I’m having trouble understanding how that second amendment passed. The first one didn’t so the total number of shares didn’t change, right? So how did he get the second one through, legally speaking?
Not at all trying to argue here, I’m trying to understand how this all works. It sounds like he just spoofed his way into diluting your shares which will fall apart in 5 minutes before a judge, should be an open and shut case but given the other comments here, it’s clearly not, which means I’m missing something.
I don't believe it passed legally but anyone can send an email saying "my amendment passes", which is what happened. He's betting that we won't challenge.
Good question. I’d expand on this and ask a bonus question of, how do you write tests for your 2fa implementation code? Same thing for third party auth (sign in via GitHub/Google, etc); you can’t spam them every time you run your test suite, but is mocking responses from them really a wise move when testing authentication?
To the best of my admittedly limited knowledge on the subject, they're relatively new so most news sites aren't terribly aware of them yet, and most people aren't technology-savvy enough to be aware of their existence and ability to make use of them outside circles like ours here on HN and related occupations/sites/etc. That said, they're also not doing anything shady to get by the paywall either. The version they're presenting you is the exact same version the news sites are presenting search engines in order to grab search engine traffic. The news sites are literally participating in an intentional bait-and-switch scheme to bait people with relevant search results that are NOT paywalled, then when a human browser gets there, they throw up a paywalled version in your face via user agent detection, mandatory javascript, etc. (various means are used). archive.ph simply mimics a search engine indexer to get an un-paywalled version, same as Google or any other search engine, in order to retrieve the cleaned up version of the article without a paywall there, and serves that content to the end user. It's not stealing content not already offered in other forms anyway, it's just removing an artificial dark pattern that's literally intended to bait and switch people in the first place. Kind of makes for a weak argument if they do bring it to court in the first place; glass houses, throwing stones and all that.
(If anyone is feeling generous, Archive.today accepts donations at https://liberapay.com/archiveis/donate . The “Donate” link on the site header also links to that URL.)
Testimonial: I've observed mere users on Facebook using archive.ph and web.archive.org to make "backups" of pages they think will be taken down. Not wide usage to be sure but definitely outside of the techie/HN type community.
My guess is that people in the media are pretty aware of how to bypass paywalls because they have to do it to do their jobs (it used to be you could log into most of them with "media/media"; even The New York Times admits that reporters don't get paid enough to afford subscriptions to all of the newspapers that they need to use for fact checking and investigation.)
Most "paywalls" can be bypassed with a clear-cookies or incognito window. They're not actually strong walls, they just want to be annoying enough that some people signup.
If this is really true - and frankly I’m not sure I buy it completely (though I do partially) - well, then, fuck those guys.
I like Jews.
They’ve always been really nice to me despite my brash Texas attitude and total disrespect of social graces. Every Jewish person I’ve met has been really down to earth, nice, and intelligent. Obviously that can’t apply to each and every one of them - they’re human beings, after all, just like everyone else - but that’s been my experience, and it’s one I’m eager to repeat.
Sadly, however, I am not a hiring manager.
I wish it was possible to definitively identify the people who sincerely refuse to hire Jewish folks, just so I know which companies not to bother applying to. After all, I’m a Texan. As such, I have an extremely low tolerance for bullshit.
And bigotry, in any form for any reason, is most assuredly bullshit.
I’d be willing to wager this extends beyond America, if it were properly studied. Perhaps to a slightly different degree, though not by much. Just swap “jew” with some other minority relative to that culture and boom, QED.
I would respectfully suggest that not only is the inherent economic power imbalance at the heart of a job interview the cause here, but it's also an indicator of a deeper issue, that being a latent social anxiety that may be hiding deeper down. It just takes a more exacerbated situation to bring it out (thankfully!). Some of us have it in a more pervasive sense that overrides every aspect of our lives that cripples almost everything we do (or rather, don't do as the case may be) and I'm happy to see that's not the case with you, but still, the same treatment options used for those of us with serious social anxiety situations may be useful for helping to get you through this current situation.
Xanax, from what I've heard, can be extremely addicting so I don't really recommend that stuff. One doctor I saw told me that he NEVER prescribes it unless the patient is terminally ill - and that patient was my dad with terminal brain cancer. Was a massive help for him. I'd never touch the stuff myself after that conversation. But there are other options. There's Paxil (see other comment), and even blood pressure medication can be used off-label for anxiety (propranolol is what I'm on right now and while it's not nearly as effective, it does help a little bit).
Anyway, the point here is that the condition you may or may not have is irrelevant, your doctor is the one who should be making that call, and whatever tools they've got for treating social anxiety may be useful for you here as well. You may not need to stay on them long term at all - you can assess that later on after the economic uncertainty has passed. But for now, if you can swing it, I strongly suggest seeing a good doctor to help you have some better options beyond a glass of wine.
But if you can't, then hey, again, no judgement. Gotta do what ya gotta do.
I can totally relate to having the condition, but I've never tried alcohol for treating it. When you do eventually get access to healthcare again (assuming you're addled by the failed US healthcare system like I am - healthcare being only accessible via employer provided health insurance...) see a psychiatrist about this and ask about social anxiety medication. Paxil was particularly effective for me at one point in time. It takes a few months to fully kick in but when it does, the effect doesn't really feel all that massive, you just kind of notice a sort of...ease that you may not have had before. May sound somewhat alien to you now, but I encourage you to give that a try as a more long-term solution than using alcohol. It's definitely a hell of a lot safer!
That said, I do NOT judge you for using a glass of wine to get you through a pinch in a tough time, and to hell with anyone who does. Use what you've got, get the job done. When you're through hell, THEN you can focus on the better long-term option. But for now, do what you gotta do.
That said, IF you have access to a licensed psychiatrist who can prescribe something, you could use goodrx.com as a temporary stand-in for insurance. I'm seeing prices for genric paxil (paroxetine) at 30 tabs of 40mg for about $22 bucks via CVS with GoodRX here in Texas right now, so it may be an option for you. That said, it does take time to kick in, and mixing with alcohol is ill-advised. Still, I do suggest this as your main option, but again, no judgement for doing what ya gotta do.
I’d rather have some alcohol in a situation like this that happens a couple of times a year at most and not become dependent on some daily anxiety pharmaceutical.
;-)