Traditionally in US schools you were taught that applying "they" to a non-plural was outright incorrect—as in, a student would lose points if used that way on homework growing up.
When you don't know the gender, however, it is really convenient to use "they", so albeit the incorrect form, with time it started to take hold. Lately gender politics have acted as a catalyst as some people outright tell you they prefer that you use the "they/them" pronouns. Since a lot of folks are already comfortable using they/them, it works.
A different tactic is to just substitute something else entirely. Books like On Writing encourage young writers to avoid the situation and try to substitute other words rather than use "they" or just default to "he." An example might be using the word "writer". For example the books recommends instead of using "He should learn to use semicolons only when absolutely necessary" use "The writer should learn to use..." instead.
I think the latter method is harder in non-formal threads like this. "The imprisoned already has served 7 years" works, but comes across as really impersonal.
"They" is the only option when you don't know the gender of the person but it is still valid even if you do know the gender, though less commonly used in that situation
From a grammatical perspective it should be noted that "they" is plural. It is gender-neutral, but should only be used when referring to multiple people. The correct gender-neutral singular pronoun is "he or she".
I thought the same thing but there's no way a native English speaker would use "they" in that context otherwise. It made me have to go back and see if Wikileaks in general was being referenced.
It also reads as someone who understands the pronoun issue, but doesn't understand the temporal rules around pronouns. Instead, just opting for the traditional gender-neutral pronoun.
There's a lot of different perspectives and opinions, and honestly the rules aren't clear cut yet. At this point I pretty much always refer to people as "them" online.
That's a valid interpretation, but it's based on assumptions. Personally I didn't even notice the use of "they" vs "he" or "she" since it's not really relevant to the discussion. In fact, OP has clarified that he/she used "they" only because they were unsure if gender changes apply retroactively since at the time of the leaks, manning identified as a "he"
It is not other people's responsibility to know what your preferred pronoun is; you don't have a right to a preferred pronoun; you don't get to tell other people how they should speak. They is perfectly appropriate in all situations as it is gender neutral.
> It would do a lot to encourage others to indiscriminately leak classified info
A one-time presidential commute or pardon would do no such thing. Saying that "this specific case has been looked at and deemed to be okay" doesn't automatically equate to "everyone can do this and they won't get in trouble." There's a huge difference between whistleblowing and treason
>2. The election of Donald Trump is a 'lose-lose' scenario. How? What, specifically, about his proposed policies has a demonstrably negative impact on the quality of life for American citizens and the United States' geopolitical influence?
There's more to a president than their proposed policies. Trump's bigoted rhetoric is already having a demonstrably negative impact on the quality of life for many minorities in the USA (and he's not even in office yet)
Nice slippery slope argument. If you're really so ignorant that you truly don't believe that society on a whole treats the same behavior differently depending on the sex of the person who's doing it then you really need to get outside.
Actually there are various ways to get proper matches without the exact filenaming convention they recommend. There's a feature where you can "Fix Incorrect Match" described here:
This lets you pick the movie/show/whatever manually from a few different sources. If your media isn't immediately recognized, you can do this to correct it.
Additionally, they have a "Personal Media" metadata agent you can select for media that's your own personal media (like home videos) which will allow plex to read the metadata directly from the file instead of searching for a match. There's more info on that here:
I have never had the issue you described where something doesn't show up at all, just that it's incorrectly matched (in which case the tile will just show a screenshot and the title will just be the filename)
Additionally, I've found that if you use their recommended folder structure, the filenames matter much less. For example, if you have this directory:
/Media/TV Shows/Show Name/Season 1/
It seems like as long as the file contains the season/episode like "S01E01" it will match correctly based on the directory information. I haven't messed with it much but I have never had to rename a file to get plex to recognize it when I use directories like this
It is really great, I have it running on two cheapo linux VMs as well as my gaming box back home. It's great to be able to watch on my phone, iPad, netbook, laptop, desktop etc and the Fix Incorrect Match feature works just fine.. I don't even create the Season XX folders, just /media/TV/ShowName/Filename.SxxExx.mkv{or whatever} and most multi-worded series dont match correctly by themselves, editing it once and putting spaces in works 95% of the time.
