|
Well Khanna's backers have nothing if not money. Besides the waste on signs (signs don't vote) today marks the third day in a row I've received a mailer from the SuperPAC backing him (I assume) Californians for Innovation. I especially like that the PAC has an address in LA, not the Bay Area.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Well Khanna's backers have nothing if not money. Besides the waste on signs (signs don't vote) today marks the third day in a row I've received a mailer from the SuperPAC backing him (I assume) Californians for Innovation. I remember a month ago, during the Newark Days parade, Khanna showed up leading a band of his supporters who were chanting "Fired up and ready for Ro!" in the most bored, insipid tone imaginable. And then eventually one of them walked up to me and said "Did you see that? That's Ro Khanna, the only one of the candidates to bother showing up! Out with the old and in with the new, vote for Khanna cause he's in it for you!" Unfortunately for him, he got a pretty cool reception amongst the crowd. Speaking of the whole "signs don't vote" thing a handful of Kuo signs went up around southern Fremont and parts of Milpitas from what I saw, before I left for Irvine. Now down here, there's literally a gazillion signs on every street 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Well Khanna's backers have nothing if not money. Besides the waste on signs (signs don't vote) today marks the third day in a row I've received a mailer from the SuperPAC backing him (I assume) Californians for Innovation. Wouldn't you want to combine the the innovation of Silicon Valley with government?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
etalian posted:Wouldn't you want to combine the the innovation of Silicon Valley with government? I think the phrase you're looking for is "disrupt government."
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
etalian posted:Wouldn't you want to combine the the innovation of Silicon Valley with government? Are you upset with the unresponsive was of government? We can change that. Representtv is a new disruptive force in government that seeks to get you the government services you need when you need them. No more waiting in line at the DMV! No more wining and dining your representative for favorable policy decisions! Through the magic of the sharing economy, all you need to do is place a request for a government service in the Representtv mobile app and one of Representtv's Attachés™ will attend you to fill in unnecessary government paperwork, stand in line for you to get your passport, or even take your money to funnel it into the reelection campaign of the candidate of your choice! By simply paying the weekly $19.95 subscription to Representtv, we will make sure you get your needs met! Vote smart. Vote Representtv.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Don't worry, Silicon Valley isn't disrupting labor, they're using the same old tactics.quote:“You can pretty much see a leash on my neck with my employer,” said Saravanan Ranganathan, a Washington-area computer security expert here on an H-1B visa. “It’s kind of like a hidden chain … and you’d better shut up, or you’ll lose everything.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
I don't know how much "job security" a software engineer would have if they can be replaced by a fresh Indian immigrant who doesn't know his rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I don't know how much "job security" a software engineer would have if they can be replaced by a fresh Indian immigrant who doesn't know his rights. All software engineers know they are the one who can't be replaced because of their pure coding genius and all the other guys are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:All software engineers know they are the one who can't be replaced because of their pure coding genius and all the other guys are poo poo. Or they have dreams of following in this guy's footsteps: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-officials-locked-out-of-computer-network-3205200.php quote:A disgruntled city computer engineer has virtually commandeered San Francisco's new multimillion-dollar computer network, altering it to deny access to top administrators even as he sits in jail on $5 million bail, authorities said Monday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or they have dreams of following in this guy's footsteps: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-officials-locked-out-of-computer-network-3205200.php He was actually a network engineer not a software developer. Guy was a bit odd when I met him (before he went completely crazy of course). He basically had an entire out of band management system installed for everything and no one noticed until he locked them out. Everyone is replaceable. Some people are just more easily replaced than others and most IT work can be done remotely so... EDIT: To be clear, he just locked everyone out of the routers/switches/firewalls. Everything was still up it's just no one could get into them without a lot of effort. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Oct 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or they have dreams of following in this guy's footsteps: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-officials-locked-out-of-computer-network-3205200.php Well yeah you're totally irreplacable when you don't follow procedures and lock everyone out of a network.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
