In my own experience, ice (either the frozen water kind or the compression and elevation components) doesn't do a damn thing. For soft tissue injury my usual plan is movement movement movement. Getting the blood flowing and using the affected area (lightly) is the best way to get back in the game I've found.
Yeah, I spent years as a competitive endurance athlete and always found the best way to heal was to stress the injury (lightly as you say) as soon as you can. I suspect part of the issue is that elite-level athletes tend to be quite "type A" and have a high pain tolerance. So the risk with them is that that push too hard too soon and re-injure themselves. But "normal" people tend to make the opposite mistake. They don't stress the injured tissue at all until all the pain is gone so it doesn't get great blood flow and builds up scar tissue.
I guess I'll go on record and say I think this is a great idea. There's too many journalists who just spew hot takes all day - at least make them pay for the privilege
one of the main touted draws of twitter is it's suppose to be the "public square of the internet". you not liking what someone posts shouldn't really curtail that (minus them being a private company and what not)
(The WSJ article was clearly written in a professional tone, and it made eminent sense - whereas I have a hard time believing the person who wrote this blog got their J.D.)
Matt Levine has also done his usual whiny sarcastic coverage of the event and come up with something more akin to what this person (and Twitter armchair lawyers) think.
I guess I'll wait until the dust settles but I think the guys from the WSJ are gonna be right.
Why would you think the WSJ editorial writers are likely to be correct in their analysis? I was frankly shocked that a law professor specializing in securities regulation had a hand in it.
The size of the break fee is well within market for transactions of this sizes, and the payment of such fees has been ordered countless times.
Specific performance is indeed not the most favored remedy - monetary damages are preferred - but court can and will order specific performance and other equitable remedies.
> Twitter might be worse off under his ownership at this point, a fate Twitter’s board is legally obligated to try to avoid.
Not anymore baby, we’re in Revlon land. The Twitter board pursued a cash offer, and their sole duty now is to maximize shareholder value.
> There are also other potential buyers for Twitter.
Narrator: There were not.
> But it isn’t Mr. Musk that promised to buy Twitter, but two entities under his control.
Good thing Twitter has third party beneficiary rights to enforce the committed financing provided to those entities.
> Mr. Musk promised to “cause” these entities to consummate the deal, but a court is unlikely to jail him if he shirks or refuses.
I agree with this statement - the Delaware chancery doesn’t want to put him in jail. But he’s caused enormous disruption for Twitter and it’s shareholders, repeatedly breached the merger agreement and has just acted in bad faith through this process. The chancellor may not jail him, but the chancellor will not be impressed by his antics.
> But the shareholders aren’t party to the agreement. Only Twitter Inc. is a party, and it is a separate and distinct legal entity.
Does… he think that the millions of individual investors are supposed to sign public company merger agreements?
> Twitter would have to prove harm, such as lost profits, and that’s an uphill battle.
Twitter has to do no such thing; that’s what the liquidated damages provision is for.
> Breakup fees are supposed to reflect damages caused by a breach of contract. They aren’t supposed to act as a penalty. Given that Twitter isn’t obviously worse off by $1 billion—if at all—a court might balk at imposing such a high fee.
Narrator: The court won’t balk.
> The easy fix is to give shareholders the right to sue for their losses. But either Mr. Musk’s lawyers were too smart for that or Twitter’s weren’t smart enough.
And the Twitter shareholders couldn’t bring a derivative suit… why?
Just poorly informed, specious reasoning and plainly incorrect conclusions. So, yeah, just about par for the course for the WSJ opinion page.
In Minnesota anyways, the schools in lower-income areas get more money per pupil than the "good area" schools. In some cases dramatically more. For example, the high school in north Minneapolis (a not-good part of town) get's $20k per student. Whereas the southwest Minneapolis high school (nice area) gets 13k. This is common across all grades.
So the disadvantaged area schools get 35%+ more money per pupil, and the outcomes keep getting worse. And the politicians keep doubling down on the same policies and wonder why things aren't changing. Money isn't everything, or apparently even most things. What a mess.
