Starlink satellites are (quite literally) above the law. Until Brazil develops a space force to go seize them out of orbit, it seems like Elon can do whatever the fuck he wants.

What a braindead take.

You've never heard of biased, politically motivated supreme court justices? That's... hard to believe. You should Google "Roe v Wade" and then check back. How can two different versions of a supreme court rule completely differently on the same issue if the underlying constitution hasn't changed?

Read the relevant parts of their constitution, then check the supreme courts decision, and let me know how you think it makes sense.

She's definitely used her race as a political chit, and that's that's what Dana was asking her about and what she's avoided answering. I don't think anyone here could find any campaign materials from when she was running for DA that referenced her being Black, but there are tons that reference her Asian heritage.

It's completely reasonable to ask someone why they overhauled their entire racial identity in between campaigns.

Did you actually read the answer? Looks correct to me.

He literally told it to give the answer "in km". That's on him, not Bing.

No, by victims we mean the people using a road in the way roads were used for centuries, completely legally. The ones being hit from behind by people in too much of a hurry to use proper caution in area where Amish frequently travel and they are not the only users of the roadway.

If I drive through a neighborhood with a "Children at Play" sign and run over a kid, I can 100% guarantee you that I am not the victim. That is some very cringe logic. The road exists first for pedestrians, secondly for non-motorized vehicles, and lastly.... for automobiles.

Businesses aren't legally required to accept cash?

The AI isn't "generating" it - it's just whittling down from what you provide to it and swapping out synonyms to match the job description. Try it - you shouldn't need to make any manual edits if the input data and prompt line up correctly.

I spent about a year looking for a job (senior management in cybersecurity), and had basically ZERO luck until I got wise and did the following. Had a new role within 4 months afterwards.

1. Take your resume, and expand it 10-20x into a massive document listing every single project, accomplishment, or skill you can think of that could ever be potentially relevant in a new role.
2. Every time you apply to a new job, copy the job posting into a ChatGPT conversation, and have it edit your resume to a 1-2 page document that only includes the experience most relevant to the job posting, and to rewrite sentences to use the exact terminology from the job posting where appropriate.
3. Once you have the custom resume, use ChatGPT to generate a custom cover letter to include as well.

These 2 changes will cause your resume to get assigned a higher "relevance score" by the AI tool their HR or recruiting team uses to weed through the 400+ applications they receive, which means you'll be at the top of the list of names that gets delivered to first human in the process (the recruiter).

You'll actually start getting callbacks and phone screens at that point, which gives you a fighting chance. The rest is up to you.

There are paid services that'll do this for you (like Teal), but you can do it yourself and with more control as long as you have access to ChatGPT. If you can generate a completely customized resume and cover letter in less than 2 minutes, you can pump out 10 high-quality applications in less than half an hour per day.

Edit: I see you're getting a 40% response rate. You may be setting your sights too low if that remains consistent. If you're applying for roles that are a solid step up form where you're at, you would expect closer to a 10% response rate.

I work from home and live on a sailboat, sailing up and down the west coast (south in Winter, north in Summer). Not exactly a lot of opportunities to develop or maintain social connections other than on Discord/Steam. How would I even meet anyone during the week or so I stay in a given town before shipping out? And who wants to date a guy who's only in town for a week or two per year?

The only way I could maintain a relationship would be an LTR where she lived onboard with me, but I don't see how I could every date someone to establish that LTR in the first place. Kind of a chicken and egg situation.

I may be one of the few guys in the 6, 6, 6 club who's been single for years with no hope of finding a woman. And I just don't think the changes I'd have to make to my lifestyle to make that easier would be worth it. So... I guess I'll just die alone?

Too late. Lumen5 crashes on Firefox. Google Cloud Console barely loads. I was a Firefox user for YEARS but finally had to uninstall this week. The amount of "Firefox is not supported" warnings and weird issues I was running into every day was getting a tad ridiculous.

I just uninstalled Firefox yesterday after it came out that they are collecting user data by default. If I'm going to be tracked either way, I might as well use the browser that's actually supported on sites I use so I don't have to keep ignoring the "Firefox is not supported and some features may not work" warnings 5x a day.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974112

We're having two different conversations. I'm not here to say whether Biden was right or wrong to only hire black women for those roles. I'm not even going to pass judgement on how to redress the balance, as you put it. Those questions are way above my pay grade.

I'm merely here to say that when Republicans say "The people hiring based on DEI are the racists, not us", the data shows that the majority of Americans agree with them. Therefore, as a purely political strategy, criticizing Biden and democrats for not considering white women for certain roles is a net win because more independents will agree than disagree.

Democrats are free to say "But we have to use a calculated form of counter-racism as a cure for historical wrongs." They may even be right. It may be the only moral thing to do. Disagreeing may be evil and immoral. But none of that changes the fact that it's not a winning electoral strategy to say or focus on those things in the 2024 presidential race.

Racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.

Putting my PoliSci cap on... Most Americans would say, "Two wrongs don't make a right. Being racist today isn't a valid fix for the harms of people being racist yesterday." And that's why Republicans win when Democrats focus too much on racial issues - the 7 in 10 perceive it as a new form of racism directed at them.

Do you want to be right at all costs? Or do you want to win this election?

I'm not defending them. It is possible to describe a political reality without endorsing that reality. That's all I'm doing.

That would also be racism. Any time you use race as a hiring factor in the US, you are breaking the law and promoting racism.

Now you're twisting my words. I'm not trying to defend Republicans. I'm trying to help you understand the nature and intent behind their words so you realize they aren't as dumb as you think. Respect thy enemy and all that.

Most Californians think hiring based on race is wrong, and racist. Across the country, the margins on that get even better.

Republicans are just playing into that. You can downvote me all you want, but it doesn't change the political reality of the situation.

Edit: I just checked - 7 in 10 Americans oppose affirmative action (reverse racism). To quote Biden, "It's a fact, Jack!" You may support it, but that doesn't make it a winning campaign strategy.

I'm just talking about the way most Americans define it. You don't have to agree, but from a political science perspective, you're playing a losing game if you stick to that definition. The majority of Californians don't even agree with it, so imagine how much worse it polls in the rest of the country...

I'm happy we didn't listen to people like you!

Fired up - ready to go!

Judging someone (or refusing to consider someone for a job) based on the color of their skin is racism. At least to most Americans. Which is why this is politically smart for the red team. The weird variation where you dismiss racism directed towards groups that were historically powerful is a fringe left idea, recently outlawed even in liberal California when affirmative action was banned.