We will soon BREACH the ability of users to use certain KEYs to activate windows. Use of these KEYs is a BREACH of our terms of service which we consider KEY to user SECURITY.
Yes, correct. If you can deal with almost any operating system that runs on general purpose hardware, and if you can stomach having the choice of which one to run.
This whole analysis reads like the economic version of flat earth theory to me, but I thank you both in advance because I am about to go down a research rabbit hole on "corporate communism."
Maybe I'm an optimist, but I'd like to think the downvotes are because the user showed in the space of a haiku that they understand neither capitalism nor communism.
I had to walk back pretty quickly and save the credibility I had. So I pivoted to something like "There is no 'or else,' you'd just better not--as in it would really be better if you did not. I think you'll be pretty sad and miserable if you do that."
This turned out to be a step down the correct path, even if pretty embarrassing in the moment. Someone with a better relationship with the kid stepped in and used that relationship to de-escalate, á la "please don't do that because it will hurt you and I wouldn't like that because I care about you."
What I found to be key in a situation like this was: (1) focus on the person, not the behavior; (2) Have full attention on the situation; (3) try to determine/address root causes. It's obviously impossible to do all that stuff in real life sometimes, but I can try.
I'm not an academic, but I don't really think there is a correct choice. I think there are strategies that work in the moment to de-escalate. From among those, we often have a choice of damnations regarding long-term goals (e.g. "what will she learn from this if I..."). I think we are often poor estimators of long-term impact, though.
I agree. And I'll go you one further. I have kids. I also used to work in a psychiatric hospital for kids, so I frequently had 30 and most of them were in the bottom quartile on common "easy to parent" metrics. On my first day a kid had found a lightbulb and broken it. She was threatening to eat it. I was shadowing someone and they sort of nudged me forward to see what I would do. I said, "you'd better not eat that" in a pretty authoritative tone. The kid responded, "or what?"
This was sort of a lightbulb moment for me. It's your first hour on the job, and you've been presented with an "imposing of consequences" dilemma. Your dilemma partner has threatened to eat some broken glass. What result?
Anyway, I obviously didn't escalate with threats of consequences, right? Or my username would be prosecutor. The action:reaction, misbehavior:punishment model operates as violence for some kids. Parenting has to be adaptive and parents have to sort of ride the bronco and parent the kid who shows up that day.
Unfortunately for you, nobody would probably publish a book titled "sometimes you just have to clean the kid's room and still read to them and there are different rules for the older brother but that's all fine and good," but anecdotally that's the truth.
Anyway your parenting experience sounds normal (in the sense that it's normal for a parent to have an uncommonly oppositional kid), so don't feel like you're doing anything wrong. Good luck.
Probably because it's not a very useful exit. The most successful law school applicants have degrees like history, classics, or math. A degree in legal studies (1) doesn't rank for getting into law school (or if it does, it's clearly not the what law schools want), (2) Looks a little useless/incomplete if you stop after the bachelor and don't go to law school.
FWIW people with 2 or 4 year degrees in law or justice and no other education seem to become probation officers in my experience, so I'm all for WVU sending that one into the ocean.
Hey, this is great advice. Maybe it is as simple as "just lie about your destination and don't give up any additional information." I don't think that's as easy as you make it sound, but at least it's a clear strategy.
On the other hand, I think a lot of the difficulty in situations like this comes from not knowing that this is about the "skiplag" issue (or not knowing if it's only about that issue). I think there's also a likely scenario where the airline starts investigating you for one thing and just sort of throws the book of accusations at you when they don't like how the skiplag interrogation is going.
My first comment was more about that: the private actor interrogating people without clear rules or limits.
Ha. Ha. Suddenly everyone's an expert in what constitutes detention. There's actually a big difference between "literally not detaining" someone and not detaining someone.
I think the detention naysayers in this thread have failed to consider that the people who practice this type of behavior are experts. Frequently the whole business of these interrogators is to make sure that someone is "not literally" detained, but that they are in fact detained, in the sense that they do not feel free to leave. In this way, the interrogator has not committed a crime or malfeasance by falsely detaining a person, but they isolate them and make them feel as though they need to answer questions.
The worst part is that there is almost no clear coaching for how a person is supposed to get through this type of situation. With the police, we can give clear advice: (1) ask "am I being detained or am I free to leave?" (2) Refuse to engage in conversation; (3) Ask for a lawyer. But these aren't police. They will tell you that you are not being detained. They have a few hundred dollars of your money and maybe a bunch of your clothes, and they just need you to answer a few questions before you get on the plane.
What are you going to say? "I refuse to answer questions without a lawyer"? "I refuse to remain in this tiny office answering questions"? Ok. Great. You're banned, and maybe turned over to TSA for a real custodial interrogation for acting so suspiciously at an airport.
Anyway, all this to say that your word games with "literally" this and that are not clever because this is actually much worse than a real custodial interrogation because the rights and obligations are much less clear and that lack of clarity accrues to the corporation's advantage.
This seems correct regarding this person and this conduct, but I disagree that this type of penalty is "the standard for most first time, non-violent offenses."
Federal cases are a small percentage of total criminal prosecutions, and penalties vary widely across the country.
So you understand the difference between the two definitions and you are falsely equating them in your first comment on purpose? In order to derail the conversation? That's disappointing.
I can't tell if you understand or not, but your "first definition" is a grammatically correct pejorative. The second is a reference to a political philosophy.
What's happening in this comment thread is that people are "confusing" a mastodon instance dedicated to the political philosophy with a group dedicated to being in a state of disorder. It's neither productive to the discussion nor witty.
No it won't!