|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Maybe the "I like to start around 11" was a little too cheeky. Other than that, I can't see how that exchange was in any way "insubordination", unless the company policy is "Elon Musk is literally infallible". Which, given what I've seen, might very well be official company policy. Otherwise, all I saw was an employee giving a detailed answer about why Twitter had performance problems on Android, and possible solutions to that. I have found open disagreements with superiors in public forums to be career limiting moves in corporate America.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
Big Slammu posted:I have found open disagreements with superiors in public forums to be career limiting moves in corporate America. Yes this is so obviously and generally such a stupid thing to do that it only makes sense that it happened if the employee engaging in it was already in "IDGAF" mode, which it turns out they were.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
Lol that guy got fired for answering Elon truthfully and respectfully but also proving him wrong. https://twitter.com/dankim/status/1592121646697037827
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
Elon is gonna try to do his recommendations and Columbus them for himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/1592183893117259776 Hopefully, Schumer can get 10 Rs on board.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Ither posted:https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/1592183893117259776 let's say this passes, is there anything stopping our lovely fascist SCOTUS from just striking it down anyways?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:let's say this passes, is there anything stopping our lovely fascist SCOTUS from just striking it down anyways? No, but SCOTUS also legalized gay marriage. So, this bill doesn't really change the status quo and just makes it slightly more difficult for SCOTUS to overturn itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:let's say this passes, is there anything stopping our lovely fascist SCOTUS from just striking it down anyways? It makes it harder. SCOTUS wouldn't be able to strike it down the way they did Roe, by reversing themselves. Maybe think about it this way: they'd have to argue that same sex marriage itself is unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:let's say this passes, is there anything stopping our lovely fascist SCOTUS from just striking it down anyways? It would be difficult to thread the needle of preserving the government's power to define marriage at all but not allowing them to have that definition include same-sex marriage. The constitution has no text about this whatsoever. I'm sure they'll try, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 20:00
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The constitution has no text about this whatsoever. For maximum comedy they would strike down any same sex marriage law in a way that also makes the Air Force unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
Ethiser posted:For maximum comedy they would strike down any same sex marriage law in a way that also makes the Air Force unconstitutional. Honestly that could be a tempting trade for some people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Honestly that could be a tempting trade for some people. Is there some big Army Air Corps revanchist movement I've been unaware of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
Big Slammu posted:I have found open disagreements with superiors in public forums to be career limiting moves in corporate America. I mean, yes, but the boss saying, in a public forum, "actually my employees are stupid incompetent loving morons" is admittedly rare, even for spectacularly bad bosses. The developer didn't say "Elon is a big stupid doo-doo-head", but rather Micropenusk decided to go off about some stupid poo poo he doesn't understand in a public forum, essentially making GBS threads directly on this developer and his team, and the developer responded professionally in the same forum. Is there another good choice?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I mean, yes, but the boss saying, in a public forum, "actually my employees are stupid incompetent loving morons" is admittedly rare, even for spectacularly bad bosses. You're forgetting the part where executives are petty dictators that wield their power in a very insecure manner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
Musk is just fishing for people to blame when his "investment" goes belly up. We don't need to pretend this is a normal work environment where people are respected for doing the same jobs people do elsewhere in America. We don't need to pretend that Twitter is some special company where normal workers deserve hostility over shitholes like Sodexo or Palantir because they are a social media company. Musk is wrong, the workers are right to say whatever they want, because the company is on it's way to bankruptcy and workers are not respected. Period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I mean, yes, but the boss saying, in a public forum, "actually my employees are stupid incompetent loving morons" is admittedly rare, even for spectacularly bad bosses. Under the circumstances the developer in question is actually making a brilliant career move. No other tech company wants to be Twitter right now, and Elon Musk is becoming a public enemy. By getting fired for literally doing your job in public, other techs are going to probably want to look like the bigger man by reaching out to the guy. Under any other circumstances it would probably result in the opposite but in this precise moment it may actually pay off to call out Elon in public. It's so funny because Elon's strategy is clearly to do the most empty brained business stuff imaginable while also blaming his forbearers and his current employees for the state of things at Twitter. He's trying to defer blame for a company he literally just took over. Like Jesus Elon give it a year before you start blaming the company for your failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Under the circumstances the developer in question is actually making a brilliant career move. Agreed 100%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
The guy he fired won the San Diegan of the year award hahaha.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 21:00
|
|
|
the reply tweets to anything musk tweets are just gross and dumb as hell e: not really USCE newsworthy I guess but still it's infuriating to see the people who just non critically take anything musk says as the smartest thing ever and think he's a genius at all things tech
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
