> For the most part, this is all true in, say, Tulsa. Especially if you stay off Facebook.
Really only the cost of living.
> Commuting is less wearying
Not really.
There's a near zero percent chance your commute involves anything other than driving. The walkable areas of midwestern cities are certainly cheaper than SF, but they're also not exactly cheap. You're still looking at half a million for a decent house, 200k for a decent condo, and that's on a midwestern salary. Not to mention the weather.
And if you're driving, well, driving is driving.
> And American politics, “Brexit” and the Islamic State are on the other side of the world... [can be avoided] Especially if you stay off Facebook.
I mean, I guess you can just avoid talking to people altogether, but avoiding Facebook is no way to avoid the nastier parts of American populist politics in the midwest, which is decidedly Trump's America. On my last visit I learned that there are still people who very strongly believe that Obama is a Muslim and Clinton is a witch (literally, as in worships satan. I'm not exaggerating and they weren't being coy with language). And I wasn't even seeking them out, they were just the people I was obligated to spend time with.
So no, the midwest isn't some cheaper version of California. There's a reason why people like me leave after a few decades and never look back. The weather sucks, the cities are either unlivable or not appreciably cheaper, and there's a high concentration of extremely unpleasant people.
Look at the results for something like Kansas City, MO.[1] It's about 50/50 between the two candidates. If you look at the Bay Area counties[2], it's 1/6th to 1/5th of the voters supporting Trump.
So in a room filled with a random ~10 people will have 2 Trump supporters in the Bay and 5 in Kansas City.
>they were just the people I was obligated to spend time with.
I suspect this is the only actual difference between the two. On your visit to the Midwest you were forced to hang out with people discussing politics. This is no less unpleasant if you are living in the Bay and aren't a rabid Democrat.
I lived in Kansas City metro for 6 years and politics is rarely discussed at work. The people I hang out with are very welcoming and don't treat immigrants any differently. When there was racial induced killing in one of the suburbs(Olathe) there was an outpouring of grief and support. Basic human premise.
Also note that a [white] local attempted to defend the targeted men and got himself shot in the process. There was also a racially motivated killing in NYC shortly thereafter.
The Midwest has its share of people who are off the rails, but so does the rest of the world. The overwhelming majority of people and interactions are just fine.
This isn't even close to an Apples-to-Apples comparison. You should at least include Clay, Lafayette, Johnson if you're going to look at the entire Bay area.
And then looks at who's Actually In Charge of the state! The people with the power are the ones who make an actual difference, on a political level. Greitens is downright liberal compared to a lot of the general assembly.
> So in a room filled with a random ~10 people will have 2 Trump supporters in the Bay and 5 in Kansas City.
But you and I both know that's not how it actually works basically anywhere. Except maybe the DMV.
> On your visit to the Midwest
I spent decades there, in cities, burbs, and rural areas.
My experiences are representative. Perhaps, I venture to guess, much more representative than someone who never leaves Jackson County.
Spend some time in the bootheel. Or even the comparatively flaming liberal city of Springfield.
First, commuting refers specifically to the to-and-from of your journey to work. I hate cars, but you're being dishonest in how you're addressing the parent comment. Going to the grocery store, for example, isn't a commute. Actually you could probably use Prime Pantry or something and not even have to drive to go do those things. I strongly prefer a walkable city, and people like Jeff Speck preach the gospel as far as I'm concerned - but I'll take a daily 20 minute drive over an hour hopping on and off trains any day of the week - especially when I can do so from my nice, comfy Lexus or whatever.
You can complain about the weather and that's valid, but the whole planet isn't California and we can't all live there for one reason or another. If a bunch of people like me moved out there from the frozen/scorching wasteland of places like NYC, then you'd be priced out of the state. Be thankful that for some people weather isn't that big of a deal.
>And don't get me started on the casual racism/homophobia. The Midwest is Trump's America. In-laws firmly believe Obama is a Muslim and that Hillary Clinton is a witch. I'm not exaggerating for effect, and they're not being coy. Sincerely held beliefs.
Just because your family is stupid doesn't make everybody else's family stupid. My parents don't think Obama is a Muslim , aren't at all racist, and they voted for Trump. I don't think Obama is a Muslim (I voted for him both times) and I don't like Hillary. So you can stop with the drive-by generalizations here - especially these undeserved "casually racist" ones.