Any site that doesn't redirect to the SSL version (if applicable) will work. The benefit of using something like captive.apple.com is that it's specifically designed to NOT use SSL in order to trigger redirects and such, whereas something like example.com just so happens to not redirect to their SSL version, so it's (essentially) guaranteed to work vs example.com who could decide in the future to redirect to their SSL version if they want
Being physically present in the stadium is not necessary to watch the game and in a way, those tickets subsidize the game for the rest of us at home. This is especially true for the arts since many artists make most of their money from concert tours (a great example of price discrimination).
I'm generally speaking about concerts more than sporting events, and as someone who frequently goes to concerts, I wouldn't consider live music to be anywhere near the same thing as listening to recordings
so no you're paying $18.50 for the ticket plus $12.25 in fees just in order to get your ticket. That's 66% of the face value of the ticket in fees alone (assuming you don't get tricked into the $8 "protection" which would bring the fees to 109% of face value of the tickets)
Want to get 2 tickets? You'd think that you'd only have to pay the fees once since it is all processed together but nope, now the fees all double.
There are no alternative ticketing options short of going to the venue and getting tickets in person, so there is not really any competition, so I'm not sure how you can say the market drives the prices when the prices are set by a company that has no competition (and the lack of competition is due to exclusive deals, not really anything else)
The dirty secret is that those fees are really part of the ticket price. It is still the market at work, albeit a dark and slimy kind of market that makes you feel bad about the future of commerce. If in your example you truly couldn't/wouldn't pay more than 18.50 once you saw the fees, someone else would.
That's a fair point. I think for me it's more a matter of principle. I believe everyone should have the opportunity (within reason, I don't expect bands/companies to take losses) to see live performances, so the argument of "well someone else is willing to pay more so tough luck" doesn't really hold weight to me. I think that a truly "good" ticketing company wouldn't put maximum profits above the artists/fans. I also don't believe that ticketing companies should be taking 40% (or more) of the ticket price.
It describes a band going on a 28 day tour in which they played 24 shows and ended up losing $11,819 overall, despite good ticket sales. Just out of curiosity I ran some basic numbers. They note in the article that they made just under $100k from tickets. They also mentioned that they sold 1129 tickets for just one show. Since that show was noteworthy, I'm going to assume that it was the biggest show of the tour, so for the purpose of calculations, I'll be conservative and estimate that they sold 750 tickets per show on average. Again, conservatively estimating, I'll assume their tickets were sold for $20 total, including fees. With those numbers, the total amount of revenue from ticket sales would be:
750 tickets x 24 shows x $20 = $360,000
So if they took away $100k from that, they're getting ~28% and in the end they operated at a loss. This is also a band that doesn't have a label, which is not true for many, which reduces that even further. Even if you drop the 750 estimate to 500, they're still taking away less than 50% when the whole tour is about them in the first place.
Obviously this is all speculation and assumptions but as someone who goes to a lot of concerts and has spoken with a lot of people involved in the industry, unless you're some super huge pop sensation (which is a whole different can of worms since many of those "artists" are not even involved in the creation of their own "art") this seems to be pretty indicative of the state of the industry.
I'm a firm believer in the importance of creative arts outside the realm of traditional capitalism, so I'll continue to have beef with Ticketmaster and any other company that preys on artists and fans for the sole purpose of maximum profits, but I can understand where you are coming from if you don't share the same ideals as I do.
I would feel bette about the fees if we could treat them like airline fares are treated now. All prices must be quoted inclusive of fees. Even if fees continue to make up 60+% of the total cost, at least it feels more honest.
WTH is the difference between a "service fee" and "order processing fee"?
Anyhow, this is not limited to Ticketmaster. Think "fuel surcharges" by airlines or "resort fees" from hotels.
The best way to solve it is to require all such mandatory "fees" be incorporated into the advertised base price. Why this isn't law already is beyond me.
