FishInABarrel

Desktop: Cerberus (triple monitors)
Media server: Alexandria
Firewall: Hadrian

You can see that the hose enters the center of a centrifugal blower, which is the inlet, so the hoses are sucking.

I think there’s a bug causing threads that don’t have an image to pull a random thumbnail. I’ve seen a lot of unrelated thumbnails the last couple of days, but this is the first NSFW one.

Man, I hate that BlueTooth doesn’t have an equivalent of “line-out” that isn’t affected by the host devices’ volume settings. It’s so annoying when I can barely hear my music because I turned the volume way down on my phone while watching a video late last night.

That’s a ceramic. Not exactly what people mean when they say “aluminum.” I mean, if that’s considered aluminum, then so is sapphire.

Consider two potential creditors:

• Person A has no credit history at all.
• Person B has had a credit card with a $20k limit for ten years, generally has a balance of less than $2k, and has never missed a payment.

Can you see how B is a less risky client than A? A is essentially an unknown risk, but B has demonstrated the ability to manage their debt. A could still get, for instance, a car loan, but likely not a mortgage. And B will get a lower interest rate.

There is a such a thing as an affirmative defense, though. An affirmative defense allows a person to commit an act that would otherwise be illegal under certain circumstances. However, as the name implies, an affirmative defense has to be argued by the defense. The burden is on the defense to prove that they acted under the circumstances permitted.

Consider murder, for instance. Self-defense is usually an affirmative defense. The prosecutor’s only burden is to prove that you killed someone. You have to demonstrate that you were acting in self defense in order to avoid the guilty verdict for murder.

So @vettnerk is asking a good question: will it be assumed that the doctor acted in good faith, or bad faith? Does the defense have to justify the abortion, or does the prosecutor have to demonstrate that it wasn’t necessary?

That’s a good point. I was thinking of my own experience in the software field, where it’s rare not to be paid enough to live comfortably. That definitely colors my perspective, as we’re usually a few steps up the ladder of Maslow’s hierarchy.

This is only partly wrong, though. Happy employees stay even when paid less than they might get elsewhere, and unhappy employees leave regardless of high pay.

In my humble opinion, I’d say none of the three options are correct.

• Ping-pong table - this is an answer along the lines of free pizza and casual Fridays that so many laughably out of touch managers default to. It’s liable to actually low-key insult your employees.
• Additional responsibilities - bitch, we are all drowning under work because of short staffing. I don’t need another title bump and half of Travis’ work after he left for a job with work-from-home.
• A raise in pay - this only works if you can raise pay so high that its worth dealing with this shitty job, and that often just isn’t possible.

What workers actually ask for is reasonable staffing, work/life balance, adequate tools to do their job, and autonomy.

Michael Clayton

Has ending on a cliff-hanger ever worked to get a show renewed?

I don’t know how it is in practice, but conceptually clearing a jam in a 40mm grenade thrower sounds nerve-wracking.