire range of income, then redefine them based on percentages off the median, with the highest bracket set at 95% or more for the highest 5% of earners.

I think you misunderstood them…

Said another way:

“There’s an unspoken lack of trust that comes with forcing people to come (back) into an office. Basically, it’s the employer telling their employees that they don’t trust them to do their work unless management can physically see them at their desks in the office.”

Can you give examples?

Both clock and auto?

Because other than time, I’m having a hard time seeing what else a clock is telling you by being analogue.

I just first want to say kudos for having a well reasoned point that you’re defending with logic, patiently and consistently, with respect for all.

That’s rare on the Internet, and Lemmy in particular, which is severely prone to the group generally deciding on one “right” position and mercilessly punishing dissent.

All that said, I think I broadly agree with you, and further, think that all of this DEI stuff is essentially “affirmative action for a new generation”.

It’s so hard to nail it down and defend it because (it seems) proponents don’t like to explain so much of how it works (and how it works differently from not incorporating it), and rather tend to answer with what it accomplishes. In theory at least.

The problem, of course, being that this subtly shifts the criticism and defense from DEI itself to its goals.

You can say “DEI means that the company is better by getting the best employees and also helps historically disadvantaged demographics get better jobs” without at all describing how that happens, and suddenly disagreeing on the merits of DEI gets misconstrued as “companies should only hire white guys and maintain the status quo”, at which point they’re more easily targeted with ad hominem and lumped together with true bigots and racists.

Regarding the issue itself, from everything I’ve seen, DEI should be less “this is an initiative we’re doing and have a team on it and track it’s metrics” and more just, “We’ll hire the best person for the job.”

Because ultimately, anything other than “We’ll hire the best person for the job.” means, by definition, “We’ll pass on the best person based on their, or the other candidates’ race, gender, religion, etc.”

If that means an overwhelmingly white male workplace, that’s a social indicator, not a problem for the company to fix. Also, hypothetically, what’s the desired end goal in terms of workplace diversity? To match the local area as closely as possible? If so, what happens when the most qualified candidates happen to be overwhelmingly from a minority? Are they going to start hiring less qualified white guys to balance it out? They shouldn’t. But they also shouldn’t hire a less qualified woman just because they only have one other woman in the whole building.

Ultimately, the only extent I could see a DEI policy actually having merit and being worth talking about would be something sort of like the Rooney Rule. A company saying, “For any position we post, we’re committed to interviewing at least X candidates from historically underrepresented minority demographics. We may still end up hiring a white guy…but this will ensure that we don’t get so used to seeing nothing but white guys that we forget to look elsewhere.”

It’s also not their place to level the social playing field, yet here we are.

Same picks for the same reasons.

… although I’m less proud to admit that I read it as “Known Father” the first time, didn’t catch it until I came to the comments, and he still didn’t make the top 2.

I just kinda figured that “Known Father” meant he was always talking about his kids and experiences with parenthood, and that was enough to eliminate him.