Nougat

Such a thing should not impact sentencing, either. The judge allowed it, the judge was swayed by it, it impacted sentencing. This is wrong.

You can say that all you want, but when your brain is presented with a video of a person, using that person’s voice, you’re going to take what’s being said as being from that person in the video.

Not at all, because it would have been her making claims about what she believes her brother would have said, and not a simulacrum of her brother speaking her words with his voice.

Because a judge allowing anyone to represent their views in court as though those views belong to someone else is a textbook “bad idea.” It is a misrepresentation of the truth.

Oh yeah, yeah - from a financial/reporting perspective, such a fund wouldn’t be considered “profit” in the strictest capitalist sense.

If you consider that kind of fund to be for the benefit of customers and employees, it might be considered “socialist profit.” Capitalist profit serves the ownership class. Socialist profit serves labor and consumers.

Profit would be appropriate if it were earmarked to offset difficult future fiscal periods, so that the business could continue to operate in lean times without having to punish employees through layoffs or failure to keep up with cost of living or cutting back on other benefits.

But we all know that’s not what happens. Owners never have to experience consequences; customers and employees always do, for things that they have no control over.

Oh right, I forgot about that. Then it’s just wrong.

Preface: This does not belong in a courtroom. These were not his words. These were words that someone else wrote, and then put into the mouth of a very realistic puppet of him.

This was a victim impact statement, which I think comes after sentencing. In that case, it wouldn’t have had an impact on sentencing, but I still feel quite strongly that this kind of misrepresentation has no place in a court.

It’s not needless pedantry. Revenue is the income acquired before costs, and those costs include employee compensation. Reducing the number of employees has zero immediate effect on revenue. A company with US$10B in revenue can still be losing money if their expenses are higher than revenue.

This is important to point out, because reporting very often uses the wrong metric to describe a company in comparison to its behavior. Revenue is rarely the correct metric, and mentioning it as a comparator in this article makes the issue less clear.

Note that I am not defending CrowdStrike here. Hell, they’re the ones saying that layoffs are going to magically increase revenue:

According to CrowdStrike, the layoff plan is part of a bigger plan to improve different operations and processes and achieve the final goal of $10 billion in revenue by the end of the year.

‍ “[Layoffs represent] a strategic plan (the ‘Plan’) to evolve its operations to yield greater efficiencies as the Company continues to scale its business with focus and discipline to meet its goal of $10 billion in ending [Annual Recurring Revenue].”, the CrowdStrike company mentioned in their 8-K filing.

I’m no paragon of business, but I fail to comprehend how having fewer employees is going to make your sales go up. Maybe they’re laying off salespeople, which puts the fear of god in those who are left as a “motivator”? Laying off people who perform the services they sell seems counterproductive in relation to revenue.

They’re being intentionally misleading about this, and pointing that out is not pedantry.

I hear what you’re saying, but revenue isn’t profit.

So we agree on one point, weirdness.

It’s still got no business in a courtroom.

Those were not his words. They were someone else’s words spoken by a very realistic puppet they made of him after he died.

That’s weird at best, and does not belong in a court.

OP became a giant overnight and hasn’t figured it out yet.

This is what I used before work took away my nice phone and replaced it with a bullshit iPhone. Switched to Overcast since PA is not available for iOS.

We are all poop drones on this glorious day.

Slight correction:

Soap, ballot, jury, (you are here) ammo.

9x was not secure. User credentials were only used to load a user profile, but there was no functionality to deny access to anything, and you did not need to log on with credentials.

NT and 2000 forward have been secure®, with actual permissions (file/folder, registry, services, etc) applied to user accounts.

Much of the crying about windows not being secure stems from people using admin-level accounts to do day-to-day things, and then getting tricked into clicking things they shouldn’t. Microsoft kind of mitigated this with UAC prompts, but the everyday user is “annoyed” by those, so people figure out how to turn UAC off, or just blindly click through the warnings. Hell, remember when the first UAC prompts out of Vista were “so annoying” that Microsoft had to scale back their frequency, because people didn’t like it?

This particular security situation is not any of the above. It stems from an actual code exploit. Which, by my reading, has been fixed?

Anyway - a vast majority of the “Windows is not secure” is a direct result of users running as root. Which you can do on any operating system.

Occasionally, he does mine with others.

Usually.

You’re assuming that I’m not a Yank? Let me tell you, I can Yank with the best of them, and I do!