I used it in a graduate course on formal semantics (https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Semantics+in+Generative+Grammar-... after I graduated I wanted to learn how to program so I googled "lambda calculus programming language" and found Haskell. That was ten years ago. Though I rarely use Haskell anymore, the lambda calculus still holds a special place.
Because there usually is in fact a reason and just because they did not disclose it to you does not mean the reason does not exist and it does not mean that it won't/can't be found via subpoena/deposition.
Or what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then?
Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off?
>>Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off?
You can claim discrimination, but then you'll need somebody (usually an attorney you hire) to file a lawsuit against the company. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you'll also need to cite a specific type of discrimination for your case to have standing.
You can easily google/ask chatgpt the answer to your questions - the answer is that some companies are nowadays very risk averse in laying people off precisely because they are afraid of discrimination lawsuits, which is why they generally have very solid documentation of performance problems (hence the reason for the modern Performance Improvement Plan as a papertrail)
I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued.
They just terminate your contract and let you know they terminate your contract by giving you your notice and that's that, you're gone in 30-90 days, no need to provide an explanation as to why they decided to terminate you since they're not required by law.
So I'm asking to know how it's like in the US if it's like here. If employers aren't required by law to provide termination reason, why would they?
In most US states the employer doesn’t need to provide a reason for dismissal. Whether they do or don’t you may sue your employer or file a complaint with the state oversight agency. In that lawsuit if you have persuasive evidence of discrimination (race, age, pregnancy, gender, etc) then you may win a large settlement or a judgment if it actually goes to trial. The company will provide evidence why they fired you for non-discriminatory reasons.
The reason I was always told was that terminating an employee for cause is the only way not to take a hit to your unemployment insurance if they file for unemployment. So if they have any "good" reason for firing you, it's in their best interests to provide that reason.
>>I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued.
Wow weird. I've been there and l thought it was a really socialist country. Especially because the housing in Vienna seems very well regulated to avoid extreme prices.
But I didn't really discuss this topic with the coworkers I visited so clearly I was wrong :(
Oh it's socialist all right when it comes to taxing everything that moves to pay for pensions and welfare. It's not socialist when it comes to employment laws and protections, there it's a capitalist paradise. In most non unionized business it's at will employment.
Wow, I had no idea we even had at will employment anywhere in Europe!
Like here in Spain if I'd get fired I would get a redundancy package for sure. And of course France has even better protections (we're all jealous of their 2 months holidays of course :P ).
I'm not sure if we're unionised though.
Thanks for letting me know. I was not really considering it as a place to live but I won't now - especially as I'm getting older.
UK is completely 100% at will within the first 2 years of your employment, no redundancy package in that time either. In the first 2 years you can be let go without any reason, only after 2 years your employer has to make you redundant to let you go.
Yes but everywhere in the EU you have to call it a probation period, in the UK you can pass your probation and be on a normal full time contract and still if it's your first 2 years you can be let go for any reason.
> Ok, but what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then?
Usually if that's the reason the company will go to great pains to document it and fire you properly, for cause. This is where PIPs (performance improvement plans) come in—they document the specific areas where performance is lacking, set specific targets for improvement, show that those targets were not met in the time allotted, and then fire you.
If a company doesn't do that then yeah, they're leaving themselves open to a discrimination suit. It doesn't usually happen because lawsuits are expensive and unemployed people tend to not have the resources to fight back, but larger companies will usually take pains to be sure they're covered.
Typically you order the dish and it comes with the sauce "baked in". The only time that you physically add salsa yourself is when you are eating tacos or a few other dishes, and even then, all of that is going to be prepared fresh, in-house. Even at home you prepare it yourself. The idea of buying a distinct sauce at a store to keep on your counter or in the fridge is kind of foreign.
Very interesting; thank you for linking to it. I quite agree with Thomas that "...by actions also, especially if they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded". This is essentially the same foundation as the English Common Law for the trial by jury - that a group of 'twelve men good and true' have as much justification for determining right and wrong as does a written document. The jury must be drawn from the community of the accused; otherwise, they would not necessarily be of the same custom as the accused and would, therefore, effectively not be making a judgement in the correct jurisdiction.
I don't have the time to decode this borderline schizophrenic nonsense, what's the point and how does it relate to the right to access currently inaccessible land?
