So with that being the only anecdotal data point I have, the emails won't stop until the recruiters become fewer.

That's pretty interesting, what does this mean for anything. Like does it change how tests should work? vaccines? any mitigation measure?

Narrator: its not

There are some other comments here on it

The West gets attacked because of its military occupations in Mesopotamia. That is the criteria for Jihad. Any random teenage edgelord that happens to be Muslim can always take the pedantic “its my duty” approach at any time. The vast majority do not, any slight provocation from then on encourages that sentiment. China’s approach avoids this because they have no military occupation of traditionally muslim lands. That approach has worked better for China’s national security while operating in islamic areas, they invest and have been masterful at it. The Western/US approach never factored in its own national security, or any attempt at understanding Islam, and its been a disaster for its people and a boon to its defense contractors. The key point is that its never been about “rising up on behalf of all muslims being oppressed” its always been about “excising a cancer from traditionally islamic lands”. And that makes inaction towards Xinjiang and the plight of the Uighurs make way more sense, than the fundamentally rocky assumption that action from some unspecified Muslim people is expected to occur.

Secondly, some Uighars have already done the terror attacks within China, over “small things”. Long before the massive dragnet and crackdown. This is where China’s identity politics come into play, that some other commenters have pointed out. China’s domestic stance and behavior isn't really about Muslims, its about “territorial unity” with an undercurrent of ethnic discrimination. But ultimately the Uighers are on their own, and East Turkistan isn't going to be a thing.

its not about bribery, its about being led on by the nearest grifter because everyone actually working on technology isnt in the same circles as the politicians

And the bylaws can force this too

the salt is called via a $

different political things, but the salt cap was a punitive thing purely for you to have resentment about where you live, it’s interesting that instead you got resentment for non profits

republicans want you to have resentment at high tax states run by democrats, so that you consider regime change in that state

But yield farmers and high value targets should open insurance policies

And the insurance pool participants should also be wary ha

oh well, he slipped up and is now probably a fugitive since he keeps using his court "frozen" funds.

A tangential example is to think about how Amazon Basics (household items) took over without any advertising (maybe shopping placement was privileged inside Amazon platforms though). It solved people's problems that were being dismissed as too basic to solve.

When I think about workflow adjustments, its usually one thing I'm looking for. If the solution has some other cool things about then, now I'm getting somewhat exposed to them too.

If its not immediately applicable, I'm not really prioritizing it.

[0] replace "ponzi" with "scheme", "mechanism", or any word you coincidentally apply to financial concepts you happen to respect

> The invite will be titled “Meeting regarding your role at Klarna”.

lol ouch! They should make it a gamble where everyone has a meeting and you don't know what the outcome will be! But since thats even more resource intensive I would much prefer a mass pre-recorded zoom call over that.

I can understand that the former thing has better PR than the latter thing. But I think employed Americans are more adept at the fickle nature of their employment, whereas when the news articles go out about a mass zoom meeting firing, it gets the attention and hot takes from a bunch of more disconnected unemployable Americans and out of the loop people from other developed nations chiming in.

and since abstinence only education is ineffective

and the culture could be updated to carrying naloxone to prevent said deaths, if people were actually willing to have a conversation that wasn't based on abstinence only

then.... this is a dumb and counterproductive policy? how much of the insurance pool is really affected? ... the narcan is to save your friends if you're there, this is like saying "there's a defibrillator nearby so since you might die, insurance denied" with a difference being that there was a purchase record. if an insurance pool is part of the calculation, would that difference matter? seems like you would need actual evidence instead of guesswork.

An exploiter conducting a big heist and disappearing never has to prove that they can't do it again, because they're rich immediately.