The market has been needing a tool like that for 30 years.
A PDF document of the type I describe is like a broken egg.
Information is lost between the authoring and rendering,
to the extent that it's not clear recreating the original is even possible.
A typesetter could recreate the document through looking at it, doing some font research, and playing with the kerning for a while. Saying it's not possible to recreate a typeset document that is readable is absurd, no matter how twisted and insane the actual postscript is.
Anthropic is already cooperating with the DoD, presumably fulfilling all the conditions and the DoD likes their stuff so much it wants to use it more broadly, so they want to change the terms of the agreement(s). Anthropic disagrees on some points; DoD wants to force them to agree.
That's not a key difference though, that's the same situation Greece was from 1981 until 2007 when Bulgaria and Romania joined, and Ireland, Cyprus and Malta are still in this situation (unlikely to change). And again similar to Greece and Ireland Georgia has access to sea ports, and Bulgaria and Romanian ports are not far away.
> employers make termination decisions based on family structure
There might be a misunderstanding. The employer usually does not know about your family structure; the only place that really has to know about that is the wage department to calculate your taxes etc. (even though in some countries you can do that yourself if you are a very private person, but in that case you are more likely to be self-employed anyway). Of course if you want to claim days out of work, paid or not, to care for the children or a parent, the employer might want to know if the children are real.
The employer usually does not know about your family structure
when i need to let go people from my company because i need to downsize for whatever reason i need to choose those who would be least affected. that means i need to know who is single, married, or has children. because if i let go the one who is a parent instead of someone who is single, they might sue me because it would cause them undue hardship, if say finding a new job would force them to move which would affect the other parents job and also the kids school. and their whole social life.
sometimes this can't be avoided. if all my employees have families and children then i am stuck. but if there is a choice, then the choice must be the person who is more likely to recover, or who has less dependents. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
long story short, i have to know the family structure to make that choice.
i am talking about germany, but i believe this is true for many european companies.
i am legally compelled to not dismiss people if that causes social/financial hardship for them, when i could dismiss other people who would face less hardship.
basically i need to consider three factors: how long they already worked in my company, how old they are, and their family situation, whether they have dependents.
failure to consider these risks a lawsuit making the dismissal invalid.
this of course does not apply to dismissals that are related to bad behavior or lack of qualification.
on the other side: unique qualifications that i need to keep my business running are also exempt even if that person otherwise would be the one facing the least hardship from a dismissal.
It's not like that in Slovakia afaik. There is no legal obligation to not dismiss people if that causes social/financial hardship for them. I'd think it's also similar in other Eastern European countries. It's pretty hard though to force someone out if they did nothing wrong, so that fact alone is very protective for employees.
> were already connected historically with logistics and culture
> Georgia, on the other hand, is surrounded by non-EU countries
> Georgia is super patriarchal and conservative
Greece at the time they entered had no land connection to the rest of EU, completely different language and alphabet etc., and also was "super patriarchal and conservative" FWIW.
But of course you have no interest in factual discourse, you are only here to spew mass-murderer propaganda.
> I think that a Ukrainian in his sane mind would want to look at options he's dealt and pick the one that leads to most safety and prosperity to him and his family.
They have done this back in 2010's and decided that EU is the safe and prosperous future they want. In response, Russian mass murderers invaded and started to kill them. That is indeed a great ad for safety and prosperity inside the Russian world: you will be miserable and we will kill you whenever we feel like it.
There was no coup in Ukraine in 2014. It's one of those immediately revealing things like height of the chimneys in Auschwitz; just barely mention them and we all immediately know who you are.
Sure. And you keep babbling and restating your point instead of proving it because you've got an overwhelming proof, you're just too polite to share it with us.
Is this trolling by stupidity? You are irredeemable. I wasn't talking about elections, I meant everything before it that caused premature elections in 2014.
Was there something major that happened in 2013-2014 involving violence that interrupted the term of elected, legitimate president Yanukovich? Can you recall?