It's saying that custom can obtain the force of law. This is relevant to the Right to Roam, because some areas are open to public use by custom, and this can challenge strict interpretations of property rights. I think mjh2539 is trying to gain a rhetorical toehold for traditional Commons rights. Since those rights are traditional and very old, it somehow seems fitting that the argument should be expressed in old-fashioned Catholic theological language.
I appreciate that an intensely "conservative" cultural form is used here to make a pro-populist argument for "liberal" rights.
This lines up well with the kind of stances that the Anglican Church ended up taking in theology. That Church follows both Scripture and Tradition. (By contrast, and generalizing a bit, I think an extreme Protestant stance would tend to value only Scripture.) This feels like a more secular version of same.
Over time I've come to appreciate more the way in which the Anglican Church, as you put it, "follows both Scripture and Tradition". A single clever person can manipulate with relative ease the interpretation of a written document (for instance, scripture), but to manipulate an entire custom is much more challenging, although arguably not impossible. Thus, although evil customs can certainly emerge gradually over time, a given custom is, in my opinion, more often than not founded on an older course of reasoning that was righteous in origin.
To put it more concretely: a written document from a thousand years ago is almost unintelligible to all but specialist linguists, and its accurate interpretation difficult for all but specialist social historians. Yet the customs displayed by a people that long ago would still seem very familiar today. Which would you trust to form the basis of your community's sense of justice - the faded old document in a strange language, or the equally ancient tradition passed down habitually across generations?
Well, for one, public rights of way do exist on, and adjacent to, every public road. But that's kind of besides the point.
I think there's probably many reasons, but here's a few I can think of:
1. The trails and such that warrant these rights never existed in the first place.
2. The rights come from long-established customs, which again, never got the chance to get going in the United States.
3. The legal/juridical establishment in the United States tended to care more about protecting the rights of property owners than protecting the freedom to travel (in this limited respect).
There's a lot of legal history there. The US never had feudalism. The overthrow of feudalism resulted in reduced land rights for large landowners.
There's another amusing historical accident - Blackstone.[1] Blackstone's Commentaries[2] are a self-contained four volume set on how the English legal system worked. They had a strong influence on the US legal system. Most of the drafters of the Constitution read them. There were few if any law libraries, but many copies of Blackstone.
Blackstone was a property rights absolutist. He wrote:
"So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. If a new road, for instance, were to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might perhaps be extensively beneficial to the public; but the law permits no man, or set of men, to do this without consent of the owner of the land. In vain may it be urged, that the good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community; for it would be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal, to be the judge of this common good, and to decide whether it be expedient or no."[3]
This is further than English law goes. US law arose from that interpretation. That's the power of writing the most widely read book on the subject.
For good reason, one can suppose. Wealth flows downstream from the concept of private property whose rights are strongly guarded by law. An "ideal" amount of property rights, if one exists at all, is likely much closer to absolute than zero.
"(Trespass) signifies no more than an entry on another man’s ground without a lawful authority, and doing some damage, however inconsiderable, to his real property. For the right of meum and tuum, or property, in lands being once established, it follows as a necessary consequence, that this right must be exclusive; that is, that the owner may retain to himself the sole use and occupation of his soil: every entry therefore thereon without the owner’s leave, and especially if contrary to his express order, is a trespass or transgression. The Roman law seem to have made a direct prohibition necessary, in order to constitute this injury: “qui alienum fundum ingreditur, potest a domino, si is praeviderit, prohiberi ne ingrediatur.” But the law of England, justly considering that much inconvenience may happen to the owner, before he has an opportunity to forbid the entry, has carried the point much farther, and has treated every entry upon another’s lands, (unless by the owner’s leave, or in some very particular cases) as an injury or wrong, for satisfaction of which an action of trespass will lie; but determines the quantum of that satisfaction, by considering how far the offense was willful or inadvertent, and by estimating the value of the actual damage sustained."[1]
Except for the carve-out for fox-hunting: "In like manner the common law warrants the hunting of ravenous beasts of prey, as badgers and foxes, in another man’s land; because the destroying such creatures is profitable to the public."
I thought this was going to be about the species in Poeceae/Triticeae and how it derives some substantial gains in photosynthesis through special chemical changes induced by UV-A or UV-B, but (as I feared) it is instead yet another cutesily named programming thing and some other cutesily named programming thing, neither of which have anything to do (not even figuratively) with rye or ultraviolet light.