> There are so many things wrong with this comment.
I feel strongly about the midwest. I hated living there. There are serious down-sides, and if people move to Tulsa thinking it's "NZ in the USA", they're going to be in for a rough surprise.
Do you disagree?
> First, commuting refers specifically to the to-and-from of your journey to work
My point was that you're probably going to end up driving in either case, and if you have to drive anyways, your commute will suck no matter where you live.
OR, if you don't end up driving, you're actually not saving much on cost of housing. And you probably have a lower salary with which to purchase that prime real estate. Basically, little net benefit over California or other coastal states.
> You can complain about the weather and that's valid, but the whole planet isn't California and we can't all live there for one reason or another. If a bunch of people like me moved out there from the frozen/scorching wasteland of places like NYC, then you'd be priced out of the state. Be thankful that for some people weather isn't that big of a deal.
First, I don't live in California.
I agree with everything else. It's really all beside the point, though.
> Just because your family is stupid doesn't make everybody else's family stupid... So you can stop with the drive-by generalizations here - especially these undeserved "casually racist" ones.
My family isn't stupid. Pretty smart by any objective measure aside from willingness to believe confirmational bullshit, actually. Which is kind of my point. They're embedded in a terrible culture.
Look, I lived in the midwest for decades. I know what I'm talking about.
The politics of the region is dominated by this sort of stuff. It's a LOT more common and MUCH more difficult to avoid in the midwest. The composition of state houses speaks for itself. Name a midwestern state and I'll go member-by-member through its General Assembly to demonstrate to you the obscene popularity of blatant intolerance. Seriously, shoot.
It bleeds over into every aspect of life.
If you're lucky enough to be white male and straight, you can just avoid talking to people all-together, or silo yourself off from your community, and mostly ignore the terrible culture of the region. Which is what I did. But if you like living in a community where you know and respect your neighbors, the midwest can be a tough place to be.
This assumes that one's politics align with the politics and hostile culture in California. I intentionally avoid living in CA due to its culture/politics and have turned down multiple bona fide relocation offers to CA.
Like all places, the Midwest is not without its unhappy quirks or its difficult people, but Midwesterners are noticeably polite and friendly, even coming from other "flyover" regions.
Yes, they are generally conservative (not universally, and especially not among the young), but they can usually get along with their neighbors just fine.
When I lived in the Midwest, we had not only multiple gay people, but multiple gay teachers living in our neighborhood. While I'm sure it upset some of the parents, these teachers were able to go about their business just fine and spent many years teaching at the schools. This was in a very red region, not some liberal enclave.
We had people of all races and it was rarely, if ever, a visible issue. We didn't have anyone shouting racial slurs or visibly denigrating people. I'm sure this happened occasionally, not trying to say that there are literally 0 racists, but it was by no means a sentiment you'd come across with any frequency.
If you live in a big city like NYC or SF, you probably get exposed to more "intolerance" from contrarians/extremists who also live in big cities than someone who lives in the Midwest.
The Midwest is a great place to be. It's extremely unfair to cast such aspersions on it.
> This assumes that one's politics align with the politics and hostile culture in California. I intentionally avoid living in CA due to its culture/politics and have turned down multiple bona fide relocation offers to CA.
This is certainly true! To each his own. My point was that the midwest probably isn't a great place to be if you're looking for "cheaper California".
Sounds like we agree on that.
> When I lived in the Midwest, we had not only multiple gay people, but multiple gay teachers living in our neighborhood... these teachers were able to go about their business just fine and spent many years teaching at the schools
1. "Not being fired for being gay" is literally the lowest bar I can think of other that "not being imprisoned for being gay".
2. A school I attended explicitly discriminated against trans people in hiring. And those are the public schools. So, YMMV. I'm sure things have gotten better across the entire country since then, including the midwest.
And of course most of the people you interact with disagree with the sign, but attend churches that teach the exact same thing. Those "midwestern nice" interactions don't feel so "nice" anymore.
> If you live in a big city like NYC or SF, you probably get exposed to more "intolerance" from contrarians/extremists who also live in big cities than someone who lives in the Midwest.
