

Only dead Presidents are on money though.
Only dead Presidents are on money though.
Okay, so you’re not questioning policy of admins/mods, but pointing out your belief they followed the policy except they acted with bad information from the troll?
If that’s the case, I don’t think you have a pathway unless there is an appeals process. Have you engaged the admins/mods in question to see what evidence (if any) they would need to reconsider their decision?
I’m not reading your links for your specific troll because I just don’t need a troll to take up that much of my attention. However, your question is framed on any troll, so I think your question is valid and am fine discussing that.
All the info came from the troll’s posts, that are publicly available.
When mod/admins were presenting with the evidence that the troll performed self doxing, are you saying the mods/admins were fooled by the troll and took action they thought they were protecting a victim?
but this troll has gotten posts exposing them taken down because the posts reveal personal information,
Where did the “personal information” come from if not from the troll’s posts? If it was from the troll’s posts, then why would it be taken down if the troll themselves posted it elsewhere? Is it doxing if the person being doxed is the one consenting to posting the personal information themselves?
Would be funny to watch this go through and see how quickly he changes his mind on Open AI’s business model.
He’d be allowed to back out on this one unlike Twitter. He’d use his power with trump to prevent the SEC from forcing the sale to go through like the SEC did with Twitter.
Again, I’ve spoken about it already in prior post here: entrenched political interests would push back on it because you’re unnecessarily giving them the ammo to do so. This is the third time I’ve had to reference my prior posts to answer your current ones.
I’m not sure if we just have different levels of engagement on this topic or there is another issue. Regardless, I feel I’m made my position clear. You’re welcome to disagree, I’ll let my prior posts continue to speak to my position instead of repeating myself again. Thanks for discussing this up to now! Have a great day!
You’re skipping the messy transition. We don’t get that luxury. What you’re proposing would mean we likely never get the chance to put the solution in place.
Again, I think you missed this in my prior posts. I addressed this too. If you allow for the float based upon the history of no insurance, its going to bias against insurance at all. Doing what you’re proposing would immediately put good cops and bad cops on the same side against the idea of insurance. I’m not saying its impossible to shove a solution down the throat of someone that wants it, but its much much harder, and sometimes impossible with a particular political climate, especially the one we’re in right now. In short, entrenched interests will fight a solution. Fort the best chance of adoption, you want as many entities on the side of your solution. What your proposing does the opposite of that.
Why would good cops see the line item growing? It would be a static value to the city/department. Only the bad cops would see growing premiums as it relates to judgments against that particular bad cop. Those growing premiums would be paid by the individual bad cop.
I think you missed the part of my post where I communicated the city/department would pay the base premium for the officers. So good cops would pay nothing. Only bad cops that got higher rates from judgments against them would have to fork out the overage in premiums to continue practicing law enforcement.
I agree it will be from the top down government level, but why do you think good cops won’t like it?
oh im sure cops would be against it but I bet it would do stellar in a voter referendum.
Have you seen our voters lately?
Why not get good cops on your side in getting this in place first and let the actuarial tables be built from those experiences that reflect the system in place?
The challenge there would be you’d be uniting both bad cops and good cops against implementing professional insurance initially. This would also be a challenged to adoption if the city is paying the base premiums initially. Those base premiums would be likely high right out of the gate. It would be a great talking point good/bad cops would use against this idea to taxpayers “look at how much this is costing you to pay this high insurance base. We should get rid of it entirely” the cops would say.
I’m totally fine with that because its bad cop behavior. If a bad cop plans to “use” his insurance, they’ll quickly learn that the consequences are higher premiums coming directly out of the bad cop’s pocket. If they don’t learn the first time and keep “using” the insurance, in short order they won’t be able to afford their insurance and they will no longer be cops.
“as long as you can pay your insurance premium, you have license to abuse power.” Which is kind of what it already is - the city will pay the settlement, using tax dollars to do it.
Excactly, except this introduces the “as long as you can pay”. With bad cops continuing to get judgments their premiums will keep increasing. At some point the “as long as you can pay” kicks in, because they can’t afford to pay the insurance anymore, and they’re out as cops. The great part about this is that this is in complete control of the individual cop. If they’re good cops, they won’t get judgments against them, their rates won’t rise. They stay employed as cops.
Police carrying insurance, like other professionals such as doctors and licensed engineers carry, would fix this problem for the city, and also improve civil rights for the citizens. Bad cops would have their insurance pay for the liability they are found for. Their insurance premiums would increase to account for their bad behavior. Bad cops would eventually not be able to afford the sky high rates from their bad behavior and not be employable as cops anymore.
I’m even fine if a city would pay for the base insurance, but any premium increases from judgments of bad behavior would be born by the officer that caused it. This way good cops aren’t burdened by the actions of the bad ones.
The more experience you have, the more difficult it is becoming
That seems logical to me. There are fewer senior level positions, and if your skills are rising to that level you’re competing with all of the others that are as well. Fewer chairs remaining for the same number of candidates.
Also, I can say that I almost never hire folks just by posting for a job. At the senior level its so important to get a candidate that actually knows what they claim because the consequences of finding out they don’t on the job are too great. This is where we reach into our networks so that any candidate comes with word-of-mouth recommendation from someone we trust.
I don’t know why it is somehow socially acceptable to talk about a candidates faults in these word-of-mouth recommendations, but its considered poisonous from raw interviews. A perfect candidate doesn’t exist, or if they do they can likely make way more doing an even more expensive project. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and if your strengths are strong enough for the particular gig, and your weaknesses aren’t too bad for it, you get the gig.
At least in my industry who you know (because they themselves are trustworthy and can vouch for you) is potentially more important that what you know. This is why you’re told to network with others.
trump has been talking to Musk apparently. Musk sued companies that stopped advertising with Twitter. This is the same concept. Musk believes he is owed the advertiser’s money even before its given to him. trump is saying he deserved the attention that he thinks he would have received if CBS hadn’t aired 60 minutes.
In both cases, its bullshit.
Yikes who would downvote this comment? Pretty gross how many people love cars more than humanity and the planet.
Well, I did, and its not because I love cars and hate humanity/the planet. Its that this is such an irrelevant comment on the topic and is just looking to derail and invite argument that you yourself are perpetuating with your Strawman you posted here. I don’t downvote because I disagree with an opinion. I downvote when the posts are actively working against topical conversation to the thread.
That poster did the equivalent of going into a thread about threats to livestock and said “everyone should be a vegan”.
Oh, I downvoted you too, BTW.
And if the only way you remember that is by a strong hook and bass line, I’ve got you covered.