To all future makers of packages, programming languages, tools, platforms, etc., please hearken back to olde days of yore and give things long-winded descriptive names, and when these unwieldy names get too cumbersome or annoying to say out loud or type, do what your forefathers did and come up with arcane abbreviations that only our in-group knows...: OS2, APL, grep, RISC, etc.
Note that your examples are very much dated---there are simply too many things in the scene for that suggestion to work. Do you know what followed OS/2? Yeah, eComStation and ArcaOS, both are not descriptive (except for the "OS" part, which doesn't really help). How about APL? Of course, J and K among others (and J is named because it's easy to type [1]). Even RISC family of Berkeley architectures had used other names for RISC III ("SOAR") and IV ("SPUR") before coming back to RISC-V.
I too clicked the link expecting news with some distant relevance to my bread-baking hobby, instead finding information of equivalently distant relevance to my profession. Ah well - naming things is hard.
The title gave me a weird idea... Photosynthesising plants dont convert the entire spectrum of light to energy. What if u had a filter that turned all the sunlight into the wavelength that the plant uses, could u get more food from the same area of land?
I don't think we currently know of any practical way to _arbitrarily_ change the wavelength and frequency of electromagnetic waves (within the same medium), and even if there was, it would likely take so much energy that it would never be efficient to spend the energy this way.
Somehow submerging the plants within a different medium to change the entire spectrum would also likely not achieve any gains either, because by doing that you can only reduce the total amount of energy in any part of the spectrum, not shift it elsewhere (afaik).
edit: added 'arbitrarily' - as replies point out, moving towards the lower-energy end of the spectrum is not hard.
Fluorescence is pretty easy and cheap, we use it all the time. Yellow fluorescent material is added to blue LEDs to make white LEDs; blue fluorescent material is added to paper, clothing, and laundry detergent to make whites appear brighter under UV light.
Shifting frequency the other direction is much harder; some materials exist that can double the frequency of light (known as second harmonic generation), but it's not as cheap as fluorescence. They are used in green laser pointers to turn infrared light into green light.
> I don't think we currently know of any practical way to change the wavelength and frequency of electromagnetic waves (within the same medium), and even if there was, it would likely take so much energy that it would never be efficient to spend the energy this way.
Isn't this the entire principle behind using quantum dots in displays?
i.e. The quantum dots absorb light from the backlight and then re-emit it as a very specific color band.
> I don't think we currently know of any practical way to change the wavelength and frequency of electromagnetic waves (within the same medium), and even if there was, it would likely take so much energy that it would never be efficient to spend the energy this way.
What? Yes we do. It's called fluorescence.
If you find a color range not being used effectively, it's easy to drop the frequency down to a better one.
Sorry, I should have written 'practical way to arbitrarily change...'. One of the sibling comments to yours touches on the topic of increasing the frequency, which is what I was getting at with the practicality and energy consumption.
That is exactly what solar panel scientists want to achieve, but it’s very hard to actually do. Capturing more of the spectrum is what’s let the efficiency percentage slowly creep from the 20’s into the 30’s.
Photosynthesis is ca. 2% to 5% effective while even common off the shelf PV panels reach 20% easily. Assuming an efficient light source in the desired spectral range that'd make it more efficient to grow plants under solar panels with such light sources using the generated power than growing them under glass or out in the open.
"Why not make Rye the cargo for Python? Will Rye retired for uv?"
I didn't know the Python ecosystem was this vast, I've gotten by with `pip install` and `git clone` for literally every ML project I've worked on for 3 years.
EDIT: In an attempt to contribute something more valuable:
- Astral is a company that is trying to make better Python tooling, as in more performant and easier to use. The major examples given are in Rust
- Rye is a personal project to build an automated Python dep and venv management that was released a year ago
- uv is a recently released tool by Astral that is similar
- The Rye project owner talked with someone at Astral and they figure long-term, Astral's in a better position to invest than a personal project, so Astral "will being taking stewardship" of Rye / Rye is old yeller'd
Universities originated to enable organized theological disputation. The student/teaching body consisted nearly entirely of clerics or would-be clerics.
I realize you're being tongue-in-cheek, but I believe they often give the infringer the option of how to dispose of the infringing work. Laser tattoo remove, or inking over it would be adequate. Presumably this would be at Kat Von D's expense, since the wearer of the ink isn't named in the lawsuit.
