"This time around, the AP said that the 824.9 million euro fine was calculated as the maximum penalty that's derived from four percent of a company's worldwide annual turnover."
Annual turnover is revenue, so top line money, before taxes, expenses, etc. They profited a little over $10 billion last year, so a nearly $1 billion fine is a little less than 10% of their profit.
I wouldn't call it insignificant - as a percentage of profit, it's not bad. But when we're talking about billions, it's still probably not enough to get them to stop.
I'm not trying to "both sides" this. The two sides are not equal. But this type of post, that tries to pretend one side has no scandals, only makes the other side stronger. People see things like this and dig their heels in. They (justifiably) criticize things like this for not being impartial, and dismiss the people posting them as untrustworthy/unreliable.
We shouldn't be playing these games. If you want to take them down, steelman them, and show that even at their best, they're worse.
We might have different definitions of the word "fair." I don't think an apology counts if there's any amount of trying to convince the other person what you did was their fault.
I'm not sure that's true. I think there's some gas lighting going on. The LinkedIn post explicitly says interviews were for anyone who got a LemonLime tattoo. The apology then first says participants chose their own tattoo, and didn't have to get the company logo. Then in the "facts" section at the bottom, says interviews were available to everyone regardless of whether they got a tattoo.
Not having attended the event, it's impossible to know, but it seems like pressure was higher at the event, and the poster is sort of taking some of the responsibility, but trying really hard to say "we didn't make you do anything."
I wish we could see more of that "facts" section. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more there, they use to try to absolve themselves.
The bicameral legislature, with proportional and equal representation, has valid arguments to support it. That isn't to say it's perfect, but it was a compromise made for some justifiable reasons. Where we really went wrong was the Reapportionment Act of 1929, that capped the size of the house, and guaranteed small states at least one seat. This has given small states extremely outsized impact, that gets worse every year (as the growth of other states continues to out pace them). Even with a single chamber legislature, capping the members in this fashion would lead to the same problem. If the house was truly proportional, as originally intended, we'd be a very different country, regardless of the senate.
To see why this really matters, see this CGP Grey video about the electoral college and it's relation to Congress (equal voters as reps in Congress). Then consider how the President gets to nominate judges, and consider the cascade of nonsense that follows.
This is incorrect. People do make over a million, e.g. Sundar Pichai makes $2 million base. The reason the tax is a lower percentage for a millionaire is because the social security tax is capped. You only pay it on the first $184,000 (this increases yearly) that you earn.
It is important to note social security tax is basically forced retirement savings. In theory, you are funding your own retirement through it (the more you pay in, the more you get out later). This is very different than ordinary income tax, which is not capped (that's not to say it's high enough, or that there aren't ways to hide, defer, or obscure income, and pay less than expected or reasonable).
What would you do if he wasn't your dad? You mentioned you took full blame, almost as if you felt like you were covering for him, but I think even if it wasn't your dad, you're responsible for anyone you bring in, and the work they do, so taking the blame should be universal. And going forward, I'd expect a similar, universal approach. You could choose to not mention it but also not employ that person any more, mention it before the next job and ask them to be extra careful, change procedures to guarantee it doesn't happen again...
I don't think him being your dad should necessarily afford him special treatment.
Seizing "office property" isn't going to disrupt customers in the same way as seizing a plane, and again, no one is saying don't seize a plane, or don't punish Ryanair - just don't seize a plane with passengers already on it (at least without going through a process that includes a threat and a deadline, so the customers can, theoretically, be spared).
The logic you're applying here would have all accounts frozen at a bank when a single customer disputes a charge, all parcels held when a carrier misdelivers a single item, grocery stores unable to sell food when one customer should have been refunded.
No one is siding with Ryanair here. But laws can be enforced and justice can be carried out, without disrupting the lives of everyone else. There were likely on the order 200 people on that flight who would have been caught in the crossfire of a dispute they have no part in.
From the article:
"This time around, the AP said that the 824.9 million euro fine was calculated as the maximum penalty that's derived from four percent of a company's worldwide annual turnover."
Annual turnover is revenue, so top line money, before taxes, expenses, etc. They profited a little over $10 billion last year, so a nearly $1 billion fine is a little less than 10% of their profit.
I wouldn't call it insignificant - as a percentage of profit, it's not bad. But when we're talking about billions, it's still probably not enough to get them to stop.
Umm... I mean... I guess it's not Jesus and his disciples, but that kind of thing definitely happens in the bible. E.g. Lot and his daughters.
Fun fact: New Mexico is older than Mexico.
Clinton bombed a medicine factory based on weak/nonexistent evidence it was making nerve gas.
