Amazon employs around 900,000 people in logistics. The crude annual mortality rate in the USA is around 911/100,000. If there are 900,000 employees working eight hours a day then around seven people a day are dying of natural causes on their shift. This is without considering that they are being worked to the bone.
This only works if you assuming the mortality rates are evenly distributed. Most of the people who die are not working right until the end—and the conditions which lead to them dying usually aren’t compatible with a demanding job.
You are correct that it is a rough estimate but my point stands. While most of us will never experience the shock of someone dying at work, it is an every day occurrence at the scale of Amazon.
You have provided no evidence supporting that belief and brushing aside the obvious challenges makes it hard to believe you have done the math. I’d also note that if this was actually true, it would be more surprising that they didn’t have a policy for dealing with it and had to improvise on the fly.
The utter contempt you express for human life is abhorrent. Cloaking it in math only exacerbates your cruel disregard for, well, lacking shame in expressing such mental illness in public. I’d recommend therapy but you probably have a formula to justify not going to that either. Disgusting.
When I saw the article I recalled a doctor who worked at the sports stadium. Probably every stadium has a doctor on duty because there are medical emergencies any time you get 50,000 people together. Sometimes people die while they are still on the premises.
So I wanted to know how approximately how many people you would expect die of natural causes per day in a group of people as large as Amazon warehouse workers.
If you expect people to die every day while working in an Amazon warehouse and there was no cause of death disclosed for the unfortunate person referenced in TFA then the fact that he died is not news.
> spherical harmonics can have uses beyond lighting
This math is also used in Ambisonic surround sound though newer techniques use planewave expansion.
For games, the full-sphere encoding of Ambisonic B-format can be decoded for arbitrary speaker locations and the soundfield rotated around any axis. I'm not sure if its ever been used for a game though.
I noticed that (similarity between the graphs and the shapes of atomic orbitals), and assumed that was what the article was about. And it wasn’t, and never brought it up, so I was thinking maybe I was confused about the similarity. So thank you for showing me I was not.
A single Ambisonic B-format recording can be shipped and at runtime decoded into any coincident or near-coincident stereo pair pointing in any direction or into any surround sound format. It is a universal format that encodes the direction and intensity of arriving sound over a full sphere.
> It should also be said that they could do anything at all to prevent these professional scalpers from scooping up all the tickets at once
Oh they did something about it. The ticket brokers can't scoop up all the tickets because many of the best ones are now only released as "Platinum" tickets at 2-5 times the price.
The only "fair" ways are to have a lottery for non-transferrable tickets, or have something akin to a dutch auction so that the band/venue captures all of the value - meaning tickets would be astronomically priced.
The artists think it is fair that they are now getting some of that money that used to go to scalpers. Very few are opting out of the dynamic pricing and "Platinum" tickets that are driving prices up.
A reasonable opposition party would declare the pardons invalid. Is that a valid interpretation of pardon power, does that undermine the legitimacy of our laws? Maybe, but not nearly as much as not punishing obvious and proud criminals does. That's the point of the rule of law, remember? It creates legitimacy, and therefore stability.
> A reasonable opposition party would declare the pardons invalid. Is that a valid interpretation of pardon power, does that undermine the legitimacy of our laws?
No, in the USA the pardon power belongs to the President. Only a constitutional amendment could invalidate pardons.
As we are finding out in real time, the President has the power to try to do a million things, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, and then whichever ones don't get pushback defacto become actual powers. Throw something at the wall, if it sticks, then it's a Presidential Power. If it doesn't, there's no consequences. Just shrug and throw something else at the wall.
Which ultimately doesn't matter. If the president tries to do something, and no court actually stops him, then it doesn't matter whether or not it's in the Constitution, whether or not it's written down in law, or whether or not it has been litigated in the past. He tried to do it, nobody stopped him, therefore he can do it.
We are finding out in real time that the president can actually do a lot of things, simply because nobody is stopping him.
If you want to prosecute someone who has previously been pardoned, then you'll have to figure out how to get the courts (that is, the people who would be doing the actual prosecuting) to ignore some of the highest rules by which they operate.
I'm not saying that that could never happen, but a) it sure sounds like an uphill battle and b) it's not the same thing as the president (one person) doing whatever they feel like regardless of the law.
I don’t think these blanket pardons are a good thing at all, but an amendment is needed to fix it.
We have somehow made it a habit to ignore the inconvenient parts of the constitution when they create problems, rather than going through the enumerated process to amend them. Yes, it’s hard to amend the constitution, but that’s the point!
Fair, but I don't think it's likely that SCOTUS would invalidate any of Trump's presidential pardons, assuming a future president decided to prosecute someone he pardoned. I doubt even the liberal members of SCOTUS would want to touch that.
Only a constitutional amendment could allow the executive to declare war, or regulate trade, or control funds, or countless other unenumerated or explicitly disallowed powers. But if those rules are broken, we should still follow the rule that says the executive is immune from punishment and can declare anyone else forgiven? If that's the case there's actually only one rule: the executive is king. You can wipe your ass with the rest of the constitution.
There would still be a valuable public record produced by the investigation and court proceedings. Going after pardoned criminals is absolutely something the next administration should do. (We have zero precedent for preëmptive and blanket pardons in our courts, for example.)
“The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.”
Nobody is going to waste their time investigating crimes that can't be prosecuted.
The current USA opposition party doesn't really do anything when they actually obtain power. They bark a lot when they're out of power, but as soon as they are back in power, they just go limp, forgive and forget, for the sake of unity or something.
> The companies could also be assessed penalties. In addition, sanctions could result in court orders that they divest themselves of some entities, including venues such as amphitheaters that they own.
I cannot imagine how they came up with that number. If it were under $2 per ticket it wouldn't have been worth pursuing. This happened because they were taking tens of dollars for no other reason than that there was no alternative.
The jury in this case is required to rule by preponderance of evidence (= more likely than not given the evidence). One of the economic experts calculated this number as being overcharged based on internal ticketmaster documentation.
Cases aren't always about the actual problem, they're about what you can prove in court.
Sounds about right. The attorneys take $1.52 and leave the victim with $0.20. And then nothing actually happens that would restore a competitive marketplace.
> the previous generation (I include myself here) have lost the plot raising/educating children and are breeding just absolute disrespectful, egotistical, attention seeking assholes as younger generations.
In other words, people are raising winners and winners get to do what they want, like Ricky Bobby and Donald Trump.
>>> .00911 * (8 / (24 * 365)) * 900000 = 7.487671232876712
reply