Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[MNblockhead]

Town, yes. Rental complex, no,.

"All Cooped Up in a Manhattan Co-op, New York Times (May 17, 2007): https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/garden/17chickens.html

 

[Ryujin]

View attachment 387039

"All Cooped Up in a Manhattan Co-op, New York Times (May 17, 2007): https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/garden/17chickens.html

I would NOT want to smell that apartment.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

On a typical 7 hours workday, that's one hour with no typing, so the difference between "very reasonable" and "unsustainable" was only 15%. I think the "regular" number was already quite high. Not a very welcoming place to be in.

I'm a very fast typist naturally, so it was probably unreasonable to begin with.

Either it was totally unqualified work (earning 1 sp a day) or it is very bad management: good workers would probably leave on their own even if they meet the rhythm, bad workers stay until fired, which means you need to hire new workers and train them, incurring high HR costs only to hire people who ultimately are as bad as the one you fired because no "good worker" will apply. This overhead could easily ends up costing more than the 15% difference in productivity (especially if unskilled labor AND HR positions are usually filled with people with better wages).

It was a temp job. There's an incentive to not keep temps long term, because then they qualify for pesky things like sick time and vacation time.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I must admit to more than a little enjoyment at watching one of these self-professed "internet celebrities", who is travelling the world to be a complete wanker in foreign nations, find out that there are very real criminal ramifications to his actions under the laws of those countries.Calls himself a narcissist. Openly admits to why he does what he does on camera. Lies about his understanding and motivations in court. Quite possibly looking at a realistic decade in a foreign prison at the moment, based just on the charges files so far, with much more to come.

If we're thinking of the same person, I 100% agree.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

Naw.

The one thing I learned, and I keep close to my heart, is this-

A good lawyer's true superpower is the power to turn every question into a question about procedure.

It's the bad ones that are pounding on the table. The good ones are pointing out that the law and the facts don't apply, because, procedurally, the court can't hear the case.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's the bad ones that are pounding on the table. The good ones are pointing out that the law and the facts don't apply, because, procedurally, the court can't hear the case.

The really good ones, from my vantage point, are the ones that successfully argue that people directly affected by something don't have standing to object in court, which is both horrifying and breathtaking.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The really good ones, from my vantage point, are the ones that successfully argue that people directly affected by something don't have standing to object in court, which is both horrifying and breathtaking.

Well.... I'm kind of a standing expert. It's sorta one of my things.

And I think that it gets a very bad rap, because most people don't understand what it's about. I think that if people understood it, then they wouldn't be horrified. Except for the plaintiffs that get their cases tossed.

But that would require words.


ETA- heck, just think about the joys of the differences between appellate standing and trial court standing, and why it is possible to have a case decided by a court that cannot be appealed because of a lack of appellate standing.

 

[Ryujin]

Naw.

The one thing I learned, and I keep close to my heart, is this-

A good lawyer's true superpower is the power to turn every question into a question about procedure.

It's the bad ones that are pounding on the table. The good ones are pointing out that the law and the facts don't apply, because, procedurally, the court can't hear the case.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And I think that it gets a very bad rap, because most people don't understand what it's about. I think that if people understood it, then they wouldn't be horrified. Except for the plaintiffs that get their cases tossed.

Oh, I think it's obvious -- again, from my layperson's remove -- that often the plaintiffs are being poorly served by their attorneys, who either shouldn't have taken the case or are in over their heads.

 

[RealAlHazred]

The really good ones, from my vantage point, are the ones that successfully argue that people directly affected by something don't have standing to object in court, which is both horrifying and breathtaking.

Ultimately, there should always be some precedent or argument why a case can't be tried in a certain court. Then it's on the judge to decide if he wants an early tee time, or if he wants to get bogged down in nitty-gritty! 'Murica!