What's the consensus on the Propositions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Prop 1: Improving water infrastructure, increasing funds for water recycling, incentives for eco-friendly business. Pretty much everybody is in favor of it except a bunch of environmental groups who are convinced the fund is earmarked to build dams. The fund is not earmarked to build dams. So yes. Prop 2: Increases the cap on California's rainy day fund from 5% to 10% of the budget and I'm pretty sure increases the % per year going into the fund. Once again backed by almost everybody except educators this time, because some of that money is coming out of education's budget. I can't find any solid numbers on how much it'd cut from education, but there it is. I'd probably vote yes unless some really shocking numbers come out. Prop 45: Insurance regulation. Requires rate changes to be approved, prior notice for rate changes, stops insurance companies from determining eligibility for coverage based on a lack of prior credit, and other horrible consumer protections that make Republicans weep at night. To put it another way, the funding for this one is $6 million for, $57 million against. I'm voting yes. Prop 46: Increased cap on medical malpractice lawsuits and random drug testing for physicians. I don't know: I understand the idea but think it goes a bit too far. Reps are against it, Dems tellingly haven't taken a side, although Boxer came out in favor. I'm voting no because gently caress random drug tests. Prop 47: Drops non-violent crimes that are felonies down to misdemeanors if it's a first offense. Tellingly they're including personal use of drugs. Basically a pretty good step towards reducing some of the strain on our comically overcrowded prison system. Naturally the Republicans are waving their fists in the air screaming that we're letting rapists back on the street. Oh, and while Dianne Feinstein is against it, Newt Gingrich is for it, saying our prisons are too overcrowded with non-violent offenders and the prop would be a huge boon to the state. Yeah, I don't know either.  I'm voting yes half because it's a great idea and half because gently caress Feinstein.Prop 48: Should the Norfolk Native American tribe be able to build a casino off their reservation, or something. Nobody loving cares, why is this on the general ballot? If anybody has more info on Props 2 or 46, I'd be interested to hear it. They're the only ones I'm not sure on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Sydin posted:because gently caress Feinstein.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Prop 46: Increased cap on medical malpractice lawsuits and random drug testing for physicians. I don't know: I understand the idea but think it goes a bit too far. Reps are against it, Dems tellingly haven't taken a side, although Boxer came out in favor. I'm voting no because gently caress random drug tests. Prop 46 was the old devious bundling trick, raising the medical malpractice reward cap is a good idea but it randomly included drug testing for doctors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Prop 46: Increased cap on medical malpractice lawsuits and random drug testing for physicians. I don't know: I understand the idea but think it goes a bit too far. Reps are against it, Dems tellingly haven't taken a side, although Boxer came out in favor. I'm voting no because gently caress random drug tests. Prop 47 is a great proposition that is gonna save a poo poo ton of money. It also will stop zealous prosecutors from putting people in prison for 4 years for loving shoplifting. For those who say it doesn't happen, I saw someone get that offer on Tuesday. Straight shoplifting of like $200. Her record was completely non-violent and all drugs and shoplifting. Also, it fixes some stupid issues. Simple possession of meth is right now a "wobbler" which means it can be a misdo. Do the same with coke or heroin, felony only. Prop 47 fixes that. Simple possession should always be a misdo and this makes it a misdo. Note that this drops many crimes to misdemeanors regardless of record (unless you have what is called a "super strike" or a sex offense). This is a good thing because possession and theft under $950 should always be misdemeanors. Anyone who votes no is an rear end in a top hat. I'm voting yes on prop 46. The problem is that we established a malpractice cap 30 years ago and never raised it. This raises the level to where it would be with inflation and ties it to inflation. Right now, if you're unemployed, and some quack ruins your life, you get $250,000 plus medical bills. If he cut your leg off, you probably want more. This cap does basically nothing to get rid of frivolous lawsuits as they're generally under $250k, but it hurts the hell out of people who have legitimate, serious losses. That said, gently caress drug tests. It isn't gonna pass anyhow, I'm voting yes in the hopes that it will be high enough they'll rework it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Someone posted this site earlier in the thread and its a good breakdown of the props and their effects in pretty plain English. http://www.peterates.com/props-1114.shtml
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
I voted no on 46 because of the drug testing. I listened to an hour long Forum special on 48. It's a referendum, so the default is "yes" instead of no, for propositions. I don't give a poo poo, but it made it through the assembly, governors, and a shitload of lawsuits, so I'm not going to vote to stop it now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
My usual rule-of-thumb is to vote "no" on propositions unless they're really, really good ideas. But it seems like all the props this cycle are worth passing. Am I reading this right? Did I wake up in in opposite-land this morning?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