Levitate posted:the reply tweets to anything musk tweets are just gross and dumb as hell They want permission from the universe to be just as unapologetically callous, belligerent, un-self-critical, and self-important. And if he's seen as a faultless God, this legitimizes their own numerous shortcomings, as opposed to necessitating a moment of self-reflection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:let's say this passes, is there anything stopping our lovely fascist SCOTUS from just striking it down anyways? It's extremely unlikely. Overturning Obergefell would be easy, since the Court can just say "hey, that ruling was wrong, there's no constitutional right to same-sex marriage". Overturning a law specifically passed by Congress is far more difficult, because then it's not relying on constitutional rights anymore - it's an explicit act of Congress creating a new law. To overturn that, the Supreme Court would have to rule that same-sex marriage is straight-up unconstitutional, and that would require some pretty tortured logic. Sure, they can say whatever the heck they want. But if same-sex marriage has strong enough support that the Dems are able to pass it even in the current hyper-partisan landscape (requiring either 9+ GOP flips or an overturning of the filibuster), it's unlikely the Supreme Court would go against that, for fear off giving ammo to the "expand/reform the court" arguments. When it comes to clashes between the Supreme Court and Congress, it's very much about soft power rather than hard rules. The Supreme Court interprets laws, while Congress writes laws, and neither of them is clearly supreme. That ultimately leads to quite a bit of room for the two branches to push back against each other. The Supreme Court can say "actually we think this law says X", and then Congress can pass a new law saying "actually, this law definitely means Y", and so on. If the Supreme Court gets too bullshit with its interpretations or relies too heavily on nonsense Constitutional arguments to shut Congress out, Congress can use their control over the structure of the Court to fight back. Ultimately, the Supreme Court usually wins not because it's more powerful but because it's more stable. Not being subject to elections means that it's able to resist the political winds and popular opinion to some extent and stubbornly stick to the same position for long periods of time, while Congress inevitably changes its positions and focus every few years as regular elections shift its membership around and political feuding weakens its resolve.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 21:49
|
|
|
Ethiser posted:For maximum comedy they would strike down any same sex marriage law in a way that also makes the Air Force unconstitutional. No they'll just kick it down to the states and say the Feds have no basis to legislate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Remains to be seen given they handed W the presidency, struck down a law passed by congress that was 100% within congress’ right (voting rights act), gutted the 4th amendment to the point of being meaningless, and killed Roe v Wade on the basis of “nuh uh”. The Supreme Court today is illegitimate (I’d argue it always has been given how the constitution offers no expressed powers). If anyone was going to do something they already would have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:No they'll just kick it down to the states and say the Feds have no basis to legislate. If, and this is a big, big if, they wanted to block such a thing, this is indeed the justification that they would attempt to use. However, I am not sure it passes muster. Individual state marriage laws have always struck me as pretty odd. It's a bit of a disaster if one state recognizes your marriage but another doesn't. We can try to claim marriage as this personal or spiritual or sacred thing all we want, but at the end of the day, as far as the government and all entities outside the marriage are concerned, it's just a financial contract, and probably the most common kind of contract outside of general employment. Leaving that up to the states is more trouble than it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
Vire posted:The guy he fired won the San Diegan of the year award hahaha. On further inspection this was a joke about the San Diegan of the year award going to "You, the vaccinated" in a lame copout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:No, but SCOTUS also legalized gay marriage. So, this bill doesn't really change the status quo and just makes it slightly more difficult for SCOTUS to overturn itself. I completely disagree with this. It's only more difficult if you believe the court is constrained by internally consistent logic. It is not. They can do whatever the hell they want to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:06
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:I completely disagree with this. It's only more difficult if you believe the court is constrained by internally consistent logic. It is not. They can do whatever the hell they want to do. That's why I said slightly. They have to come up with a slightly more complicated reason than "the constitution doesn't explicitly say this is a thing."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's why I said slightly. They have to come up with a slightly more complicated reason than "the constitution doesn't explicitly say this is a thing." 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:15
|
|
|
Marriage is one of those rare issues that is pretty fundamental to life and society, but is completely unaddressed in any way in the constitution and there are no federal laws regulating who can perform a marriage or how they have to be organized, so you can just do whatever you want with it. The rules around the internet can be extrapolated from the first amendment or property laws. The air force can be extrapolated out of the rules governing the military. But, marriage is just a complete blank slate in the constitution. You don't really have to work that hard to find a way to justify what you want or worry about messing any other rights up to just do whatever you want with marriage in the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
Loving v Virginia is something I'd be 0% surprised if the Court struck down though. "X has always been this way" doesn't mean poo poo when actual fascists possess de facto control of the Supreme Court. Sure they have chosen to practice at least some care in what they do, but that isn't a guarantee of safety for any particular issue. The only constraint they have is to not undo civil rights too precipitously. They seem content to dole out these absurd decisions slowly, in a effort to maintain an obviously fake facade of legitimacy. But they could change their minds on that at any time as well.
