After working at Walmart, I would say you can definitely go out of your way to help.
And upper management still won't promote you, or give you a raise. Just a bunch of thanks.
This abuse is built into the system, it's always a promise of a promotion, but the reality is they just want suckers to work for free. This is Walmarts basic Mode of operation. Anything else they tell you is just part of the propaganda to keep everyone working for free. It's an endless flood of propaganda, designed to keep you working for free in hopes of a raise.
My 78 year old mother bought a new laptop, windows 11.
Immediately I had to remote in because of some S mode BS which just put you in the MS only application environment.
3 months later and somehow she fubarred her login and can't use her new laptop. There's probably an easy fix, but since she hates windows 11 and wants to go back to 10, I suggested Linux.
So it will be a Merry Christmas for my mom when I visit and install IDK? Some version that's super simple. Anything is better than what she currently has
No expert, but lately I've heard they got energy, manufacturing, and money problems. And it's getting worse. I think they've been in desperation mode for a while now.
Definition is: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I am not an English professor.
The argument was:
"When Cenk floated the idea that Israel got a “pass” on committing genocide against Palestinians, Miller wondered if the Trump administration might need to take a closer look at his recently granted citizenship."
The argument being that the administration was turning a blind eye or even complicit in the genocide. The response was a threat but also a personal attack as in their opinion or argument was invalid because of their ethnicity, citizenship, etc. To me, that is a reaction that was directed against the person instead of the position they were maintaining.
"Ad hominem is NOT when someone insults someone they are arguing with. It’s when they use the insult or personal attack as a REASON for why something is wrong."
I still think the reaction of threatening someone based on ethnicity/citizenship was their REASON why this person's argument is invalid. But I am assuming that is what they were implying with the threat.
I assume that the threat of deportation was the answer to the argument, as it implies that argument is invalid due to the actual person presenting the argument and not an actual answer or debate. But I do see how it's more a subtle interpretation. They don't actually say it, they just imply that the argument is wrong based on a personal attack.
I think what you're saying is it should have been more like Miller responded with a direct personal attack as the reason for why the argument was wrong. But for me it seems like that was implied as the reason.Maybe it's a stretch ¯(ツ)_/¯
Hell BitTorrent is outdated, these days you just watch the movie through an online streaming site. It requires zero technical knowledge