@Simon_Ingari Most companies cut your access and require you to turn in your equipment the same day. That said, most companies also pay you through the end of the two-week notice. This is standard practice.
@elonmusk@Tesla Since the model S/X is being discontinued, but also HW5 is going to be the “last” HW version for vehicles, any chance of a HW4 to HW5 upgrade?
I used to work for the telephone company. They have done statistical safety research for about every measure you could imagine. It is FAR safer to back in to a parking spot than to back out. When backing up, if the cars around you are not moving, there is much less chance of a collision than if they are. Backing in was a requirement because of this, unless the parking spots were angled.
As a mater of principle, no. That being said, if it violates X policy, yes. Either have a policy that applies or don’t. Policy should not depend on how people feel or don’t feel at the moment. “Freedom of speech“ is a Constitutional issue regarding what limits the federal government has regarding the speech of it’s citizenry. An organization can have a policy to limit speech just as it can have a dress code or a policy against carrying a firearm. None of these violate our Constitutional protections from the State.
No one was arrested before him. There were “people of interest “ who were questioned. Being a “person of interest” simply means you may know something about the case or could mean you may have been involved in some way. An example would be if you were driving and your car camera caught a fatal accident or an assault, but you left because you were in a hurry. You didn’t break any laws, but you have valuable information that is incredibly useful to the situation. You would now be a “person of interest.”
So that everyone understands, The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government and its limitations. People can say just about anything they would like without fear of federal prosecution. This is far removed from any corporate policies that a company may have, or even state or local laws. A company can fire someone for speech that goes against their policy, just like they could fire someone if they broke a “gun-free zone” policy. In either circumstance, those acts alone do not constitute any type of federal crime whatsoever, again, with very few exceptions. In either case, there still may be consequences for those who demonstrate the behavior. A saying that comes to mind is, “You can choose your behavior, but you cannot choose the consequences of your behavior.”
He was radicalized left in spite of a conservative upbringing. He did not contribute to the Trump campaign. That rumor has been debunked. The donation was from someone of the same name, but not him. “Grooming”, here, is just inflammatory speech. It implies he was purposefully being trained for this exact situation and outcome. Teaching someone to shoot isn’t grooming to be a murderer any more than teaching someone to light a camp fire is grooming someone to be an arsonist.