I despise Trump and think he absolutely should be disqualified from holding office (including the presidency) - AT A MINIMUM. I’m also far more a “spirit of the law” advocate than “letter of the law”. With that said, the findings of the judge are perfectly reasonable in full context. The letter of the law clearly omits in its enumerations the office of the presidency. For this to have been merely a mistake would be so monumental an oversight as to make it highly unlikely. If there had been no listing of included offices, then the catch-all portion of that language would perhaps inarguably include the presidency (because of course it SHOULD be included). Thus, this omission also strikes at the spirit of the law. What the judge is saying is that the fact this list is included, yet fails to include so obvious an office one would imagine should be included (the presidency), indicates - absent compelling evidence to the contrary - that the Founders intended it to be omitted. In other words, absent said evidence, neither the letter of the law nor the spirit of the law suggest the presidency was meant to be included.

This is a circumstance in which I would argue the judge ain’t wrong and if we’re not happy with that, then the law needs to be changed.

Also, papyrus sucks.

It’s scare tactics.

That’s exactly the NLRB’s point. The NDA doesn’t necessarily have to be legally enforceable to be unlawful.

A common way the NLRB examines these types of things is by how a reasonable person would perceive it. Even if a lawsuit was filed to challenge the enforceability of the NDA and it was found unenforceable, the NLRB would still be able to argue a “reasonable person” would believe it was enforceable, and accordingly any restrictions on protected rights presented by the NDA would be unlawful.

I agree. If that doesn’t work, I’d give the whole line a visual inspection for any more obvious signs of damage. If that doesn’t work there are other options to troubleshoot, but I’d probably just replace the line and attempt to recycle the old cord into shorter lines for device connections, patching, etc.

I don’t know if this is accurate or not, but it’s the most nonsensical thing I’ve heard in a while. If engaging with something to say, “I don’t want to see this,” results in more of that content - the user will eventually leave the platform. I’m having this concern right now with my Google feed. I keep clicking not interested, yet continue getting similar content. Consequently, I’m increasingly leaning toward disabling the functionality because I’m tired of fucking seeing shit I don’t care to see. Getting angry just thinking about it.

Focusing on freeloaders rather than those in need is problematic. There will always be freeloaders, and sure, we should always aim to minimize their numbers. But is it worth it to deny those with genuine need who vastly outnumber the relatively miniscule number of freeloaders?