The Grok screenshot that went around only said that it was given a command to talk about the issue, which is corroborated by this official tweet. (as an aside, "confirmed by Grok" is generally not strong evidence because it is a LLM)
It did not confirm that Elon Musk did it which is a very specific allegation.
If this was the first "mistake" made by the new administration and DOGE, then these items would be understandable. Or the second mistake. Or the third, maybe.
This is intentional. That is the only conclusion one can draw now. From the terseness of the letters of dismissal to the unreliability of the message ('you're fired! Wait, no you're not!'), one can only assume this is part of the destruction of democratic institutions that the current administration is pursuing.
This administration has tens of billions of dollars in spending and an immense amount of waste. Even if they were 99.9% accurate by this metric or that, there's going to be many mistakes. And the media is going to work to drag out the worst of the worst mistakes. And those worst of the worst are things like this - a guy being accidentally placed on leave pending dismissal for less than 24 hours?
Obviously everybody would prefer there be 0 mistakes, but I think in general this is, ironically, quite a good indicator!
Gollum took back the ring after Frodo - possessed by the spirit of the ring and in its voice - cursed him with death if he should ever break his oath. Gollum did so the ring did, bringing about his downfall.
> Hallucinations are present, but usually they’re pretty minor (screwing up gender, years).
And if all hospitals were doing was having doctors treat patients, this would be ok. But healthcare is fueled by these "minor" details and this will result in delays in payment and reimbursent, trouble with patient identification, corruption of clinical coding, etc.
These are not exactly equal. I'm not saying that I am particularly triggered by such titles (even when they apply to my family history, genealogy, etc) but there are some people who are and accomodating them is not a huge impact.
Changing the names back because you were upset that somone changed them in the first place, with the express knowledge that some people may be affected by this, is a dick move.
One of these moves is a virtue signal, yes, but it has no real impact once completed. This current move from 'main' to 'master' is designed to both virtue signal and to upset/piss people off/etc.
This sounds like an interesting idea that has scope beyond the legal profession and into areas such as shared service management (where you might need multiple levels of management to review, edit, sign-off a comms before sending).
An 'approval to send' option might also help here.
There are lots of possibilities for sure, and some customers have also asked about this. Getting somebody to help with the development work will greatly assist in being able to better explore these opportunities.
Best of luck with your search. I'm not the candidate you are looking for but something about your product description makes that nice 'click' noise in my brain.
Until there are consequences for actions, he gets to do whatever the hell he likes. It may be unconstitutional but his bootlickers and lackeys will round up people until someone/s actually yanks his chain and brings him into line.
> but his bootlickers and lackeys will round up people until someone/s actually yanks his chain and brings him into line.
reply
he has packed the SCOTUS and Congress. at this point the only amendment that will stop him is the 2nd Amendment. we'll see if the US leftwing has the stomach for that, cuz I bet they don't.
I think Trump is clearly wrong on this and the Constitution clearly supports birth-right citizenship and it is backed by precedence. But, this will probably be challenged in the Supreme Court and despite what people think the Court uphold birth-right. I don't think they are going to "round" anyone up because of this; I think it is more about future citizens.
The other thing that I don't understand, all these leftist Americans that think America is terrible and Europe is clearly superior, are they able to name any countries that support birth-right citizenship?
What does it say about the current president that he would sign an executive order that directly contravenes the constitution.
Are we to take solace in that his worst actions will be rejected by the court?
Can we not have a good faith actor instead?
Is it not possible to have a president that begins from a position of knowledge and respect for the constitution? And thus this detour via the court system is made unnecessary?
Many Presidents, including Obama, etc, have supported orders and legislation that are unconstitutional; this is pretty common. As far as this issue, he has some people that think they can make an argument that the 14th doesn't apply, he has been wrongly advised about that, in my view.
all these leftist Americans that think America is terrible and Europe is clearly superior, are they able to name any countries that support birth-right citizenship
not sure who exactly you are referring to but even people that I know that think Europe is "superior" do not thing that Europe is superior in every way. unlike all these rightist Americans the leftist ones believe in the US Constitution though :)
Then why is there so much vitriol about this particular point about birth-right citizenship? People act as if ending birth-right citizenship (leftists, in this case) is some kind of apocalypse (even though this action will fail).
simple - because it is unconstitutional which rightist seemed to not really care about these days (even ones that funnily carry a pocket version to show to MSM…)
Obama and other presidents put forth orders and legislation that was unconstitutional and the I didn't see the left freaking out about it so maybe try again?
I have found that the psycho-social hazards model (popular in Australian workplaces) has had a real impact on my understanding of my own burnout.
There are a range of risk factors which, if realised in the workplace, result in an exponentially increased risk of harm to an employee. From my understanding, any workplace in which employees are routinely subjected to 2 of these hazards are required to develop and execute a plan to reduce the risks where practical.