Personally, I believe a flexible work schedule is a privilege. I think it's a great thing and I think that it's totally fine to work non-standard hours, but I also think that if you are going to make the choice to not be in the office during core hours (I'd consider 9-5 "core" but I think companies should define this) then it's also your responsibility to be available during those core hours when it's necessary. If a meeting needs to be held at 3 (which is a completely reasonable meeting time within core hours) and you need to be at that meeting then I think it's on you to make accommodations for that by having someone else pick up your kids that day or making some other arrangements since it's your choice to work a nonstandard schedule. Same goes for a 9am meeting and someone who comes in at 11am. In a work environment where employees can make their own schedule I think having "core hours" where every employee is expected to be available at least sometimes is totally reasonable since otherwise your personal schedule is going to be negatively affecting your job performance, and that's a personal responsibility issue, not a job issue.
> Personally, I believe a flexible work schedule is a privilege.
I'd like to challenge this, if you'll bear with me. I am not a cog in a machine, I'm not performing mindless repetitive tasks. My work requires exacting concentration and the liberty to set aside large blocks of uninterrupted time in order to be fully productive. I will spin this around: personally, I believe my company should feel privileged to have me work for them. Don't dare tell me I should grovel and feel grateful to my masters allowing me the privilege of a flexible work schedule. Why would they purposely enact counter-productive tactics that would not enable me to perform this work most efficiently?
In full disclosure, I do have one standing meeting one day a week at 4pm. On that day my partner will handle the daycare pickup. So I am not categorically opposed to later meetings. What I get upset about is being asked at noon to join a meeting at 4pm on the same day. It is impossible to make the necessary arrangements with such short notice. That's when I get snarky and say how about 5am tomorrow.
I understand that by convention it's reasonable to expect people to available during usual 9-5 hours. But don't use the language of "personal responsibility issue" with me about this. I will not allow any implication that I am being irresponsible or slacking off work simply because my schedule demands that I typically leave work at 3pm. It is deeply offensive to me because as I already said, I work my ass off and am far more productive than I used to be when I worked 10-7.
In principle I agree with you (see my other comment), but would also suggest that what you're doing requires a bit more communication.
For example, making sure all of your managers are totally bought in. If you were dinged as unresponsive, probably at least one person wasn't fully bought in or clear on the terms, right?
Same with your team, they should be able to see clearly on your calendar what times are blocked out. And there should be a note taped near your desk. And maybe an auto responder during off hours explaining how you can best help them.
Did I mention that even after syncing with managers on this, you'll probably have to periodically refresh their memory for as long as you work there?
Nothing at all wrong with what you're doing, but setting expectations is so important and requires diligence.
Thank you, that is excellent advice. I didn't consider the utility of ongoing communication and you're absolutely right about setting appropriate expectations with everyone, especially those I may not deal with on a daily basis.
Diplomacy is better than defensiveness. I do want people to know that I'm accessible, and should do a better job of spreading that message.
I think this is good advice in the context of the OP's current situation. However, the concept of "core hours" is a somewhat outdated legacy of industrialization, and is of questionable value in the knowledge economy, with all of the innovations in communication available to us now. For example, many companies employ foreign workers who are not around during "core hours", and while it presents challenges for communication, companies that are motivated find ways to make it work. I suspect that companies able to be flexible about where, when and how much employees work will have a competitive advantage in the next decade.
I call bullshit - This sounds like you are defining artificial constraints based on what fits your personal experiences and preferences.
The imperative is to hire and retain superior talent. If you're going after a top performer and they say right up front "I'm interested but can you work with me on a bit on scheduling?", usually the correct answer is yes.
Even if it were an easy to fill a position my inclination would be to try and accommodate the person. It gives you a chance to pay it forward at very little cost to you.
This is what good leaders do - they find ways to attract great people and motivate them by building a foundation of goodwill.
I've worked with ultrasound on the receiving end on android before, using the built in mic to capture ultrasound data. We never came across a device that was unable to hear the data, and we tested on what I would consider a pretty large variety of phones. As far as transmitting goes you're probably right though, and seeing as the dash button is the receiver in this scenario it makes sense