Sure. The difference is who's in charge! And that's the difference that makes a difference.
> The Midwest is a great place to be. It's extremely unfair to cast such aspersions on it.
>"Not being fired for being gay" is literally the lowest bar I can think of other that "not being imprisoned for being gay".
The point is that the community at large was willing to accept these people as role models for their children and did so with minimal hostility or interference (visible anyway, since I can't see what happens behind closed doors). Entrusting a teaching position is a little different than any other random job.
While I'm sure there are horror stories, in practice it would be very rare to find someone who was legitimately "fired for being gay".
The myth that Republican areas are hostile wastelands with poor quality of life for minorities has much more to do with confirmation bias and a desire to justify high cost of living than anything else, IMO. This is not to discount any personal experience you may have had, just my opinion on the sentiment in general.
> The myth that Republican areas are hostile wastelands with poor quality of life for minorities has much more to do with confirmation bias and a desire to justify high cost of living than anything else, IMO.
If only that were true, I'd move back to the midwest in a heart beat.
> This is not to discount any personal experience you may have had, just my opinion on the sentiment in general.
Name a "that doesn't happen here" scenario -- from blatant racial discrimination/brutality in policing to "bobby's parents sent him to pray-the-gay-away camp" -- and I experienced or directly witnessed a friend experience it before coming of age.
Whenever people shame me for being overly harsh on midwestern culture, I stop and feel guilty for a split second. Then I think back to these victims of its excesses and the guilt quickly subsides.
I firmly believe there are decent communities in the midwest. Especially in its cities. I don't doubt your or anyone else when you say you've had good experiences.
Unfortunately, that doesn't change anything about the fundamental cultural trade-winds of the aggregate region. Or the effect they have on people caught in the zip code one over.
>Name a "that doesn't happen here" scenario -- from blatant racial discrimination/brutality in policing to "bobby's parents sent him to pray-the-gay-away camp" -- and I experienced or directly witnessed a friend experience it before coming of age.
So you were born 20+ years ago? It sounds like your notion of the Midwest is about as stuck in the past as the notion that San Francisco is a hippie mecca.
>Whenever people shame me for being overly harsh on midwestern culture, I stop and feel guilty for a split second. Then I think back to these victims of its excesses and the guilt quickly subsides.
And you should feel guilty for continually shitting on a place you have no association with anymore.
And left less than 3 years ago. Not much had changed. In some ways, it got a lot worse. My perceptions aren't stuck in the past.
Again, don't believe me? Go person-by-person down your general assembly and send an email to each asking how they feel about allowing business owners the freedom to not serve LGBT people, or whether they will sponsor a bill to ban conversion therapy.
Or for that matter, ask if they support legislation to outlaw incrimination against LGBT individuals in hiring! Most midwestern states don't have such a law on the book.
And not just your representative -- all of them. Or even just yours and all from surrounding counties. After all, we wouldn't want to generalize.
> And you should feel guilty for continually shitting on a place you have no association with anymore.
Why?
I don't think the midwest is, on balance, a nice place to live. I think the cultural downsides of the region eventually bleed into your life, even if you try to cloister yourself in one of the urban liberal islands. My opinion may not be fair (I think it is, but allow the possibility that a lifetime of bad experiences was somehow unrepresentative). But it sure as hell isn't uninformed.
I think people who are considering moving to the midwest from a coastal area -- or especially from abroad -- should hear this perspective.
I'm not saying "all midwesterners are racist and believe in crazy shit". I'm saying it's more common and harder to avoid in the midwest.
I think that claim is both true and demonstrable. I even suggested one empirical test.
At the very least, it's not a generalization. Saying "box a has more red gumballs than box b, so if you don't like red, choose box b" isn't the same as saying "all the gumballs in that box are red".
> You don't know what you're talking about at all.
With all due respect, I lived in the midwest long enough to have an informed opinion. Maybe our experiences differ, but mine are PERFECTLY well-informed.
I believe that you know what you're talking about. I also don't believe your experiences are perfectly representative.
>With all due respect, I lived in the midwest long enough to have an informed opinion. Maybe our experiences differ, but mine are PERFECTLY well-informed.
