>As long as California does, and most other places allow them, we're going to continue to see surprisingly high levels of startup formation and company success in California, despite all the bad things being true.
If that were truly the case wouldn't a number of other states also be banning non-completes in hopes of attracting businesses? Some quick googling shows only the District of Columbia, North Dakota, and Oklahoma have similar bans on non-competes as California.
>"And yet, most young men in the country argue that it is men, not women, in South Korea who feel threatened and marginalized. Among South Korean men in their 20s, nearly 79 percent said they were victims of serious gender discrimination, according to a poll in May."
Not really an excuse but it's worth pointing out that South Korea has conscription which women are exempt from
>If you've seen the question/answer before just say so!
In reality no one will do this though. There is way to much of an incentive on the candidate side to lie and work through as if they haven't seen it before.
It's a free game that heavily revolves around buying lootboxes to unlock characters/items and is known as a gacha game[0] They are often intentionally designed to make it really difficult to experience the full game without being forced to spend real money on lootboxes.
>Or is there something intrinsic to Reddit traffic that makes it difficult to monetize?
Reddit is also home to an enormous amount of porn and nsfw content in general which probably hurts this. They only just started preventing sexually explicit subreddits/content from appearing on r/all six months ago[0]
>Cornett, off work for a few weeks, realized he received enough money through unemployment benefits to start saving — for the first time. He wondered if the work he loves would ever entail a job that came with health insurance or paid leave. "I was working what I decided was going to be my last kitchen job," Cornett said.
>It only takes one 0-day wipe you out, irreversibly, and completely. My bank could get hacked, but we, as a society, can just decide that I still have the assets I had before, the paper stocks and coupons are in a drawer somewhere. The loan contracts are in a filing cabinet (or they should be). I get my bank statements every month. There's some cash and some gold in a vault. A breach is, at least theoretically, reversible. That's not true with bitcoin.
Isn't this more just an argument that cryptocurrency's are just riskier because unlike tradition financial institutions/investments they are unregulated and lack protections such as insurance etc. Maybe I am just getting caught up in semantics but a 0-day wiping out the value of Bitcoin/Crypto with no vehicle in place to restore that value to its owners if something were to happen just makes it extremely risky/highly speculative investment not necessarily easy to steal