Nollij

The McDonald's hot coffee incident.

It's a trivial example, but it reflects all sorts of issues in modern society.

I had bought into the McDonald's PR, believing it to be a symptom of an overly litigious society, people blaming all of their issues on others, etc.

But then I actually looked into it, instead of taking it at face value. The face that was created by a very interested party (most notably the defendants in that same lawsuit, but also right-wing pundits pushing a narrative)

When I did, I saw for the first time the claims made by the plaintiff. These were never included in any media coverage. I hadn't considered that the coffee was abnormally hot, and to a significant level (industry average is about 130F, this was around 180F). I had no idea about the 3rd degree burns in 7 seconds. The words "Fused Labia" had never been seen together. The multiple other similar lawsuits. The offers to settle for medical expenses. And so on....

And the worst part (in my mind), that forced me to take a 180 on the issue?

The entire reason for the coffee being that hot was to save money. This had nothing to do with personal responsibility, or a free payday. This was a megacorp selling a known dangerous product, selling pain and suffering, just to put a few extra pennies in their coffers. This had more in common with the lead/cadmium mugs (also McDonald's) and tobacco than anything to do with freedom.

I'm not going to say it radicalized me, but it was definitely an Emperor's New Clothes moment.

These are public records. It's the indirect payments, such as to a PAC or free good publicity, that aren't tracked.

What legal reason(s) do you have for needing to see their appearance when making a decision on whether to hire them? You may have some, such as requiring a professional appearance. These need to be spelled out in the job requirements. It also opens the doors to claims of illegal discrimination, since this will be on full display. In the US, that includes race, age, and gender. Having a required video can also reveal protected classes like familial status and religion, depending on what's in the background.

Whether an action is "Legal" is almost always dependent on context, and the lawyers/courts involved. A common tactic by racist nightclubs is to set a dress code, particularly on shoes. The argument is they aren't refusing entry based on race, but on clothing. But the unauthorized shoes are the ones commonly worn by people of the race they're discriminating against. Different courts have made different rulings on whether this (and similar actions) constitute racial discrimination.

I suppose it depends on how you define by mistake. Your example is an odd bit of narrowing the dataset, which I would certainly describe as an unintended error in the design. But the original is more pertinent- it wasn't intended to be sexist (etc). But since it was designed to mimic us, it also copied our bad decisions.

Companies can put guardrails on their strategy at nearly any time. Many do, albeit in a less formal/required fashion. You often see companies embrace a culture or idea, such as charity. A big one lately has been to embrace LGBTQ+ communities, although many of these are seen as hollow allegiance for profit.

The big thing is that they have to act on their shareholders' behalf in good faith. This means they can't intentionally tank the company. It also means there's restrictions on how they can invest in the stock market, and are otherwise restricted on matters that may create a conflict of interest.

Source? It's often repeated, but I've not seen anything official

The absolute easiest and simplest would be to modify your grub config to have a longer timer on the boot menu, effectively delaying them until the NAS is up.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's the best option- there are ways to make the actual boot process wait for mounts, or to stagger the WOL signals, or the solutions others have mentioned. But changing grub is quick and easy.

You're overlooking a very common reason that people setup a homelab - practice for their careers. Many colleges offer a more legitimate setup for the same purpose, and a similar design. But if you're choosing to learn AD from a free/cheap book instead of a multi-thousand dollar course, you still need a lab to absorb the information and really understand it.

Granted, AD is of limited value to learn these days, but it's still a backbone for countless other tools that are highly relevant.

It's all shades of gray, and lawyers and courts spend a lot of time on it. This one would be a slam dunk ADA violation. A tougher case would be fired for having lower performance, because the elevator is slower than the stairs. But these only catch small, stupid companies. Anyone that's heard from their lawyers (i.e. any company with more than 50 employees) will know that in nearly all cases, you simply state that they are no longer employed. You don't need to give a reason unless you are fighting unemployment, which is a fool's errand from the beginning.

But, you don't need their statement. A collection of events/documents/etc showing that you were unfairly targeted, possibly as a protected class, can be enough. But it will really depend on how extensive and detailed any notes are.

They may be interested in shoplifting, but they haven't actually done it until they leave. I remember reading one of those amateur shoplifting posts (possibly entirely fiction from Reddit, but claimed to have since it with great success for a long time) and something stood out. Even if that's your entire goal of being there, abort most attempts. If you get to the door and you can see that you've been made, or you're being watched, etc- drop the merch and immediately exit. Don't come back for a while until they forget you. Which they will, because you didn't actually take anything.

This has nothing to do with the OP, just about shoplifting in general.

Yes, that's one possibility. But if your goal is to create a multi-unit residential housing building, you would probably choose a location that doesn't already have a giant office building in the way.

Fwiw, turning most of these buildings into livable spaces is a lot harder and more expensive than you'd expect. For many of them, it would actually be cheaper to just raze it and create a new residential building, even if it maintains the same outer dimensions.