BlindTreeFrog

1484 pts ยท December 15, 2012


Placebo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-mYX0qKkB8<br>
I've only heard the Meg Meyers cover before now
https://youtu.be/N7iVWK2W48o?si=4xDbn2Elk_0Bxf55

2 days ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

There probably was. In this case it was likely something like a lump sum of 2 weeks pay plus 1 week for every year of employment with Oracle. And he would also have been offered COBRA which would give him 6 months or a year of continued health coverage, but at a much more expensive price point than he had been paying.

Oracle sucks, but this guy was not likely targeted for medical reasons, but a number from a list that was pulled (so they have a decent random mix of people being let go).

1 week ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Not sure I'd say that the salesman is wrong per say... but I don't think that motor spins 20K+ rpms; not for long at least.

1 week ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

With time, food supplies became more stable year round, labour during the seasons may have become more consistent (especially with the move to industrial societies from farming based), and sign characteristics because more generic in an attempt to remain "accurate"

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I figure that astrology used to have some validity back in the days when our lives were more seasonal and the during the 9 months of development the nutrients and workload of the pregnant mother varied. Not too hard to imagine that fetuses developing during the colder months spent eating most preserved food might have different personalities/characteristics fhan fetuses developing during the months abundant with fresh food but also heavy labor in the fields.

1 week ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I was laid off from Oracle years ago. What stood out for me was that they cancelled my health insurance before my last day of work, and they didn't auto-vest any remaining 401k matches (which i had to wait 5 years for them to bother to claw back).

Oracle does an excellent job of making sure that former employees would never want to return.

1 week ago | Likes 73 Dislikes 0

Did that over with my cousin's Italian mastiff when he was 2 or 3, except i was cradling him in my arms like he was a big baby. He definitely did not trust that i wouldn't pick him up again for years after that. Sweetheart of a dog... Little slobbery.

2 weeks ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 0

Assuming that you are using lacquer and not gels, washing the dishes afterwards will help clean up the paint on the skin. Don't know if it's the moisture or the soap, and maybe it's an old wives tale, but worth keeping in mind.

they also make masking fluid that you can paint around the nail and then peel off.

3 weeks ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

The replacement for the puff of air is a handheld device that bounces a poker off of your eye. It's less obnoxious. The replacement for dilatingb your eyes is the big camera with the flash that temporarily changes colors for you

3 weeks ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

And you would use your dogs slobber for later waterings on that walk? Rather than fresh water?

I am aware of the point of the bottle. I am commenting on the displayed usage. I've never owned a dog that I wanted to provide it's slobber water back for drinking. As I said, it's not a choice I would make.

3 weeks ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 9

The idea of saving water from a dog bowl that a dog has been drinking from is certainly a choice.... not one that I would make, but it is a choice.

3 weeks ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 5

One of my judo sensei pointed out that the purpose/origin of the hold downs was just to buy time for your buddy to stab the guy you were restraining. A context that made the sketchier holds make way more sense to me (some Judo holds are really easy to get into but not ideal to really restrain someone for long).

1 month ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

and holding purses.

1 month ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Porta john urinal for those who don't want to pee into the pooping hole

1 month ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

$50 - 11 - 10 would end up at $29m.
The court might have given some leeway of $10 mil to hire more local labor giving the $19m result,

But remember the business judgement rule itself is a rule of thumb that the business knows how to run itself, so the court is only going to rule against hem when it's obviously excessive and not a reasonable business oriented decision, which is a high bar to clear. Courts do not want to be second guessing businesses like they are running them.

1 month ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

yeah i thought that was what you meant, but i wanted to clarify i wasn't trying to argue one way or the other on the suit.

And yup, agreed.

1 month ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

butchering something I heard long ago, but very roughly....
Pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism are both beautiful economic concepts that work perfectly on paper/in theory, but in the real world they can't because both extremes lead to cheating the system and inequality. The real world goal is somewhere in between and the trick is figuring out where that middle point is.

Of course, that middle point will change over time. But anyone advocating purely for the extreme is probably very wrong.

1 month ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The full opinion is online if you want to read it: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/supreme-court/1919/204-mich-459-170-n-w-668-1919.html

The formatting is poor, but they have some numbers. After a very quick skim (so i might have misread), Ford made $60mil in profit that year and this fight was over a $50mil dividend payout which Ford said it couldn't do to build two new $11mil and $10mil facilities.

1 month ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

In review I should have clarified that the suit was that there were an unreasonable number of approvals.

If UHC went from approving 70% of claim to 75% it probably wouldn't have been an issue. If they went from 70% to 95% the shareholders might have reasonable concern. I have no idea what the numbers in the suit actually were.

1 month ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

UHC was sued because they appeared to be approving everything far above their normal operations. Investors can accept some higher approval rates under the argument of good will, but UHC was beyond those reasonable counts.

1 month ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

...that Ford wasn't a charity; it was a corporation formed to produce and sell automobiles (or whatever the corporate statement was). People were investing to support this and he can't pivot now to be a charity to raise up the local community through a works program even though that would arguably be a good thing for the community.

1 month ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Matt Levine often says "Everything is Securities Fraud" because of the ease that the US system allows shareholders to sue for misbehavior. He has specific articles on it in fact,
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud
To what you are getting at, remember how Corporations came to be... People are pooling money to undertake an endeavor and the people investing want to pursue that endeavor. That's why the court in Doddge v. Ford said....

1 month ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

https://legalclarity.org/dodge-vs-ford-the-case-that-defined-corporate-purpose/

Ford was correct that they get to determine the reasonable course of the company (Business Judgement Rule). But Dodge was right that Ford had acquired far more money than needed for those reasonable goals. And since the case was brought to force Ford to pay out the excess cash like they said they would previously, at least some of it had to be paid out.

1 month ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Just because an attorney cites precedent doesn't mean that they do it correctly, and sometimes that is on purpose. It's up to the opposing council to make sure that they are playing straight.
Also, attorneys can be lazy and not paying attention to the sometimes vague opinions (a few cases in law school I had to reread to grok how the summary matched the judge's writing).
And some attorneys like using still valid portions of overturned opinions just to screw with people (they are the best)

1 month ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I assume that you are referring to the Business Judgement Rule
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/business_judgment_rule

Just because the courts will defer to the businesses to run themselves, that doesn't mean that the businesses can do illegal things or act wildly outside the interests of the shareholders and/or business objectives.

1 month ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0