> Approximately one year after eight former SpaceX employees represented by Lieff Cabraser and Burgess Law Offices filed unfair labor practice charges against SpaceX, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has concluded its investigation and issued a complaint against the company alleging 37 separate violations of law. The charges stem from the company’s response to the employees’ letter to SpaceX’s executive team, which expressed concern about allegations of sexual harassment by CEO Elon Musk, and his harmful behavior on Twitter that hurt the company’s reputation, infected the company culture and created a toxic work environment. In response to the employees’ plea for systemic change to correct these concerns, SpaceX launched a campaign of intimidation and coercion: pulling employees into clandestine interrogations by HR, falsely claiming the meetings were attorney-client privileged, and telling employees to keep the meetings a secret even from their managers. SpaceX also fired nine employees for their involvement in the letter.
> The NLRB’s complaint includes 37 separate violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act: 11 for coercive statements, 2 for coercive statements/implied threats, 7 for interrogation, 4 for unlawful instructions, 3 for impression of surveillance, and 10 for retaliation for involvement in protected concerted activity.
The complainants allege they did more than just complain about Elon's personality, and that SpaceX did more than just fire them. I'm not familiar with US labor laws but campaigning for better work conditions sounds union-adjacent.
> Charging Party Deborah Lawrence said: “SpaceX’s ‘mission above all else’ mentality hurts everyone in the organization by allowing people to get away with harmful behavior, including harassment, groping, and physical violence, directed disproportionately at women. The toxic culture has resulted in many hard-working people, who were otherwise highly motivated by the company’s mission, quitting. We wrote the open letter to leadership not out of malice, but because we cared about the mission and the people around us. We believed that SpaceX could be a better place and that you can have a healthy, safe workplace and still reach the stars.”
The fundamental theories are good enough in that we can't find a counterexample, but they're only useful up to a certain scale before the computational power needed is infeasible. We're still hoping to find higher-level emergent theories to describe larger systems. By analogy, in principle you could use Newton's laws of motion (1685) to predict what a gas in a room is going to do, or how fluid will flow in a pipe, but in practice it's intractable and we prefer to use the higher-level language of fluid mechanics: the ideal gas law, the navier-stokes equations, etc.
You can derate/"underclock" a regular LED and it will run significantly cooler, heat being one of the big drivers of LED lifespan. Downsides are less output per lamp (so need more lamps, probably why long-life lamps are expensive on a per-lumen basis) and you need to do a bit of DIY.
> Selecting criminals could be based on internationally accessible periodicals that plausibly every human has access to, such as the New York Times, and deaths could be delayed by months or years to broaden the possibilities as to where the Kira learned of the victim (TV? books? the Internet?) and avoiding issues like killing a criminal only publicized on one obscure Japanese public television channel. And so on.
If the cost of most things went up then you'd have a good case for saying the value of the dollar went down, if it's mostly gold (or the general category of assets that gold is a part of) then not so much.
The blogger who wrote the linked post is a white supremacist who explicitly supports eugenics. His stock in trade is pseudoscience. This particular post is an attempt to get people thinking he’s clever before they get to the racist bits — look at the cool dental things we learned! It is not surprising that he was shoddy here; he’s always shoddy.
This is somewhat blunt but like a lot of these schmucks, he relies on people being polite. I see no reason to play along.
Read the requirements for a takedown notice. The only thing a DMCA notice needs to claim under penalty of perjury is that you are authorized to enforce the copyright that you are claiming. The report from the copyright office on the linked page states:
> Senders of both takedown notices and counter-notices are liable for damages if they make knowing material misrepresentations regarding whether the material to be taken down is infringing, or has been removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification. Courts have appropriately interpreted this provision by requiring actual knowledge or willful blindness of falsity, not merely negligent or unreasonable misrepresentation.
"Knowing" does a lot of heavy lifting here. Courts have determined that someone who uses an automated system to identify infringing content and submits takedown notices against all of that content does not "knowingly" misrepresent anything.
Furthermore, even in the case where there is bad faith, there's no statutory penalty, it relies on the targeted party suing and in court proving BOTH bad faith, and damages.
reply