This kind of tone really doesn't engender sympathy:
> We get it, Microsoft sucks, we should all be fired, rah rah rah.
> I just don't know what else he's asking for here. Credit? Us to die screaming? The blog post is matter-of-fact, and Casey is right: however, he said himself that it was trivial to do this. Is it not acceptable that we use the same language?
Your "apology" really is anything but. If anything you and your team come off as combative, thin skinned and hostile to outsiders. But, you do you bro.
This is Microsoft culture spilling into the real world. There were several times when I pointed out a fix for a flaw or problem we were suffering from and was mocked and told it’s a silly idea that I shouldn’t be wasting time on. Fast forward 1-3 months later and that same person is singing the praises for the same idea someone else “came up with”. Except it was me shopping my idea around. Seeing the tweet and the thread makes me realize this is systemic to MSFT as an org (who now is the champion and host for all major open source organizations)
Cut scene to me explaining my new product to a Google VP (hoping to get funding) who instead made a crappy copy and released it 6 months later. Don't meet your heroes.
This really is every org, even if someone starts lukewarm to an idea it can percolate, get established and then come back out again as a fresh opinion without any malice intended. It’s always fun to get your own ideas back almost verbatim.
Even in this case they seemingly "forgot" the idea that was told to them.
I don't doubt that this is a possibility, but there is also a possibility that they could've just stolen it.
Oh yeah people also steal other peoples ideas pretty regularly but I'd not automatically assume malice.
From this example the same feeling would be generated by someone else internally already working on the same idea without needing any prompting from anyone in the actual meeting. This can actually be quite common in games where people will give a lot of unsolicited design ideas as feedback or part of bug reports. There's going to be collisions there without anyone's ideas being copied or stolen without credit.
Recently former Microsoft here. This is the culture of one specific team. My prior role interfaced with both customers and product teams in Azure. Interactions were constructive and collaborative. There certainly were the occasional individuals that lacked interpersonal skills, it was the exception not the norm.
Yeah I get the feeling that the general "tone" around Microsoft is "making sarcasm your defining personality trait". Maybe that flies in Seattle, but in the world of silicon valley, we've moved past caveman-like sarcasm into the superior snark and passive-aggression personality traits.
yeah I get the feeling that people look for any reason to shit on Microsoft then do it with glee, without care about the human beings on the receiving end.
Oh that's definitely true, even moreso for shitting on the company itself. Well I haven't encountered many MS employees, so I'm mostly basing it on the two who have been replying here. Extremely unscientific and probably wrong, but I couldn't help but dogpile.
> We admit this feature began with a kerfuffle we caused in the summer of 2021. When confronted with being told our rendering pipeline had terrible performance, we turned inward. We relied on our existing experiences and we leaned heavily on our partner teams’ work to conclude the DirectWrite general purpose renderer was the best fit for our product. We were wrong. As such, we dedicate this experimental renderer to the community as an olive branch. We know we have so much more to learn, but we hope that you will accept our apology and understand we’re humans behind this product with a capability and willingness to learn from our past mistakes. Thank you for sticking with us. We strive to make this an experience we can all learn from to not only improve ourselves, but to improve our product and delight you all.
That is "combative, thin-skinned and hostile to outsiders"?
They say they caused it. They explain the cultural attitude that led to it. They plainly state they were wrong.
The "We get it, Microsoft sucks, we should all be fired, rah rah" is responding to the typical outraged rants from immature people who think it's cool to leverage extreme levels of criticism at people and teams who work in large corporations.
>That is "combative, thin-skinned and hostile to outsiders"?
Yes. They reference an apology, didn't actually make one, and it was roughly a year after they were combative, thin skinned, and hostile to outsiders. So their words now don't negate the fact that they were actually those things.
And the original now-edited response here was itself still combative, so I don't have much reason to believe they've actually changed rather than just trying to put a nice public face on about it.