FLIPADELPHIA fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Nov 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Remains to be seen given they handed W the presidency, struck down a law passed by congress that was 100% within congress’ right (voting rights act), gutted the 4th amendment to the point of being meaningless, and killed Roe v Wade on the basis of “nuh uh”. The Voting Rights Act preclearance stuff is a perfect example, because the Shelby County ruling didn't say preclearance is unconstitutional in general or something. They just ruled that the preclearance coverage formula was based on data that was too far in the past, and that they needed to base the preclearance coverage on current conditions, not on the conditions in 1975. There was nothing in the decision that stopped Congress from passing a new preclearance requirement with a new coverage formula based on up-to-date data. The reason the preclearance requirement hasn't been restore isn't because the Supreme Court is too powerful, it's because Congress is too dysfunctional to come up with a new preclearance formula (which is the entire reason why they were using a preclearance formula from half a century ago in the first place). But for Congress to pass a bill enshrining same-sex marriage in law, then either 9-10 Republicans have to flip and vote with the Dems, or 50 Dems have to vote to overturn the filibuster. Either one would suggest an unusually strong degree of Congressional will to pass that law - and thus a higher chance of stirring up political trouble and an actual Congressional backlash by overturning it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason the preclearance requirement hasn't been restore isn't because the Supreme Court is too powerful, it's because Congress is too dysfunctional to come up with a new preclearance formula (which is the entire reason why they were using a preclearance formula from half a century ago in the first place). It was well understood that this would be the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Loving v Virginia is something I'd be 0% surprised if the Court struck down though. "X has always been this way" doesn't mean poo poo when actual fascists possess de facto control of the Supreme Court. Sure they have chosen to practice at least some care in what they do, but that isn't a guarantee of safety for any particular issue. The only constraint they have is to not undo civil rights too precipitously. They seem content to dole out these absurd decisions slowly, in a effort to maintain an obviously fake facade of legitimacy. But they could change their minds on that at any time as well. I think Thomas and company are going to dance around Loving due to Thomas' self-interest in keeping it around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:38
|
|
|
Reversing Loving would only hurt people in Chud states that can't afford to move somewhere else (so not him). Also, if there's a man alive so far up his own rear end that he'd write a Court opinion nullifying his own marriage, it would be Clarence Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
More details https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1592254542443266048 IANAL, but I believe the full faith and credit part means that even if a state were to ban SSM, it would still have to recognize out of state marriages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I think Thomas and company are going to dance around Loving due to Thomas' self-interest in keeping it around. I could see Thomas arguing against Loving and wanting to strike it down but having himself as an exception. Something like " I am sure the constitution would be against Loving except for Supreme Court Justices" or some bs. I get the vibe that he and his wife care more about owning the libs/destroying good things than care about each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
Veryslightlymad posted:If, and this is a big, big if, they wanted to block such a thing, this is indeed the justification that they would attempt to use. However, I am not sure it passes muster. Individual state marriage laws have always struck me as pretty odd. It's a bit of a disaster if one state recognizes your marriage but another doesn't. specifically pre-Lawrence iirc full faith and credit meant gay marriages from good states were legally required to be recognized in bad states
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:But, marriage is just a complete blank slate in the constitution. You don't really have to work that hard to find a way to justify what you want or worry about messing any other rights up to just do whatever you want with marriage in the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:40 |
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:Lol that guy got fired for answering Elon truthfully and respectfully but also proving him wrong. The comparisons to our forums grows ever apt. I did not expect twitter to have that much technical debt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2022 01:19
|
|
