431–440 of 593 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really surprised? I think you'd be very hard pressed to find people willing to turn down free money. It's not like are lying to gov't to get it. They qualify, so why not take it.
Don't you have to claim that you are negatively affected by COVID to get it? But I guess arguably everyone can claim that to some degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really surprised? I think you'd be very hard pressed to find people willing to turn down free money. It's not like are lying to gov't to get it. They qualify, so why not take it.
Don't you have to claim that you are negatively affected by COVID to get it? But I guess arguably everyone can claim that to some degree.
[1]https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relie...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.120831/page/n6... As you can see on that page, here is a definition of the word rape: 1. trans. to take (a thing) by force. In my usage, I was using it as the state government of CA, taking (part of) my severance by force. I don't see any issue with the usage.
> I don't see any issue with the usage. You refuse to see any issue with the usage.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
You oughtn't to be a niggard when interpreting comments. Otherwise you might see something that isn't there.
Not naming the company, but I know of a startup that's got a round of $10M (not much but enough) who just applied for relief because their burn rate is $200K+ a month. They have no customers, have been in the red for 2 years and have been slowly building their product out -- like most early funded startups -- they are building potential without revenue (yet). Their theory is, get some free money and treat it like 6 m…
This is the government's fault for not attaching more strings to the money. It should have been a loan at favourable interest rates with a fixed term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should not use that term in that manner.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.120831/page/n6... As you can see on that page, here is a definition of the word rape: 1. trans. to take (a thing) by force. In my usage, I was using it as the state government of CA, taking (part of) my severance by force. I don't see any issue with the usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should not use that term in that manner.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.120831/page/n6... As you can see on that page, here is a definition of the word rape: 1. trans. to take (a thing) by force. In my usage, I was using it as the state government of CA, taking (part of) my severance by force. I don't see any issue with the usage.
Not naming the company, but I know of a startup that's got a round of $10M (not much but enough) who just applied for relief because their burn rate is $200K+ a month. They have no customers, have been in the red for 2 years and have been slowly building their product out -- like most early funded startups -- they are building potential without revenue (yet). Their theory is, get some free money and treat it like 6 m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should not use that term in that manner.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.120831/page/n6... As you can see on that page, here is a definition of the word rape: 1. trans. to take (a thing) by force. In my usage, I was using it as the state government of CA, taking (part of) my severance by force. I don't see any issue with the usage.
I’ve been checking layoffs.fyi every day and it is incredibly bleak
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they qualify, they qualify. If they don't, then they're a fraud. If they shouldn't qualify but they did, then blame the policy makers. Only (2) would have been their fault.
I agree that policy makers bear primary culpability; but that doesn't absolve you morally for your individual choices. This is not "free money", in the sense of "I found a $100 bill on the street"; it comes from the sweat of taxpayers, both present and future. (In self-interested terms, it also doesn't absolve a company from harm to their brand and reputation, if/when it becomes public that they accepted a bailout th…
Taking your argument of the morality of individual choices at face value: how is one supposed to put that money back? Are they obligated to report this action as they would others? What’s the enforcement mechanism like?
I get your point but it opens up a lot of questions IMO that maybe adds some sediment to the purely moral water being poured out