I don't see it as twisting the blade. He's calling them out for having insulted him and then making a half-hearted (at best) apology without giving proper credit (which the MS employee up the thread admitted they should have actually done.)
I dunno. I can read that as a ‘sorry’, but it kinda feels like ‘we know we were being assholes but we’ll be good from now, forgive us please’ kind of thing.
There’s too many fluffy words in that.
“We were dicks to the person (people) that pointed out a better way. We didn’t truly investigate the proposed solution at first, we acted combative,
and we were wrong.
We’ve now implemented the proposed solution in an experimental renderer that you can all use and we’ll try to do better from now.”
I don't know about others, but that does sound like a real apology to me. At least they plainly write that they were wrong and not only "sorry for how this was handled" or something similar. I'm really curious what more you could expect...
Specifically naming Casey and specifically apologizing for the specifics of how it unfolded. The fact that a team member went into Casey's Discord to harass him would be one example to apologize for.
So, he was drunk, high, and riding on a sidewalk without a helmet. And now it's the City's fault?
Do we blame the city when drunks crash their cars in to lane barriers? Or trees?
I don't like those scooters and I think they are dangerous - but even the man in the story admits he rode them many times previously, and knew he was not supposed to ride on the sidewalks. He knew what he was getting in to.
This trend of "no one is ever responsible for their own actions" is not going to end well. When do we start holding people accountable?
No, that's what Bird is saying. In fact they're expressly saying he was drinking the night before. There was no ABV test done on him, so there's zero proof to their accusation. His blood showed levels of cannabis. However, if you've ever had to pee in cup you also know that cannabis shows up in blood/urine far after you've smoked or consumed.
They're trying to bash his reputation with utterly unprovable claims to make him seem like a degenerate (because, yea... who drinks and smokes weed in LA?). If he wins he can probably come after them for slander now too.
> His blood showed levels of cannabis. However, if you've ever had to pee in cup you also know that cannabis shows up in blood/urine far after you've smoked or consumed.
yes, metabolites show up for a long time in urine, making it useless for this sort of thing.
they don't stick around nearly as long in blood, and it is suitable (along with expert interpretation) for getting a sense of whether or not somebody recently high.
> However, if you've ever had to pee in cup you also know that cannabis shows up in blood
peeing in a cup does not give you insight into this.
Bird shouldn’t be in the middle here. The fact that it was a Bird scooter instead of his own seems to be immaterial, the scooter itself seems not to be at fault.
If you’re illegally operating (invalid vehicle for the road), your ability to complain diminishes quite a bit. Sucks to be that injured, this is where socialized medicine sort of helps out.
He was allegedly “drunk or high” and it remains to be seen if wearing a helmet in this case would have prevented becoming a paraplegic based on how his accident is described. His neck (cervical spine) injury is likely the primary cause of his disability rather than the skull fracture.
I think we are all ignoring the elephant in the room: absolutely terrible infrastructure for anything besides car. The US collectively has spent billions (trillions?) in new roads and highways but not much else in between.
So when are we going to hold ourselves accountable for the mess that O&G has gotten us into and reverse this trend?
If you actually read the article, you would have noticed that birds lawyers are contending that he was somehow intoxicated from drinking the night before. Also anyone with a passing familiarity of marijuana would know that the half life of it sitting in your bloodstream is almost an entire month.
Why the focus on the fact that it was a Republican strategy firm? Why does that matter?
Being the Washington Post, I'm sure it's to insinuate that all the bad things that happen are Republican-led. Only the GOP plays dirty tricks, right? After the Steele dossier, the Biden laptop, the Russia collusion misinformation campaign, and willfully hiding the mental decline of the current president - you'd think we'd get past the whole "only Republicans bad" narrative. But I guess that just goes to show how successfully the WashPo and others are running their own strategies to push agendas...
Because the general HN commenter crowd is apparently pretty pro- cancel culture. They’re in either the “it’s not real” or “actually, it’s good” camps. And this article gives what they feel to be rhetorical cover for their opinions.
