The only way this gets past the first amendment is if it can be specifically tied to elections. It’s already being challenged in court. The GOP is funding it.
The only way this gets past the first amendment is if it can be specifically tied to elections. It’s already being challenged in court. The GOP is funding it.
ADHD aside interrupting people is rude.
Part of parenting is censoring the world for your child’s developing brain.
I see gizmodo I downvote. It’s a simple life.
The devil’s creation.
No excuse was given. I don’t think you comprehended my comment. I literally said I was not talking about the very people you mentioned. I also said their care should not be contingent on the work and that my concern was making sure of that when changes are made.
$$$$
Let me be clear. I’m talking about you as a person.
Two of those have been remade, are we talking only the originals?
Take solace in the fact that it’s unlikely the idea of you taking a shit could make you less attractive to them.
I actually found out she had it by watching that show. I was looking at her thinking, “she’s got the moon face.” Something that happens to us especially when we’re forced to take corticosteroids during a bad flair. And then I looked it up and was right. Lady Gaga also has lupus and is obviously still an international superstar. So I think OP will be fine as long as they don’t do an extremely rough physical job or work outside.
If they are actually exploiting people… I know this sounds like exploitation but this issue is pretty complex and there may actually be no “jobs” for a lot of differently abled people if there isn’t a carve out for certain scenarios. I say jobs in quotes because there are some places that are more or less daycares where adults of certain ability levels can go to work and do end up making less than minimum wage. But they are doing so because they are receiving a level of care and supervision at the same time. These are people who you could not just teach a job and leave to their own devices for any amount of time without endangering them. But they are capable enough to complete certain tasks. I have known adult aged people who’s elderly parents would not know what to do if they had to care for them every day all day.
That said, why in our society are some people put in this situation where the only thing they can do with their adult child is send them off to a menial job for daycare? It’s great that some people get the option to work, but they should also be able to receive care and not have to work menial jobs for sub minimum wages.
Like I said, the whole thing is way more complex than the no nonsense sound bite. If she were to just waive a regulatory hand and eliminate this exemption, without making more comprehensive changes, it might put some families in a very tough position. Having to suddenly pay for daycare for adults who previously were earning some amount of money.
But the places I’m talking about are usually non-profits employing these people to do work for other for profit businesses. It’s not the person at your local movie theater or grocery store working mostly independently and getting paid less than everyone else.
In my head this movie was made entirely because someone noticed the vague resemblance between Peter Dinklage and Josh Brolin.
The only side I’m going to come down on is that a lot of the home assistant maintainer community have a serious attitude problem.
They want to outwardly act as if they want to build a user friendly home automation system for all. But there’s a lot of self important snark in the forums when devs cause problems and users complain. They still act as if they are building this software for free and if anyone doesn’t like how they are doing things they can sod off. But now they have a decent sized paid staff and a mission statement to make the software for every day users.
Their documentation also leaves a lot to be desired and they don’t seem to have any procedures in place for getting it updated before breaking changes.
Only effective if this doesn’t placate the regulators and Congress and something is actually done.
This has all happened before and it will all happen again. This is what it looks like when a social media company tries to head off an incoming regulatory push.
Trying to avoid regulations of course.
Looks like I’m wrong about this. I could have sworn I read an interview where this was mentioned but nothing I can find says that was ever a plan.
Edit: read below, someone found that it may have been implied in novels and deleted scenes.
That would hurt the bottom line of the investors, so I doubt the Supreme Board Room goes that way.