🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@icedquinn Yup, as I explicitly stated this would need to be an amendment.

@realcaseyrollins The line where it becomes murky IMO is once brain cells start forming and there is some degree of cognition. 15 weeks is about where that plays out.

Dollar pregnany tests arent enough. If we want to grossly restrict a woman's window for abortions we must also provide all the tools to make sure any woman, regardless of income, has the ability to detect pregnancy eary and act on it as she wishes.

My thoughts on the overrulling of Roe v. Wade

Generally speaking I do think the overrulling was a bad idea **as is**. Ideally if we kept abortion protections at the federal level it should have never existed as a simple supreme court precedence. I would be all for overturning the supreme court ruling and instead replacing it with an actually amendment protecting abortions.

That said any such amendment I would also leave to be pretty loose. Namely I'd be ok with any bans/restrictions on abortions post 15 weeks conception but prior to that abortions should be strictly permitted. In addiction I'd make it a requirement that all abortions <15 weeks after contraception **must** be performed regardless if the person can pay for it up front or not. We would also need to make access to pregnancy tests free.

Since I dont see the above happening I cant in my right mind support the overturning of roe v wade, as much as I do prefer reducing federal laws and oversight... this one is just too close to a violation of natural rights to me.

@biomedmax I think the server is for fans of a certain podcast or something stupid. But yea, they all strongly encourage a pretty similar mindset there, and its an ugly one for sure

@Placholdr

Yup we have a next cloud instance.

@peterdrake

@cwebber@octodon.social

There was a stock increase, that isnt the same as saying the layoffs are the **cause** of the stock increase. In general the stock would increase if the decision made is best for the company in the opinion of the public. If the public thinks a recession is going to happen then a layoff will likely increaase the stock, otherwise it will likely decrease it.

So if anything this probably isnt showing so much that a stock increase will generally follow layoff but rather that whenn a recession is looming a layoff is going to have the best impact on share price, but otherwise may be detrimental.

@timorl

@rastinza

To be fair I often dont lock the house when im in the middle of a city in the USA with a high crime rate either :)

The way I see it no one is going around jiggling door handles to rob houses in the middle of the day. If they are going to rob your house they likely just break a window and a door lock isnt much, if any, of a deterrent.

@trinsec

@rastinza

A lot of times, yes. I lock it when ill be gone long-term though.

@trinsec

@trinsec in the netherlands for me UPS would often leave the package unattended without permission but would go out of their way to hide it. for example they would often walk into my backyard and leave it near the backdoor.

That said I had some truly weird interactions. More than once, without permission, the UPS guy just walked into the house and left it on our table while we werent there.

@trinsec It is probably different depending on the country. In the USA leaving it unattended is the norm except when the person shipping specifies otherwise.

@trinsec Were they just doing it to reduce the chance of it being stolen you think?

@timorl

Its a bit more complicated than that. Yes laying off people does increase short term money flow but long term it may reduce or increase money flow depending on if the decision was made wisely or not. You need people to develop your products and the rate and quality of the products you produce determine your long term income. So layoffs can easily cause long term income to go down, and often does.

If the hiring and firing in a company is done right it is based on one thing, whether doing so will be in the best interest of the company's future or not.

@cwebber@octodon.social

@realcaseyrollins Probably retty good. FYI in parts of the world they sell plain dorritos

@Amikke The term anarchy is often abused. In reality there are political systems that sometimes use the term but dont really call for chaos and no rules

law!

@funny @Science

@cwebber@octodon.social Its likely a coincidence. The selling of a companies stock from one stock holder to another has no effect on a companies operating funds. It can change the valuation of a company, but not the ability of that company to pay employees.

This is an easy confusion to make as the sale of stock can under other circumstances generate funds for internal use. This happens only when a company sells stock the company itself owns, or creates new stock (increases number of shares) and then sells that. Since in that case the company is selling the stock it generates money for the company. Also the reverse is true, if a company performs a stock buy back then it would loose operating funds.

But yea, Elon selling his shares has no direct impact on how much money tesla has in the bank.