> the discussion will include the State Police as well as state Homeland Security and counterterrorism officials to show how intelligence can be shared with corporate security.
> “She understood how serious the impact of both the killing and the hateful reaction to it is, and she wants to make sure that the state resources, specifically the domestic counterterrorism resources, are focused on being supportive, sharing information,” Wylde said of her initial conversation with Hochul.
This is to make people feel better about risk in an operating environment where it’s impossible to guarantee their safety. Giving stakeholders warm fuzzy feelings and reassurances.
Annulling the results of an election on an accounting issue is not democracy. They could prosecute him for fraud if he committed it, that's not the same as revoking the vote of the population.
So the next step for russia is to invest some tiktok money for the the person that would be elected anyways but they hate the most, and this way discredit that person?
Well hopefully they cannot do that in the future, since TikTok is also being investigated in the scandal. They are the ones who pocketed the money for the ads after all, and are required to comply with the electoral laws of the country, which they did not.
(later edit: Actually probably they did not pocket the ad money, since I think the accusation is most of it was not legitimate ads, but puppet-account posts from some service. Of course, TikTok could still be be held responsible to better police these, but perhaps is not the direct destination of the money.)
He only got 23% of the votes and wasn't elected yet, though.
Also what can they do besides disqualifying him or delaying the elections for months(years?) until he's convicted of fraud (hopefully by that point all of his voters would have forgotten all those ads)?
What if they think you might have cheated, so they cancel the entire entrance exam for everyone because your potential, unproven, cheating would have given you an unfair advantage over the other students?
In this case, one person suspected of cheating (only suspected, he is not convicted or even charged with anything at all!) has led to the annulment of the entire exam. Only one of the candidates was found to have cheated, during their campaign. The voting process was found to be perfectly secure and to accurately reflect the intention of the people who voted. And yet, the entire election, starting not just from the vote, but from the moment that all candidates registered and started their campaign, has been annulled and started from scratch.
Any party who wishes to participate in the elections will have to start from step 0, from collecting 200k signatures of people who support their candidacy.
This is not fraud. Voting fraud is when you manipulate ballots. It's amazing how well intentioned people here tend to believe that voters are influenced toddlers who can't be trusted. Why even have elections?
Bad analogy, a student is not being evaluated for a position where he controls the lives of millions.
10 people were competing for president, a position with significant power. Whoever you elect will have powers immediately so you cannot afford to kick cheaters out after the fact, only before.
This election game is played in two rounds. If you find a cheater before the first round, what happens if you remove him? There's 9 left. What about in the second round where it's 1v1? You just gave away the presidency to last candidate.
Romania acted too late in kicking the cheater out. Maybe there were reasons for that, but this means re-running the elections without the cheater might be the lesser evil.
Maybe it's the idea of a "country" that's flawed? Certainly it is, we live on a planet and are all impacted by the environment. Previous social structures are no longer applicable and are causing damage. It's only a matter of time before they're rethought.
More transparency is a good thing, even if that comes from "international interference". The problems exist, try to hide them at your own political risk.
It's not "dangerous" to expose the truth, even selectively. More information is better, especially when it pertains to things our government is keeping from us.
Not always, as cherry picked information is, in essence, a lie: it misrepresents reality by showing a narrow sliver of it that supports an argument that's not supported by the full set of observations.
A decent house in the Bay Area is >$2M. Why would I pay that when I can make the same money and buy a much better house for $500k, work from home, not have a commute (which is hideous in the BA) and not have some little micro manager breathing down my neck all day? It's a massive quality of life improvement all around.
That's not true, I definitely make the same money remotely that I would make anywhere else. Full remote companies don't care where you live and pay just as much as RTO places, often more.
I’m willing to bet this isn’t true for the average dev and you haven’t compared to in person pay from to companies, but there are definitely exceptions and sure it can be true for a particular person.
I know a lot of people working from home. Unless you work for a place that specifically adjusts for where you live (which is rare, especially with startups), you're going to get paid your market rate, no matter where you reside.
Pretty much all the FAANGs adjust for location so not what I would call rare. In addition it’s not about adjusting, many jobs just aren’t offered remote for better or worse (look at many Bay Area YC startup location expectations for the last year), so yes your current job might be ok with it, but the next bump up to make more isn’t even an option because many high paying jobs will be in office.
FAANG is literally 5 companies and they just do a market rate adjustment. Making $230k in Texas vs $270k in SF isn't really that different. Startups don't even do that, remote work pays the same regardless of geo. Any "in office" only startup is pretty much doomed tbh.
It's also not just my "current job", I make more than any peer that works in office and I always have at any employer that I've been at. If you want me to work for you, you have to pay what I require. That's how the market works.
50k between Texas and SF isn't a difference, that's the whole point of cost of living adjustment. That being said, my rate is my rate. People happily pay it. I have access to the entire planet for my options, not just whoever happens to have an office within commuting distance from my house.
A large percentage of YC startups fail, so that's not really a metric that's useful. Basic market analysis will do: more potential employers = higher pay.
50k extra per year, to get it you need to spend only 100k-200k… per year…
It sometimes makes sense, when you are junior, need to form a network, and have low expenses. One can look at it as an investment. But not for the average engineer over the long term. It just doesn’t pencil out. Especially if you want a family.
War at its core is not a murder contest. You have to be strategic and you have to deal with the reality of trying to govern any conquered subjects which historically hasn't been very successful in the long term. In a globally connected world, you have to deal with the rest of the planet reacting to your actions.
That's not even touching on concepts like human rights and international law.
The working definition of the IHRA[0] is truly awful.
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
A certain perception?
The original meaning when the term was coined in the 19th century[1] was that of a racial or ethnic hatred of Jews, as "Semite" is a racial or ethnic category. This is more sensible. It can also be distinguished from anti-Jewishness as a rejection of or hostility toward Judaism as a matter of religious belief, culture, or ethos (which better characterizes historical negative attitudes; the test of this is the acceptance of authentic converts, something the Nazis would never recognize, as their hatred was racial in nature).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42413559