Only three weeks a year? My team have at least five and usually more. Are you in America?
American, but I'm factoring in holidays, too. That gets you more than another week, and you can stretch them out by strategic use of PTO days.
Readit Newshacktavist24 commented on At Xamarin I left every day at 5pm twitter.com/migueldeicaza... · Posted by u/tosh
hacktavist24 commented on At Xamarin I left every day at 5pm twitter.com/migueldeicaza... · Posted by u/tosh
Maybe it's a cultural thing but in most of the companies I worked at, this kind of behaviour would be seen as a _manager_ red flag rather than an employee heroism.
As in someone at director level or even HR would come down on the _manager_ for allowing this. The view is either the employee is under delivering or the team is under resourced and in both cases it's a _manager_ problem to be solved.
This is something I never understood in US companies, I mean considering all the concerns with liability and lawsuits everyone seems pretty chilled about squeezing 20 hour days from employees.
Systemic problems in an organization are always leadership failures.
hacktavist24 commented on At Xamarin I left every day at 5pm twitter.com/migueldeicaza... · Posted by u/tosh
As a manager I friendly told people to leave after 8h of work and then kicked them out after a nudging them friendly and a grace period because I believe developer productivity is limited (as shown in studies) and you should have a life outside the company.
This regularily got me into fights with other execs and CEO who said "Stephan, when I go through technology at 8pm there is no one there, don't we know we're a startup?"
When a friend and I was on business in Japan we wanted to meet someone at 11pm at night. We were waiting in the business complex and lots and lots of people were leaving at that time (11pm!), then we got a call he could not leave. What a sad working culture.
Not only that, but people should be encouraged to take time off entirely. IMO, if you're not taking at least 3 weeks a year off, you're probably damaging your ability to do your best work. (Are there any studies on this?)
Deleted Comment
hacktavist24 commented on Crime scene investigators learn to dowse for the dead themarshallproject.org/20... · Posted by u/bryanrasmussen
Alert dogs respond to handler signals and are used to fabricate probable cause, much like witching.
True, and that is a problem if peoples' properties get dug up, as a sibling comment notes. But, in contrast to drug dogs, where an alert creates probable cause for a search where things other than drugs can frequently be found, cadaver dogs typically either find remains or not. There generally isn't much else one can find digging around in the dirt that's incriminating, so, from a legal/justice POV, the harm of a false alert from a cadaver dog is much less than that from a false alert from a drug dog.
hacktavist24 commented on Crime scene investigators learn to dowse for the dead themarshallproject.org/20... · Posted by u/bryanrasmussen
> “You can be on a public street and scan your suspect’s yard.”
Well, if that ain't a great way to manufacture a warrant.
What exactly is wrong with cadaver dogs, anyway? I'm guessing it's that cadaver dogs actually work on scientific principles. (Edit: dogs also can't smell a body from across the street. At least, I don't think they can.)
What's the source for this, I do see they're the CSS co-designer, was this requirement originally written somewhere? I'm looking at the description of important, and I don't see this intention carried through.
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-cascade-5/#important
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-cascade-5/#importance
If the intention is indeed as described, then the CSS designers failed to communicate it properly, and not "a sign you may not understand the cascade properly."
When you say "If the intention is indeed as described," are you referring to the tweet in the submission? Because it looks like the intention is indeed so described in the links you give:
> This CSS feature improves accessibility of documents by giving users with special requirements (large fonts, color combinations, etc.) control over presentation.
If NPR's government contributions are embarrassing for the organisation, it might be best for them to forgo that funding. Additionally, if there's no influence/bias, then why does it matter that their funding is disclosed to the reader?