>The only issue before the New York court in the disciplinary case was whether, taking as true that Donzinger tried to bribe a judge, etc., whether he should be suspended. That did not require a hearing
And it also relied upon the testimony of Alberto Guerra, who later admitted that he was lying and was paid by Chevron to lie:
>The only issue before the New York court in the disciplinary case was whether, taking as true that Donzinger tried to bribe a judge, etc., whether he should be suspended. That did not require a hearing
And it also relied upon the testimony of Alberto Guerra, who later admitted that he was lying and was paid by Chevron to lie:
I have a hard time believing that they suspended him without a hearing, describing him as an "immediate threat to public order" but they fucking did it anyway.
Norway actually does this and it's fairly effective.
The ever so slight downside to this is that, while Norway's state investment fund is vastly wealthy shareholder of many companies that can throw its weight around, I am, regrettably, not.
One solution for this is for you to give me money.
There have been a number of shareholder fights over executive pay (it is their money, after all, so it's only natural they should try to claim it). They often end up losing thanks to the trend of passive investors and fund managers (principal/agent problem) with unhealthily close relationships with executives.
>This is what the job is worth, if you want someone competent and responsible for thousands of employees and billions in revenue. Nobody is doing that for $1m/year when one wrong decision could end up costing 1000x more than their salary
I'll do it.
It's not like that one wrong decision ends up affecting them. Even if they get fired (which they often don't), they can exercise golden parachutes that will pay out many multiples of how much an average earner gets in a lifetime.
It's a job that gets paid a lot of money because the people who do it come from a fairly tight knit community that looks out for each other, not because of merit (CEO pay actually correlates slightly negatively with performance). Being an alumnus of McKinsey is actually one of the ways to enter that community.
Implementing an end to end testing framework on a badly written although heavily relied upon production system whose quality was getting steadily worse over time. It arrested and reversed the decline in quality.
> you’ve repeatedly talked about apartheid which is a highly inappropriate
There's a wall with guard towers. I've been there and seen it myself. The existence of some 2nd class Arab citizens that they couldn't ethnically cleanse or expel any other way while the world was watching doesn't change that fact.
>I ask you to recognize that these things are complicated
It was never complicated. Israel was a racist European colonization project just like South Africa. The fact that it screams anti-semitism until it's blue in the face and asks you do to the same does not change that fact.
A general ban on hosting conferences in geopolitically sensitive hotspots that covered Israel would be the non-hypocritical way to achieve this aim, supposing it is the true aim.
However, hosting a conference in Israel is inviting political posturing. Message censorship is political posturing. Using anti-semitism to censor non-anti-semitism is political posturing (and, usually, a form of anti-arab racism itself).
>Are you serious? There was an article on HN just yesterday about how Turkey censored Wikipedia for two years.
And yet it would maximize those who would be able to attend. Both Israelis and Arabs can fly to Turkey pretty easily.
>I think a lot of Israeli engineers would just like to be able to host conferences without it turning into a geopolitical debate
I'm sure a lot of North Korean and Venezuelan engineers would love that too, but until the Israeli government ends racial apartheid the chances of it not turning into a geopolitical debate are zero.
Making the decision to host a conference in Israel in the first place is a form of political posturing, as is message censorship. If they truly wanted to be apolitical (and it appears that Alexander Wirt very much does not) they could have held it somewhere more neutral (e.g. Turkey).
I think it doesn't affect not-yet-open restaurants nearly as badly as existing restaurant owners. NRA doesn't represent the restaurant market as a whole it represents a % of restaurant owners that currently exist.
Restaurant workers are, of course, going to be fairly indifferent to restaurant bankruptcies especially if an existing restaurant is swiftly replaced by a new one that pays more.
>This mostly only builds trust with fellow developers.
Trust is highly transitive for highly technical developer focused products though. The core of stripe's trust, even among non technical decision makers, is down to their killer APIs and docs.
This is why the National Restaurant Association always lobbies furiously against minimum wage hikes - it will never destroy the restaurant industry but it sure as heck destroys actual restaurants.
It will discourage hoarding. Unproductively using land in high value locations that are growing is currently rewarded - with asset appreciation.
If it is discouraged - with taxation, that land will be yielded to more productive use.
Nobody creates land but somebody gets to "tax" it. Either we can let that revenue stream fill up government coffers or it can go into private pockets. It's our decision.
And it also relied upon the testimony of Alberto Guerra, who later admitted that he was lying and was paid by Chevron to lie:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/neye7z/chevrons-star-witn....