Obama used drone strikes ten time more than Bush, to the point he felt comfortable making a joke about drone striking the Jonas Brothers.
I'm not trying to "both sides" this. The two sides are not equal. But this type of post, that tries to pretend one side has no scandals, only makes the other side stronger. People see things like this and dig their heels in. They (justifiably) criticize things like this for not being impartial, and dismiss the people posting them as untrustworthy/unreliable.
We shouldn't be playing these games. If you want to take them down, steelman them, and show that even at their best, they're worse.
Crossherd #511 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛️ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛️ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬛️🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬛️🟩🟩🟩🟩 Time: 0:46 crossherd.clevergoat.com?ref=shared 🐐
We might have different definitions of the word "fair." I don't think an apology counts if there's any amount of trying to convince the other person what you did was their fault.
https://puzzmo.com/play/circuits/9hm9w1eoh/share
I'm not sure that's true. I think there's some gas lighting going on. The LinkedIn post explicitly says interviews were for anyone who got a LemonLime tattoo. The apology then first says participants chose their own tattoo, and didn't have to get the company logo. Then in the "facts" section at the bottom, says interviews were available to everyone regardless of whether they got a tattoo.
Not having attended the event, it's impossible to know, but it seems like pressure was higher at the event, and the poster is sort of taking some of the responsibility, but trying really hard to say "we didn't make you do anything."
I wish we could see more of that "facts" section. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more there, they use to try to absolve themselves.
The bicameral legislature, with proportional and equal representation, has valid arguments to support it. That isn't to say it's perfect, but it was a compromise made for some justifiable reasons. Where we really went wrong was the Reapportionment Act of 1929, that capped the size of the house, and guaranteed small states at least one seat. This has given small states extremely outsized impact, that gets worse every year (as the growth of other states continues to out pace them). Even with a single chamber legislature, capping the members in this fashion would lead to the same problem. If the house was truly proportional, as originally intended, we'd be a very different country, regardless of the senate.
To see why this really matters, see this CGP Grey video about the electoral college and it's relation to Congress (equal voters as reps in Congress). Then consider how the President gets to nominate judges, and consider the cascade of nonsense that follows.
FWIW, if you click the dropdown at the top, you can play the archive.
Pretty sure this is for people to thank their departing friends and teammates. Not the other way around.
This is incorrect. People do make over a million, e.g. Sundar Pichai makes $2 million base. The reason the tax is a lower percentage for a millionaire is because the social security tax is capped. You only pay it on the first $184,000 (this increases yearly) that you earn.
It is important to note social security tax is basically forced retirement savings. In theory, you are funding your own retirement through it (the more you pay in, the more you get out later). This is very different than ordinary income tax, which is not capped (that's not to say it's high enough, or that there aren't ways to hide, defer, or obscure income, and pay less than expected or reasonable).
"Are you Mary Tyler Moore?? Ow! Is that a new kind of mace? It's really painful."
I'm not sure of the episode, though. Based on the comment about the focus on the father-son dynamic, I'd guess the soapbox derby episode.
"What was I laughing at again? Oh yes, that Irish fellow."
Not sure of the title, but the episode where Homer becomes head of the union to save the dental plan.
https://youtu.be/EBb1bYakqMw?t=11m55s
"Even the hands?!"
If you haven't seen Detroiters, do yourself a favor, and go binge it.
Well, actually... it's ground into a powder, rather than the byproduct of sawing. I don't think it counts.
What would you do if he wasn't your dad? You mentioned you took full blame, almost as if you felt like you were covering for him, but I think even if it wasn't your dad, you're responsible for anyone you bring in, and the work they do, so taking the blame should be universal. And going forward, I'd expect a similar, universal approach. You could choose to not mention it but also not employ that person any more, mention it before the next job and ask them to be extra careful, change procedures to guarantee it doesn't happen again...
I don't think him being your dad should necessarily afford him special treatment.
Seizing "office property" isn't going to disrupt customers in the same way as seizing a plane, and again, no one is saying don't seize a plane, or don't punish Ryanair - just don't seize a plane with passengers already on it (at least without going through a process that includes a threat and a deadline, so the customers can, theoretically, be spared).
The logic you're applying here would have all accounts frozen at a bank when a single customer disputes a charge, all parcels held when a carrier misdelivers a single item, grocery stores unable to sell food when one customer should have been refunded.
No one is siding with Ryanair here. But laws can be enforced and justice can be carried out, without disrupting the lives of everyone else. There were likely on the order 200 people on that flight who would have been caught in the crossfire of a dispute they have no part in.