FMguru posted:My usual rule-of-thumb is to vote "no" on propositions unless they're really, really good ideas. Only that 48 is a referendum, not a proposition. So that means the default should be "yes," because a no acts as a veto on something that's already passed. California is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Someone posted this site earlier in the thread and its a good breakdown of the props and their effects in pretty plain English. This is good stuff. My only complaint is that the guy seems to be in favor of random drug testing, but the info is solid. nm posted:Prop 47 is a great proposition that is gonna save a poo poo ton of money. Pretty much. The whole wobbler concept is bullshit, and non-violent drug offenses being felonies is one of the main contributors to our prison overcrowding. I was almost certain it was destined to fail due to scare tactics, but according to the polls it's actually solidly winning, which is great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Pretty much. The whole wobbler concept is bullshit, and non-violent drug offenses being felonies is one of the main contributors to our prison overcrowding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
If the prison guards union finally loses a political battle in CA I will be shocked and delighted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If the prison guards union finally loses a political battle in CA I will be shocked and delighted. They lost both prop 36s too. I have hope. Also, realignment was and is a good thing and don't let anyone tell you different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Someone posted this site earlier in the thread and its a good breakdown of the props and their effects in pretty plain English. The Prop 48 explanation here is marvelous. A no-nonsense explanation of the situation, but written as a parody of Longfellow's Song of Hiawatha.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
Pete Rates is a great resource that I've been using for years, I'm glad people are finding it as useful as I do. Regarding prop 46, I eventually voted yes despite some misgivings because I hate statutory caps that aren't inflation indexed. But everyone else that I know has voted no, mostly because they hate bundling - which I completely understand. Polling is not looking good for 46 (and 45).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
SporkOfTruth posted:The Prop 48 explanation here is marvelous. A no-nonsense explanation of the situation, but written as a parody of Longfellow's Song of Hiawatha. No poo poo, that is great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
nm posted:I'm voting yes on prop 46. The problem is that we established a malpractice cap 30 years ago and never raised it. This raises the level to where it would be with inflation and ties it to inflation. Right now, if you're unemployed, and some quack ruins your life, you get $250,000 plus medical bills. If he cut your leg off, you probably want more. This cap does basically nothing to get rid of frivolous lawsuits as they're generally under $250k, but it hurts the hell out of people who have legitimate, serious losses. The malpractice cap that this would lift is for "pain and suffering" only. There's no cap whatsoever for costs and lost/future wages and other real actual things that are included in a legit malpractice suit. Doc cuts the wrong leg off? You'd still get millions right now. It is a straightup handout to drug testing services just like the Floridian welfare testing act was, with the malpractice cap as a barely-acceptable fig leaf to make such a draconian idea more palatable to everyone who doesn't know how malpractice works. Why exactly do you think a "pain and suffering" cap was voted into law in the first place, other than to prevent frivolous lawsuits? Nuclearmonkee posted:He was actually a network engineer This will never not be funny H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
An op-ed in the LA Times recommends voting against Prop 47 because most hand guns are less than $950 and therefore if someone steals a handgun, they will only get a misdemeanor. Seems like a bizarre ting to focus on, considering the good the prop will do overall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Polling is not looking good for 46 (and 45). Yeah everybody was all for Prop 45 when they started polling, but I guess close to $60 million of insurance funded  Here's to hoping the polling data is wrong on that one, because I will be really upset if people actually go out and so blatantly vote against their own goddamn interests.Bizarro Watt posted:An op-ed in the LA Times recommends voting against Prop 47 because most hand guns are less than $950 and therefore if someone steals a handgun, they will only get a misdemeanor. Seems like a bizarre ting to focus on, considering the good the prop will do overall. There's no perfect solution currently on the table, and I'd rather have a few people get off easier than they probably should than the current system where scores are getting felonies for shoplifting a blender or getting caught with weed in their trunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:An op-ed in the LA Times recommends voting against Prop 47 because most hand guns are less than $950 and therefore if someone steals a handgun, they will only get a misdemeanor. Seems like a bizarre ting to focus on, considering the good the prop will do overall. I recognize the author. He's a shithead who write scrap middle-right drivel for the Times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:The malpractice cap that this would lift is for "pain and suffering" only. This is only true if your expected earnings are in the millions. If you're young, old, or poor you often don't get justice unless a lawyer takes the case pro bono. quote:When Pack tried to find an attorney to sue the giant medical group that had prescribed the pills willy-nilly, he learned the kids weren't worth much in court. They had no income, so he couldn't sue for lost wages. They also had no long-lasting medical bills, because they were dead. There's no good reason why the cap should not be indexed to inflation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Family Values posted:This is only true if your expected earnings are in the millions. If you're young, old, or poor you often don't get justice unless a lawyer takes the case pro bono. These things still don't fall under "pain and suffering" and the proposition still doesn't chain it