Dude just get a lawyer. There are plenty of places that can connect you to legal assistance and provide hourly rates. LegalZoom is a one place to start.
I agree with sibling post about the law subreddit but not sure how much the advice will differ.
I am also an LLC owner and have needed the same assistance. LLMs are not lawyers and should only be considered advice/research from a non-legal source.
With the recent articles about Proton supporting French right-wing candidates (from what I recall) individuals were mentioning how great Fastmail is as an alternative. That's my best guess at least
What does this even possibly mean? Fastmail has employees in the US, Europe and Australia. As far as I can tell with a warrant the government of any of these is likely to get a response from fastmail, just like if the government had a warrant to search my storage unit or review my bank statements. I don't understand the point you make. either there is rule of law or there isnt.
On a recent podcast episode Ezra Klein mentioned something like "when making agreements one should be able to accept the deal of either side" which is something that's stuck with me and is basically an elegant way of describing a win-win situation.
Perhaps the paddle wheel[0] will interest you, the spinning is used to calculate the velocity of the boat. Probably some other propeller or similar would be more practical - like a kicker motor that's easily lowered over the side. Just spitballing.
I don't think it'd be worth it considering solar options. Even wind generators are not "super efficient" in comparison but I don't have data.
I'm sure it wouldn't be worth it, because otherwise people would be doing it, it just seemed like a cool way to supplement solar or even to allow for indefinite underwater drones. Like, imagine a deep-sea research drone that could spit out an anchor and recharge whenever the battery got low. Almost certainly a case of "Cool, wouldn't really work well"
> My corporate firewall blocked this due to it being a newly registered domain.
Was surprised mine did not - usually a toss up with HN links. I don't get reasoning just "NONCOMPLIANT ACTION". It is interesting to have a flag telling you the domain is new, though
I am not against 1 on 1's, but making that a regularly scheduled thing as if that adds value is kind of what I am arguing against. If people don't feel comfortable voicing something unless it is in private to their manager, that suggests to me two things - the manager/leadership is not fostering a collaborative environment, or the person needs to work on that (with the assistance/support of their manager), which I see as a manager's primary value gain, empowering their employees.
Managing via 1 on 1's sounds (to me) like a complete waste of everyone's time and a little bit toxic. It also can create an environment encouraging people to go around each other and backstab rather than collaborate. I have been in a lead position before, I'd be very concerned and probably have a series of chats with any dev that sat on something like a blocker until we spoke one on one, or only felt comfortable speaking one on one.
Some things do need to be spoken privately, and they should feel comfortable doing so/scheduling it, but a regularly scheduled thing as a way of managing, unless I am completely misunderstanding GP comment, is crazy to me. Of course I am speaking strictly manager/lead -> developer. A manager managing managers is probably quite a bit different and does require scheduling 1 on 1's regularly to align and adjust, but I wouldn't really know, because I've never been in that role.
You are working against human nature if you think most people are not going to feel more comfortable talking about private matters in a 1:1 vs a public environment.
You're also an asshole manager if you're giving any sort of negative feedback on a person in a public setting.
You could always just schedule a meeting when someone needs a course correction, but then your employees who are clever little humans, will quickly figure out that any ad hoc meeting is going to be a problem for them and then have anxiety about those, even if its going to be a positive meeting for once.
Have you never heard people joke that their boss asked them for a quick chat and they thought they were getting laid off?
> You are working against human nature if you think most people are not going to feel more comfortable talking about private matters
This is reframing the discussion a little bit. I said up thread, certain things need to be discussed in private, but why would it be on a regular, frequent cadence?
As far as negative feedback - yes, but isn't that what quarterly/bi-yearly/yearly reviews are for? If someone requires negative feedback on like, a once a week cadence, I'd be very concerned that employee was a good fit or being managed wrong.
> As far as negative feedback - yes, but isn't that what quarterly/bi-yearly/yearly reviews are for?
Absolutely not, no. The opposite of that. You never want to hear negative feedback for the first time at an annual review.
You don't want to be giving negative feedback every week, sure, but you do want to give feedback as close to the behavior as possible. Otherwise, you're just letting someone fuck up for months when they could be learning
The longer the period in between reviews the larger the gap can become between the manager and employees perception of the employees performance.
Personally I don’t think once a week is absolutely necessary but I tailored it to the employees. I let them choose a cadence with a maximum of once a week and a minimum of once a month and had a mixture of choices amongst my team.
Some people also want to feel heard, but I had to balance that out with my other responsibilities and couldn’t guarantee I could drop everything to talk, so I carve out the time on my calendar and also made it clear that we could drop the meeting that week if both parties felt it was unnecessary
I agree with sibling post about the law subreddit but not sure how much the advice will differ.
I am also an LLC owner and have needed the same assistance. LLMs are not lawyers and should only be considered advice/research from a non-legal source.
reply