It sounds like you lived in one location in the mid west and have taken it upon yourself to assume that's how it must be everywhere. That's not well-informed, it's just an anecdote about a crappy time spent somewhere in the country.
> That's not well-informed, it's just an anecdote about a crappy time spent somewhere in the country.
Multiple decades across several states. Both in cities and in non-city areas.
The argument here basically amounts to: "But hey, the densest 20% County-Containing-Major-City, ST isn't so bad, and my college educated software engineering co-workers are all pretty decent..."
And I'M the one making inaccurate generalizations about the region?!
Come off it. Take a week off work on go two counties in any direction. Or hell, to that other suburb where 30% of the metro population but none of the folks you hang out with live. Come back and tell me you still think I'm wildly out of touch.
Since some people feel I'm being unfair to the midwest, I'll mention:
* Chicago has a pretty decent public transit systems.
* MSP and St. Louis both have decent light rail systems for their size. Still pitiful compared to most of western Europe or Wellington (the latter due to the comparably poor bus systems in msp and stl), but also cheaper on the tax base of course. And not too shabby compared to Portland for example.
FWIW my experience is closer to 200k minimum. Especially if you want to be in one of the 1 or 2 best school districts in the area. But yeah, right ballpark. Definitely cheaper than CA. you can also go way south of 150k if you're not in a major metro area, though.
But for not much more (and with a higher salary) you can get a decent suburban house in any number of western or eastern cities. Maybe a tad less land here or there.
And the cities are still expensive with bad schools.
This off-hand comment sent me on a hilarious wiki tangent.
At some point you'll be able to say your Calculus lecturer was the Queen's father. Just think how different his life would've been if his daughter didn't meet the Prince at the Slip Inn bar (you can't make this stuff up).
A Joel List is a quick-and-dirty list you can use to assess the competence of an organization. I don't think this list achieves that goal.
#1 and #2 (CICD) are fair additions to Joel's list, but I'd argue are already encapsulated by "do you make daily builds?". In most shops, if you make daily builds, then you CICD.
#3 = Joel's #4
#4,#5,#8,#10,#11,#12,#14,#15 are all "Do you SCRUM/TDD?". If that's the kind of place you're looking for, great. But there are many competent code-oriented organizations that do not SCRUM. So these don't really belong on a Joel List. (Also, "We don’t know the better way to make sure that code does what it’s supposed to, then to have another code [author means unit tests] that runs it and check results" just isn't true. We know better ways, and sometimes they're even relevant to a list like this. "Do you use any form of static or dynamic analysis (e.g., types, valgrind, quick-check style tools, linters, etc.)" is on my personal "Joel Test".)
That leaves "do you have a library?". IMO work-place libraries are close to useless as signals (everyone has one), and rarely useful in practice (unless you're curious how PHP code was written in 2003 or really want to brush up on complexity theory).
As an aside, it's kind of depressing to me that we still make these lists. Back in the 90's, software engineering was still a relatively young craft with relatively few experts. Joel was part of a surprisingly small group of people who: 1) had a career's worth of experience developing software for micro-computers in high level languages; and 2) had deep and successful experiences across several organization roles in different types of organizations (coder, manager at MSFT, CEO at Fog Creek). The existence of managers who were in charge of software engineers but had no engineering experience wasn't surprising at all, given the youth of the field. Hence the Joel Test.
The world is a very different place today. There are a lot of people with this level of experience. Joel Tests aren't ubiquitous in other engineering domains, and hopefully they'll eventually die out in software as well. Not because the items on them aren't important, but because experienced Engineers manage Engineers.
You can generalize it, but that was a point to make the list more specific.
And yes, world is a very different place today. The number of SW engineers doubles every year, so, at least half for them are new.
We are engineers and we should try to measure or competency, аnd should try to systematize the things that we use. Of course, this list is not something absolutely universal, but we should at least try think about standards we that we want to meet.
They have explicitly labeled themselves as 'rouge USCIS agents' and said they are real in multiple tweets.
It's not the same as making a "fake steve jobs" twitter account where everybody knows you're not really steve jobs. They actually claim to be subversive workers within the agency.
> It's not the same as making a "fake steve jobs" twitter account where everybody knows you're not really steve jobs
First, let's dispel the absurdity that "ICE official with a critical Twitter account" == "impersonate a law enforcement officer/agency".
