Nothing conspiratorial in the fact that the networks (correctly) assess that the American viewing public would rather watch Mad Men or Game of Thrones than The Snowden Files, any night of the week.
The article I saw copied and pasted everywhere was a blogpost from someone who went through the bootcamp process (whether this person made it through or not, I'm not sure).
And actually, I specifically remembered the "counseled out of the organization" line as a sign that FB -- unlike many tech companies -- is actually tactful and respectful when it comes to letting people go for performance reasons (at least that stage in the process.
But what else should we expect from the owners of a news portal that was, from the outset, itself nothing other than soulless and robotic, to its very core -- and whose passing almost no one is likely to mourn?
("No one", that is, except of course those who've recently found out they "no longer have a role with Patch", along with their unlucky dependents).
Am curious as to what the "public beaches" thing is in reference to (being as the links don't seem to be working in the original article):
Some of the blows have been self-inflicted,
like venture capitalists who compare progressivism
to Nazism or who block access to public beaches.
I mean, I know that libertarian types (in SV and elsewhere) don't seem to put much stock in this "public property" concept, generally, but is there some particular local controversy they're alluding to here?
The original article was really quite informative about this. Please have a look:
When drivers accept a call, furthermore, they need to
interface with the app. The suit goes on to note that
under California law, it is illegal to use a “wireless
telephone” while driving unless it is specifically
configured to be hands-free — which the app is not. In
essence, the suit argues that Uber was negligent in the
“development, implementation and use of the app” so as
to cause the driver to be distracted and inattentive.
Well it's still a "crime", technically, but for companies at Google/HSBC/BP-scale the consequences are more like those for a misdemeanor -- i.e. you might pay a trivial fine, and maybe get a little egg on your face, but that's pretty much it. Whereas for an individual or a small-timer, the analogous violation would be treated as felony-class, or worse.
The large companies obviously know how to avoid accountability by eliminating, or never creating paper trails.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem that it was a lack of a paper trail that kept the principals of HSBC out of orange pajamas. But rather an apparent perception on the part of the government that they were essentially beholden to HSBC for the sake of, well, it's hard to say precisely (but you can chose whether you want to take the AG's concern about "jobs" at face value or not):
In December 2012, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny
Breuer suggested that the U.S. government might resist
criminal prosecution of HSBC which could lead to the loss
of the bank's U.S. charter. He stated, "Our goal here
is not to bring HSBC down, it's not to cause a systemic
effect on the economy, it's not for people to lose
thousands of jobs."