> Was there something major that happened in 2013-2014 involving violence that interrupted the term of elected, legitimate president Yanukovich?
Yes; under extreme Russian pressure, Yanukovych blocked the passage of the highly anticipated Ukraine-EU trade treaty. This led to massive protests. He sent paid thugs (titushky) to harass and beat the protesters, but the protests only grew larger. When he panicked, about 100 protesters were shot in a single day. From that moment, he was politically a corpse and lost the support of even his own party. He ran away into hiding to escape arrest, and the Ukrainian parliament assembled and unanimously voted to hold snap elections, which took place a few months later.
This is the polar opposite of illegal seizure of power by a small group of people, or a coup.
Are there any key details you're leaving out? Is there a chance you creatively picked what to leave out in a way that serves the view you're sympathetic to?
Yes, this is how democracy works. Then a decision is made and the society rolls with it. See the UK for example: a decision was made to leave the EU, they left, it cost them a lot of money and goodwill, but it works, worse than being in the EU but works. The EU did not invade, did not bomb their cities, did not rape their women and did not steal their children. And crucially the EU did not blame the citizens of the UK exercising their free will for mass murdering them.
I agree about democracy. What I was referring to is that part of the society didn't roll with the legitimate leader's decision not to align with EU in 2013. And it was undemocratic.
I stressed that it was split, and the democratic thing to do would be to wait another year until the next election, where everyone will be given equal opportunity to express their choice and determine what's the next thing we're rolling with. But we'll never know what they'd choose because some chose to protest, and then continue doing so when it git violent. Give me one reason why Maidan organizers couldn't go home in 2013 and just vote a year later.
Maybe there could have been a referendum on EU course. But we'll never know, since neither Yanukovich nor pro-EU leaders have conducted one.
> What I was referring to is that part of the society didn't roll with the legitimate leader's decision not to align with EU in 2013. And it was undemocratic.
So in a separate thread you are demanding a bit of history and here you are likely not mentioning a bit of history for a reason. Anyway.
The protests have not been 'undemocratic'. And the protesters did not decide to be murdered by snipers.
> But we'll never know what they'd choose because some chose to protest, and then continue doing so when it git violent.
Ah yes. Who exactly 'got violent'? Who authorised the decision to shoot to kill?
> Maybe there could have been a referendum on EU course.
Possibly, but let's not hold our breath whether the mass murderers in Moscow would respect the outcome if it didn't suit them.
Every orange wine is different, so one is not representative.
For example I like the funky, wild ones.
But besides the taste, one thing people tend to like about those wines, although it's not reserved to orange wines, is the natural manufacturing process that for example also often means less or even no added sulfites. For example my wife can't drink wine with a lots of sulfites, she gets stuffed nose immediately and a headache later. While I'm not that sensitive, even I can feel it's easier to process for my body.
I don't really understand your point here. Sure France is overly protective about their wine, like every country tries to protect their flagship industry. And inside the EU there are many other wine-producing countries who want to protect their producers too.
But I can buy Georgian wine in a few shops and restaurants here, even those made in kvevri. I can buy small-batch Serbian (Serbia is not in the EU either) orange wine too.
It's hard to import into the EU? I'm sure it is, the rules are very strict, but it's doable.
> Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return?
The legal situation is that you are still employed there while on the maternity leave and your employment is protected. They don't pay you anything of course, any money you receive comes from the state/social security pocket.
So when you return you just returned to your position. If the position was eliminated, the company has to offer you another position.
> This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him.
That reasoning would be illegal of course, but also in our work law system it's pretty hard to lay off someone if they didn't commit a grave fault. As above, even if you eliminate positions, you still have to offer them another one first.
> I think both mdma and marijuana cause anxiety and they mess with short term memory.
OTOH MDMA never caused anxiety (and I had plenty of anxiety issues at the time) or memory issues for me, but of course drug effects are very individual.
reply