There's no impersonation. Everybody knows that @ALT_* is not an official channel. The entire account namespace was created specifically as a protest mechanism.
Government's claims regarding IMPERSONATION are baseless as a pure and simple matter of fact.
> They actually claim to be subversive workers within the agency.
Could the federal government have cause to fire these employees for their political speech? Perhaps.
Should we, the people, grant the government have right to infringe upon private company's property rights in order to settle petty shop politics? NO.
Government can be as petty an employer as it wants. But this ISN'T impersonation, and we SHOULDN'T sacrifice OUR liberties and property rights for the sake of fucking petty shop politics.
If law enforcement wants to track down and fire people who disagree with the chief executive, they're free to waste my tax dollars doing so. But unless they can show substantive evidence of ACTUAL impersonation, they can conduct their witch hunt without barging into our homes and offices.
So if I say I'm James Mattis and I think Trump is a dork I'm violating the law? Come on, no judge is gonna buy that nonsense. It's a far different to talk smack on twitter under an alt account (an UNVERIFIED account even) than it is to actually say things under the color of law like ordering a contingent of military to fire upon civilians while I'm saying I am James Mattis Sec of Defense. See the difference?
I call people with doctoral degrees "Dr." unless I'm invited otherwise or we're in a non-professional setting. Doctoral degrees usually aren't mere pieces of paper; going out of one's way to diminish the work and sacrifice involved is kind of rude.
But I also think it's kind of snooty and ill-mannered to explicitly demand to be called Dr.
Like with table manners. It's rude to not be decent to other people at the table. But equally rude to snap at another guest for eating with his mouth open.
This example is kind of an in-between on the teacher's part, because socialization is part of education. Only parent knows whether the teacher was motivated by socializing skills or ego.
> Edit: It seems like a lot of HN users have a severe aversion to authority, so I guess I've learned something new today
As always, the aversion is slightly more nuanced than just authority. You'll find lots of respect for certain other positions of authority (eg CEO). Also, aversion to the hierarchy of schools is nothing unique to HN.
Oh yes, I agree completely. But OP's scenario involved a school teacher on his/her first day teaching the class, and so I felt that OP was overreacting. Obviously, demanding that random people call you Dr. is absolutely rude.
Well, it's news to me! I never noticed this thinking before, probably because it's not a common topic of discussion on HN.
To this day, it's nearly impossible to find any account of these events. It's really hard to imagine that someone could commit such outright blatant theft and get away without so much as a hit on Google.
It's really hard to imagine that someone could commit such outright blatant theft and get away without so much as a hit on Google.
The events happened in the early 1990's, just prior to the advent of the internet. The false resume and the firing are the parts of the story that I have personal knowledge of. The financial allegations are third hand, but I believe them to be true. It's possible that recent events have better coverage, but I'd guess that even now there is a lot of crime and fraud that is never reported.
Was the con artist ever tracked down?
Not to my knowledge, although I'm no longer close to the community. I've occasionally wondered whether this might be because someone took matters into their own hands, and he's dead and buried in the woods somewhere. Googling now, I was surprised to learn that a janitor at the college was recently convicted of a 30-year-old murder of the mother of one of my classmates: http://chippewa.com/news/guilty-verdict-in-old-ladysmith-kil.... But I suspect that instead he's likely on to a new scheme somewhere else.
> The events happened in the early 1990's, just prior to the advent of the internet
Ah, makes a lot more sense. I was assuming some time in the early naughts given the school's timeline, and was disappointed I couldn't find a detailed account.
> The false resume and the firing are the parts of the story that I have personal knowledge of. The financial allegations are third hand, but I believe them to be true.
To clarify, I don't doubt this happened :)
> I've occasionally wondered whether this might be because someone took matters into their own hands, and he's dead and buried in the woods somewhere.
What a wild world we live in. Who needs television when you can read about the intrigues of failed liberal arts colleges.
I'm guessing that by "fascinating" you are implying that it's implausible to abscond with the money from a remortgage of a building one does not own? And by "Etc" that all the rest is wrong too?
I don't think anyone believed that he had any sort of legal title, rather that through some combination of forgery and fraud he managed to convince someone that he had the right to make the transaction. If you haven't experienced one personally, you may be underestimating the persuasive power of a talented psychopath.
