"The human remains aboard the lander won't be the first on the moon, as ashes of Gene Shoemaker, the founder of astrogeology, were buried on the moon in the late 1990s by the Lunar Prospector."
> In addition to the NASA science experiments on board the Peregrine lander are cremated human remains and DNA collected by two private companies, Celestis and Elysium Space.
> People hoping to memorialize their loved ones or colleagues pay the companies thousands to send a few grams of cremated ashes to the moon in metal capsules.
I used it in a graduate course on formal semantics (https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Semantics+in+Generative+Grammar-... after I graduated I wanted to learn how to program so I googled "lambda calculus programming language" and found Haskell. That was ten years ago. Though I rarely use Haskell anymore, the lambda calculus still holds a special place.
Because there usually is in fact a reason and just because they did not disclose it to you does not mean the reason does not exist and it does not mean that it won't/can't be found via subpoena/deposition.
Or what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then?
Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off?
>>Otherwise what's stopping everyone from claiming discrimination every time they get laid off?
You can claim discrimination, but then you'll need somebody (usually an attorney you hire) to file a lawsuit against the company. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you'll also need to cite a specific type of discrimination for your case to have standing.
You can easily google/ask chatgpt the answer to your questions - the answer is that some companies are nowadays very risk averse in laying people off precisely because they are afraid of discrimination lawsuits, which is why they generally have very solid documentation of performance problems (hence the reason for the modern Performance Improvement Plan as a papertrail)
I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued.
They just terminate your contract and let you know they terminate your contract by giving you your notice and that's that, you're gone in 30-90 days, no need to provide an explanation as to why they decided to terminate you since they're not required by law.
So I'm asking to know how it's like in the US if it's like here. If employers aren't required by law to provide termination reason, why would they?
In most US states the employer doesn’t need to provide a reason for dismissal. Whether they do or don’t you may sue your employer or file a complaint with the state oversight agency. In that lawsuit if you have persuasive evidence of discrimination (race, age, pregnancy, gender, etc) then you may win a large settlement or a judgment if it actually goes to trial. The company will provide evidence why they fired you for non-discriminatory reasons.
The reason I was always told was that terminating an employee for cause is the only way not to take a hit to your unemployment insurance if they file for unemployment. So if they have any "good" reason for firing you, it's in their best interests to provide that reason.
>>I'm asking since I live in an EU country where you can get laid off for no reason and employers usually provide no exact reason in writing precisely to potentially avoid getting sued.
Wow weird. I've been there and l thought it was a really socialist country. Especially because the housing in Vienna seems very well regulated to avoid extreme prices.
But I didn't really discuss this topic with the coworkers I visited so clearly I was wrong :(
Oh it's socialist all right when it comes to taxing everything that moves to pay for pensions and welfare. It's not socialist when it comes to employment laws and protections, there it's a capitalist paradise. In most non unionized business it's at will employment.
Wow, I had no idea we even had at will employment anywhere in Europe!
Like here in Spain if I'd get fired I would get a redundancy package for sure. And of course France has even better protections (we're all jealous of their 2 months holidays of course :P ).
I'm not sure if we're unionised though.
Thanks for letting me know. I was not really considering it as a place to live but I won't now - especially as I'm getting older.
UK is completely 100% at will within the first 2 years of your employment, no redundancy package in that time either. In the first 2 years you can be let go without any reason, only after 2 years your employer has to make you redundant to let you go.
Yes but everywhere in the EU you have to call it a probation period, in the UK you can pass your probation and be on a normal full time contract and still if it's your first 2 years you can be let go for any reason.
> Ok, but what do you do when the reason is something somewhat objective like "performance" because you didn't meet your deadlines or something. Can you claim discrimination then?
Usually if that's the reason the company will go to great pains to document it and fire you properly, for cause. This is where PIPs (performance improvement plans) come in—they document the specific areas where performance is lacking, set specific targets for improvement, show that those targets were not met in the time allotted, and then fire you.
If a company doesn't do that then yeah, they're leaving themselves open to a discrimination suit. It doesn't usually happen because lawsuits are expensive and unemployed people tend to not have the resources to fight back, but larger companies will usually take pains to be sure they're covered.
Typically you order the dish and it comes with the sauce "baked in". The only time that you physically add salsa yourself is when you are eating tacos or a few other dishes, and even then, all of that is going to be prepared fresh, in-house. Even at home you prepare it yourself. The idea of buying a distinct sauce at a store to keep on your counter or in the fridge is kind of foreign.
Very interesting; thank you for linking to it. I quite agree with Thomas that "...by actions also, especially if they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded". This is essentially the same foundation as the English Common Law for the trial by jury - that a group of 'twelve men good and true' have as much justification for determining right and wrong as does a written document. The jury must be drawn from the community of the accused; otherwise, they would not necessarily be of the same custom as the accused and would, therefore, effectively not be making a judgement in the correct jurisdiction.
I don't have the time to decode this borderline schizophrenic nonsense, what's the point and how does it relate to the right to access currently inaccessible land?
It's saying that custom can obtain the force of law. This is relevant to the Right to Roam, because some areas are open to public use by custom, and this can challenge strict interpretations of property rights. I think mjh2539 is trying to gain a rhetorical toehold for traditional Commons rights. Since those rights are traditional and very old, it somehow seems fitting that the argument should be expressed in old-fashioned Catholic theological language.
I appreciate that an intensely "conservative" cultural form is used here to make a pro-populist argument for "liberal" rights.
This lines up well with the kind of stances that the Anglican Church ended up taking in theology. That Church follows both Scripture and Tradition. (By contrast, and generalizing a bit, I think an extreme Protestant stance would tend to value only Scripture.) This feels like a more secular version of same.
Over time I've come to appreciate more the way in which the Anglican Church, as you put it, "follows both Scripture and Tradition". A single clever person can manipulate with relative ease the interpretation of a written document (for instance, scripture), but to manipulate an entire custom is much more challenging, although arguably not impossible. Thus, although evil customs can certainly emerge gradually over time, a given custom is, in my opinion, more often than not founded on an older course of reasoning that was righteous in origin.
To put it more concretely: a written document from a thousand years ago is almost unintelligible to all but specialist linguists, and its accurate interpretation difficult for all but specialist social historians. Yet the customs displayed by a people that long ago would still seem very familiar today. Which would you trust to form the basis of your community's sense of justice - the faded old document in a strange language, or the equally ancient tradition passed down habitually across generations?
reply