I have not sat through many depositions, but that deposing attorney is impressively calm.

I mostly main last place, but I sometimes come in 10th.

I'm an American. The only vacations I've had in the last 5 years that aren't work related trips have been staying home and cleaning. The big problem is lining up time when my wife and I both can take time off work, which has been nigh on impossible recently.

To be clear, this isn't bragging. I need a real vacation but the combination of COVID, wanting to buy a house, and my wife needing to spend her leave on things that aren't vacation (sick leave, bereavement leave) has led us to not being able to sync something up since our honeymoon.

I agree. Of the 188 marks registered to "The Linux Foundation" with the USPTO, there does not appear to be a mark for "systemd", "fsck", or "segmentation fault." My guess is this is an imposter claim and the artist should counter notice this claim to Redbubble.

FWIW (and assuming the link works) here's the marks ever registered to the Linux Foundation.

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4808%3Azqagnv.27.1&p_search=searchstr&BackReference=&p_L=500&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=Linux&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24ON&expr=PARA1+and+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Foundation&p_tagrepl%7E%3A=PARA1%24ON&a_default=search&f=toc&state=4808%3Azqagnv.27.1&a_search=Submit+Query

I'd like to upgrade my graphics card, and I'm honestly wanting effectively a 7700xt equivalent. I'd like to not spend over $500, but I've got a 5700XT and I don't want to just go one generation up at this point. So I guess I wait.

I just can't help but think that if I had made that sort of comment in that sort of meeting, every boss or office I've worked for would have immediately taken corrective action, either publicly calling me into a separate meeting or by advising how such comments aren't acceptable and noting how it violates policy.

The fact that it was just ignored is so much more indicative of the culture than I think just about anything else in the video.

I think its more the implication that Linus looked like stripper on the table. But I appreciate that could be a stretch. I'm more concerned by a) instructing people to go directly to the person harassing them with no managerial oversight first, b) implying harassment complaints are drama, c) suggesting that its not their job to resolve harassment complaints by down playing them as "interpersonal problems" and d) intentionally or unintentionally suggesting that if you have a problem you are going against the fun environment, which instantly puts a harassment victim in an us vs them environment.

I'm coming at this from a lawyer perspective, as I am a lawyer (albeit not an employment or harassment lawyer) and I've witnessed first hand how harassment and discriminated employees are not respected by management. I've seen how that impacts people's mental health and how, especially for younger women, it creates a toxic cycle where it can be extremely difficult to leave because you've internalized the harassing and discriminatory experience to the point of thinking "well, who else will hire me? I can't just get another job."

I realize if you have not experienced that or witnessed that, its hard to understand how a toxic environment can lead to that mindset. So hearing someone joking around in an emergency all company meeting may not immediately seem problematic. But when the subject of the meeting is harassment, and a high ranking manager just jokes around like its not a big deal, and that joke is tacitly approved of by the executive level (where there isn't immediate correction), it all strikes me as a corporate culture that doesn't respect the seriousness of harassment.

I'm also biased as my office literally just had our annual harassment training yesterday.

It is good they are taking public steps to change their corporate culture, but it is clear they had a top down culture of not taking harassment seriously. Hate to share a reddit link, but this video: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/15t1mzn/mandatory_meeting_the_after_madisons_departure/ purports to be from when Madison left. The language here is not the language of a corporate culture that takes harassment seriously. Especially since James didn't get immediately corrected.

If they want to win back the viewers (and likely sponsors) they are losing or have lost because of all of this toxicity, they are going to have to continue to publicly show they are committed to improving not only their culture to move away from a harassment friendly, grindset focused content farm, to one worth our time (and sponsor dollars).

This is the right outcome for this court case. There is no conceivable way to interpret the equal protection clause that supports a ban on gender affirming care, especially in light of analysis that targeting trans people is specifically gender discrimination. If the care is available for a person, but for their gender, it seems plainly obvious that the discrimination is based on gender and doesn't, in my view, even meet a rational basis analysis, let alone the slightly heightened analysis for gender discrimination.