> Heck, I worked with someone with a mathematical PhD for years wondering how he'd never heard of Banach-Tarsky. Not that it's a specifically useful or necessary thing, just that you'd think a math-interested person would have come across it.
Math is huge. If he does have a Ph.D., he has probably forgotten more named theorems than either of us know. Banach-Tarski is one of those results that, for a pragmatic mathematician who doesn't know it's a meme-y theorem, could go in one ear and out the other.
I'd bet the average avid HN comment reader knows more about Goedel's incompleteness theorems than a big percentage of math phds.
> Or how it could be that he thought excel was a good platform for quantitative finance.
That's not surprising at all. Why would a math Ph.D. have any clue what-so-ever about how to build quantitative finance software?
> The outcome of this will teach us all very valuable lessons.
Lesson #1: Don't steal.
> I can't be the only one who is a little paranoid that if I start my own shit I'll be sued or that I may even be sued for some of the side projects I'm working on even though I've never taken any code or resources from my company.
Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth.
Assuming their accusations aren't truthful, of course.
> Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth.
Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer. Then listen to them. Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt however it is portrayed in the media - often times it is necessary even for innocent parties to invoke. I am not a lawyer and this shouldn't be construed as legal advice.
> Actually, you shouldn't say anything and get a lawyer
Which is exactly what Levandowski did. And then, under advice from his lawyer, he plead the fifth.
> Pleading the fifth is expressly not an admission of guilt
In criminal cases.
In civil cases, you can still plead the fifth without facing contempt. But the jury is free to draw its own conclusions. As is the judge. If you don't believe me, see the transcription of Alsup's tounge lashing.
> In civil cases, the jury is free to draw its own conclusions
Actually, in the US, whether or not the jury is free to draw negative inferences from invoking the fifth varies by which jurisdictions law controls (the feds have one set of rules, states each have their own, and their are rules for when state and federal issues are in play in the same case.)
And, in any case, there is a difference from a negative inferences drawn from your failure as a result of your agent's invocation of the Fifth (e.g., Uber based on Levandowski's actions) and a negative inference against you for your invocation of the Fifth.
Thanks for the clarification. I.e., the fifth itself doesn't protect you from negative inference in civil cases, but some jurisdictions provide that protection?
In any case, I stand by my lesson: avoid actions that lead to situations where these distinctions matter.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. Of course you should talk to lawyers first, just as Levandowski did.
But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself.
> But at some point, if you're truly innocent, I'm sure the best lawyers in the business could find a way for you to say "I'm not guilty" without hurting yourself.
In a perfect world, being actually innocent would mean zero risk of conviction of a crime with a vigorous and dedicated defense, no matter what the prosecution did.
We don't live in a perfect world, and it is, in fact, quite possible for a situation to exist where you are actually innocent and on-balance have better expected results by invoking the Fifth.
Even accepting potential negative consequences that may have outside of the criminal realm.
But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client.
At the very least, at some point, the client is going to have to enter that "not guilty" plea.
> But I have a hard time imagining a specific scenario where you're accused of IP theft and a lawyer can't find a way to say "my client is not guilty of IP theft" without compromising their client.
Okay, how about where they actually physically have the documents that are the subject of the case, cooperating with discovery would reveal them, but they didn't actually use them in the new job or take them with intent, even though the other people accused alongside did actually steal smaller numbers of documents, and use them in the new job without your clients knowledge, so that your only real hope besides gambling on a jury's inferences of intent is that a criminal case is never initiated because your clients possession of the information doesn't come to light.
> At the very least, at some point, the client is going to have to enter that "not guilty" plea.
A plea is non-testimonial, does not open up cross examination, and does not open up threat of perjury. And, no, they don't have to do that if criminal charges are never filed, which is exactly what you are hoping for if you are invoking the Fifth in other circumstances because of potential future criminal prosecution.
My assumption is that intentionally copying IP onto a personal device and removing that device from the office -- regardless of any actual intent to use that data -- is still theft. Which would make the former employer's claims truthful.
It's super unclear to me how you would accidentally retain a copy digital documents...?
Like I said, it's hard to imagine this scenario actually happening. But for good measure:
Lesson #3: Leave work at work and startup at home.