to inflation, it would just lift it up to 1.1 mil. But that's all secondary to the outrageously draconian idea of randomly drug and alcohol testing all doctors statewide, which would make California the first state to do this, were it to pass. Reminder that alcohol testing can present with a positive for up to 18 hours after consumption, which means that all of a sudden physicians can't drink at all. It's nuts, and opponents are absolutely correct that it would affect the quality of physicians that the state could attract, particularly via the medical residency programs. If it's that important to test doctors like this, then perhaps we should also be randomly drug testing all public office holders, since their decisions affect many, many more Californians than any doctor could hope to over their career. The cap is a blatant fig leaf for such widespread testing, and no one's buying it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:The cap is a blatant fig leaf for such widespread testing, and no one's buying it. It's actually one of the more narrowly polling props at the moment. The poll is pretty evenly split 34/37/29 For/Against/Undecided. It could very easily tip into being passed, assuming there really is that large of an undecided block.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:These things still don't fall under "pain and suffering" and the proposition still doesn't chain it to inflation, it would just lift it up to 1.1 mil. Have you even read the text of the law you're lecturing us about? quote:7. Adjust the $250,000 cap on compensation for pain, suffering, physical impairment, disfigurement, decline of quality of life, and death in medical negligence lawsuits set by the Legislature in 1975 to account for inflation and to provide annual adjustments in the future in order to boost health care accountability, act as a deterrent, and ensure that patients, their families, and others who are injured by negligent doctors are entitled to be made whole for their loss. (emphasis added). Source Maybe you should inform yourself before pontificating to others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Have you even read the text of the law you're lecturing us about? Yes, and that's not an index to inflation. It would require actively bumping it up. Nice bombast though. Here's a good article written by a physician that sums up the general sentiment from the medical community, because they've been following this for awhile now: Some background: The people funding Proposition 46 are almost exclusively lawyers who would profit from higher payouts in medical lawsuits. They have unsuccessfully tried to raise the cap on noneconomic damages several times through legislation. However, their interest in drug and alcohol testing is newly acquired -- and it shows. The trial lawyers behind Proposition 46 never once sought legislation to create a workable drug- and alcohol-testing program for doctors. This year, they actually worked to kill a bill, AB 2346, that would have created a physician wellness program to help doctors with substance-abuse problems. (Ironically, trial lawyers benefit from a program that treats substance abuse as a disease, yet they work to deny such a program for physicians.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Yes, and that's not an index to inflation. It would require actively bumping it up. Nice bombast though. I quoted the text of the actual law, which says it does have annual adjustments 'to account for inflation'. Your article doesn't say anything about the cap not being indexed to inflation. And furthermore I don't give a drat what doctors think about that. They whine about the cost of malpractice insurance, but the number of malpractice lawsuits have declined by 50% since 1997, have those cost savings been passed on to consumers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Prop 1: Improving water infrastructure, increasing funds for water recycling, incentives for eco-friendly business. Pretty much everybody is in favor of it except a bunch of environmental groups who are convinced the fund is earmarked to build dams. The fund is not earmarked to build dams. So yes. There's some good watershed restoration and other eco-friendly stuff in Prop 1, but $2.7 billion of the $7 billion is earmarked for "water storage projects, dams and reservoirs", which seems pretty ridiculous considering our reservoirs are practically empty and we already built dams in most of the sensible locations half a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I quoted the text of the actual law, which says it does have annual adjustments 'to account for inflation'. Your article doesn't say anything about the cap not being indexed to inflation. And furthermore I don't give a drat what doctors think about that. They whine about the cost of malpractice insurance, but the number of malpractice lawsuits have declined by 50% since 1997, have those cost savings been passed on to consumers? Good to know that you're totally cool with the nation's first-ever statewide 24/7 drug testing program for any profession, which would even include dragging these employees in from vacation in order to meet an arbitrary 12 hour time limit for testing. Way to stick it to those dastardly doctors trying to slip those non-economic damage caps past you; who do they think they are anyway to criticize such legislation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Good to know that you're totally cool with the nation's first-ever statewide 24/7 drug testing program for any profession, which would even include dragging these employees in from vacation in order to meet an arbitrary 12 hour time limit for testing. Maybe we can get someone to bring a court case that says once and for all that drug testing in most professions is an invasion of privacy, now that rich folks are having to deal with it. Doctors do tons of drugs, so this should be fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 21:30
|
|