For most of my adult life, I worked hourly jobs in low pay positions and "wage theft" always meant me, the employee, stealing from the company by not working every single second I was there. Interesting to see it defined the other way, "employers’ failure to pay workers money they are legally entitled to".

I think the usage here is the common one, and your idiosyncratic. "wage theft" has been consistently talked about this way for several decades at least among policy types etc.

Thanks for the comment. A sibling comment points out "time theft" which I have also heard regarding an employee not working, so to speak. I can honestly say I did not read economic policy pieces until quite recently in my life, so I had not, as far as I can recall, heard it used this way. I can also anecdotally say that most management in lower paying positions in the parts of the US I have worked are rather infamous for malapropisms.

edit:typo

Its a well known hr/ir labor law term.

I worked at a place (public company, retail) in college where the general managers task on Wednesday night was to “trim” the payroll by editing out fractional hours or reducing spiffs. The managers got a bonus if their labor spend was between 98.5% and 99.25% of budget.

This is timecard fraud, not wage theft.

I have not heard "timecard fraud" before, but it does seem a more accurate term.

I think another term for that is "time theft"

Fraud and Gross Misconduct are the terms that would be used

Well, actually, quite the trouble makers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_Opposition

top-posting (in which the reply precedes the quoted original message)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

There was no internet component to moviefone back then. I think you are narrowly defining "dotcom". It was acquired by AOL, which made it a subsidiary of a "dotcom" which entangled it in the overall dotcom bubble. I think that is fair association. You may disagree, but it's hard to argue that Moviefone did not benefit from the "rampant speculation" of the late 90s.

Another argument one can make is that it is listed as a "Film database" here. So there is definitely a tech component. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_AOL

And finally, it was turned into a site as well (though I couldn't find a hard date for when that occurred). https://www.moviefone.com/

They had participants carry a folder between two points, one contained papers and one contained money that they were told to conceal and hand off to a person wearing a hoodie and sunglasses. They compared the way the participant walked.

You missed the key part of the experiment: They basically completely changed the experimental setup between the two runs: The confederate changed how they were dressed, the item was on the floor instead of on the table, and, most importantly: they told the participant to hide what they were doing and otherwise act sketchy!

So yeah! No surprise! They told the participant to act sketchy, and they did! What did the participant do? They put their hands in their pocket and looked around a bunch more than normally. Why? Because they were basically told to! That's not "deceptive walking".

Where is the control for picking up the papers off the floor, or the money off the table? How do we know it's not just that people will walk differently when they are about to crouch down? Maybe that would be an interesting paper by itself, but instead the authors think that this type of research is capable of identifying "deception" with 93% accuracy? Absurd!

There is so much wrong with the experiment, that you could write a rebuttal of almost every decision they made.

You're not kidding. "In this procedure, the deceptive walk is induced by the experimenter during the briefing, the type of object, and the appearance of the confederate"

This is not deceptive walking, this is honest walking. They are honestly trying to broadcast the signal that they were told to broadcast.

Came here to say a similar thing. The reaction can say a lot about the person's opinion/impression of you. It might be too much to try to correct for other people's insecurities; however, if you find that a large portion of people get upset by your phrasing, then it might be worth it to consider how you present yourself in general to others. It might just be you.

I wonder if you ignored spelling what the results would be? ex: kodi, codi, cody, etc. all grouped together.

Not sure how helpful that data would be, considering you'd get groupings like Aaron/Erin, which are very gender-aligned names.

I know more males called Erin than females. It's a common Irish first name that has nothing to do with the name Aaron, it literally means Ireland.

The article is about the United States.

If you ignore spelling you also deal with heteronyms (same spelling, different pronunciation).

All the men I know named "Jan" pronounce it in the Germanic way (roughly Yahn), and the women I know pronounce it with a soft g.

Also:

https://circadiansleepdisorders.org/

There is also a email discussion list (toward the bottom of the left side).

I can't be the only one that thought this was going to be RocketMail, acquired by Yahoo.

I wonder if that's where they got the name in the first place. I can't even remember my old rocketmail address anymore.

I remember mine, but Yahoo deleted my account after a short period of inactivity... I wonder if anybody still have theirs. That is one reason why I never had a Yahoo email address.

I do, and still use it, though it's mostly been overrun with spam.

prove it and send me a quick one: i12im8+msyvo9klxnkc@sharklasers.com

I remember mine but Yahoo aggressively deleted lots of those older accounts.

It’s funny this actually came up in a comment now because I saw an old ad in a magazine that used a Rocketmail address just yesterday and it brought back a flood of nostalgia.

I still technically have my rocketmail account. Try logging in with yourusername.rm

My first email address was at rocketmail.com. That and my AOL instant messenger account were how I kept in touch with friends.

This is sad and embarrassing, but whatever, someone should get a laugh from it:

My very first email was also rocketmail, set up by a friend on a school computer in highschool.

I had no clue what address to pick, so he chose one for me: studhorse69@rocketmail

I wish I was joking.

That’s a pretty good one[1] to put on resumes. Some would be amused others might auto pass on it. It’d be interesting to see how HR staff react if at all.

I’d like to think les clay pool would have taken studbullhecat@rocketmail...

[1]in an amusing way, not for reals.

I loved RocketMail. Enough said.

I still own a rocketmail account.

I have a rocketmail account that I use daily.

I still have that old rocketmail account

I have found one of the best ways to be a skeptic is to be clear what you are skeptical about. Example: are you skeptical that the oceans will rise at all or just that they won't rise to X level? Skepticism is often interpreted as dismissal which shuts down dialogue. I like to think the point of skepticism is to further dialogue not shut it down. The last thing charlatans want is dialogue. They thrive on monologue. That's the skeptic's power, to me at least.