I actually did something like this long ago (pre-2000) - emailed a set of detailed and very confidential sales spreadsheets to my personal email. It wasn't "theft" (and AFAIK nobody even noticed). It was so I could convert the spreadsheets to a proper Access database on my own time, since that's not what I was paid to do but it made my job a lot easier.
I would probably have been in a world of shit if anything came of it, though.
I've worked for employers who were 100% convinced this is theft, even without some intent to use that information, and even discussed very similar hypotehticals in on boarding.
Right, that's why I mentioned how long ago this was because very few employers were as Orwellian about this stuff as they are today. Calling it theft was hyperbole then and is hyperbole today.
I'm actually not sure it's theft. It might violate confidentiality agreements, and using those files outside the scope of the former employer might constitute unlawful use of trade secrets, but simply copying the files and bringing them home may not actually be a criminal act.
(I'm just putting this out there because I don't actually know, and hope someone else knows the answer. Not attempting to be authoritative.)
You can't selectively plea the fifth. You can't go into court, say things in your favor, and then clam up and plea the fifth when things get dicey for you. As soon as you start testifying in your defense you have waived the right and you'll be held in contempt if you take the fifth afterward. It would be unusual, but you can be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial/conviction until the judge decides to release you or you resolve the issue that put you in contempt.
This bit is different: Levandowski has not been charged with a crime. There is no plea, guilty or not guilty, for him to enter. He is not even the defendant in the civil suit.
He (or his lawyer) believes that talking about these documents could open him to criminal liability (whether he's guilty of anything or not), so he is choosing to remain silent.
Now, if other evidence is unearthed and Levandowski is indeed charged with a crime, and it made it to trial, that would be his time to enter in a plea of not guilty.
Right, things are a bit confused at the moment because the parent's hypothetical is so close to the case at hand.
I'm addressing parent's concrete hypothetical -- where the person accused of theft is the ceo of the company.
> that would be his time to enter in a plea of not guilty.
I think I'm wrong here, actually :)
dragonwriter provides a compelling explanation, elsewhere in this thread, for why entering a "not guilty" plea is very different from stating "I'm not guilty" outside the context of entering a plea.
> Lesson #2: If someone accuses you of theft, deny it instead of pleading the fifth
What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth? I know from Psychology that telling a jury to disregard information makes it seem more valuable and true, but that's more speculative than what you seem to have seen.
> What is the clear benefit to denying rather than pleading the fifth?
You open yourself up to perjury charges as well as the charges you were trying to protect against with the Fifth, plus you open yourself to unlimited cross-examination and impeachment of your testimony.
I think I see: You were comparing the GP to someone in Kalanick's position, not to Levandowski. I don't think Uber itself has pleaded the fifth - though they've made an argument related to pleading the fifth - so I misunderstood you.
I would hold off on taking any lessons at all until it's had a few years to work its way through the courts: News has the problem that outrage generates clicks and views. The question of "Should a company distance itself from executives accused of a crime by a competitor?" seems better served by referring to decades of case law, than by reacting to any news article.
Really only the cost of living.
> Commuting is less wearying
Not really.
There's a near zero percent chance your commute involves anything other than driving. The walkable areas of midwestern cities are certainly cheaper than SF, but they're also not exactly cheap. You're still looking at half a million for a decent house, 200k for a decent condo, and that's on a midwestern salary. Not to mention the weather.
And if you're driving, well, driving is driving.
> And American politics, “Brexit” and the Islamic State are on the other side of the world... [can be avoided] Especially if you stay off Facebook.
I mean, I guess you can just avoid talking to people altogether, but avoiding Facebook is no way to avoid the nastier parts of American populist politics in the midwest, which is decidedly Trump's America. On my last visit I learned that there are still people who very strongly believe that Obama is a Muslim and Clinton is a witch (literally, as in worships satan. I'm not exaggerating and they weren't being coy with language). And I wasn't even seeking them out, they were just the people I was obligated to spend time with.
So no, the midwest isn't some cheaper version of California. There's a reason why people like me leave after a few decades and never look back. The weather sucks, the cities are either unlivable or not appreciably cheaper, and there's a high concentration of extremely unpleasant people.