Captain-Griffen

Captain-Griffen t1_je22jfi wrote

Probably nothing. Calling mass copying and distribution of copyrighted material "fair use" just because you bought a single book is a very tough sell, legally speaking.

It isn't archiving that's the problem, it's the distribution aspect. Calling it "archiving" is disingenuous, or, more accurately, a complete lie.

−1

Captain-Griffen t1_jdqjtge wrote

As you might expect, fault in both cases was primarily assigned to the destroyers rather than the carrier. What fault that lay with the carrier was mostly in not screaming "wtf are you doing?" early enough at the destroyers.

2

Captain-Griffen t1_jdotex7 wrote

Recessive genes are, in fact, tougher for natural selection to completely eliminate than dominant ones.

If you have only 1% having the gene, only 1% of carriers will express the gene and be selected against. Meanwhile, any predators exploiting that gene would be getting almost no benefit, pushing them away from that behaviour.

1

Captain-Griffen t1_jac1kl3 wrote

Reply to comment by Chii in ELI5: What is imputed income? by RylieSensei

Imputed income that comes from employment is usually taxable. The company might automatically cover the taxes on the imputed income, though (which is then itself income that is taxable).

Imputed income from owning a house wouldn't be, as there is no taxable event. (Although there might well be property taxes that achieve a similar result.)

1

Captain-Griffen t1_j6jq76q wrote

What stops it is that they do, in fact, verify authenticity and even places a hold on your account immediately. They're talking complete bollocks.

The reason why contactless has limits is because of the lack of a pin. If you steal a card, you can use it up to certain amount of times for a certain amount of money before you need to do a pin transaction. The limits are there to stop a genuine but stolen card being used too much without a PIN.

1

Captain-Griffen t1_j2e0wf4 wrote

I've never heard of this policy ever existing, anywhere. I doubt it does. What does happen is that companies are always trying to cut costs from the top down.

In a hypothetical well run company, everyone tries to save unnecessary costs.

In most companies, it's a constant battle of higher management trying to cut costs and those lower down the rung wanting to get the job done and go home with the minimum of stress.

Lower management want to hit budget to not get bollocked / to get their bonuses, but they don't actually give a shit about the company's bottom line. If they can spend the money on stuff that will make their employees happier and make the work go smoother without those above them getting pissy, they usually will.

Why not give bonuses for reducing costs? That's really hard to do well. Likelihood is you'll just have managers completely fuck the business long term to hit short term targets. Better for them to not cut costs all the way they can than to gut the company in a year.

0

Captain-Griffen t1_j1v8zt5 wrote

Mine didn't either (UK). A company I worked with did though.

Holy fucking shit, fire is terrifying, even a controlled fire used for training purposes. Fire extinguishers are also pretty effective for the size of fires they're okay at fighting - if you cannot put it out in 5 seconds, stop fighting the fire and do a fucking runner.

1