But it is easy to prove and I got called for Jury 2 times too.
It was strange and I got surprised, talked to a friend that said it was not possible.
Then I show him the papers and he got more surprised.
I did lookup the laws and saw that casting a vote while not being a citizen was a crime then as good guest I follow the law and did nothing with that.
Being a good guest is a tenet to me.
For me it was strange because in my country you can only vote in person, you have to vote at sunday/holiday and that is it. If a second turn is needed another day.
No mail, no extra days.
I remember this crazy feeling : "whooa they vote by MAIL! Like.. The post service works...amazing"
same thing with paying bills by mail : "Whoa, you put the check on envelope and send it? nobody steal it? serious? there is a person there that gets the check?"
And that was the year the MJ became medicinal and CO flipped.
Conspiracy theorists will be crazy.
And I did not request anything that was the most crazy thing.
I knew a guy who was Canadian, but had a summer job in the USA. Everyone got told they needed to register for the draft so he did and got drafted into the US military for the Vietnam war. Someone figured out he wasn’t American at some point, but they didn’t let him out, he just served a year at a base in the US instead of being deployed. And he didn’t even get citizenship out of it. He was not super bright.
My lower middle class condo has electrified fences, armed guards, CCTV, patrols, bullet proof glasses it is like a prison.
The higher classes have more features.
People with good meaning soul and big heart cannot comprehend that some people for whatever reasons feel pleasure in being evil and don't care about others life. Then they project their good meaning in laws and thus give more power to evil people do more evil until they die.
Welcome to "modern laws" for just evolved homo sapiens.
Could've been phrased better but there's so much truth in this. Murder solving rate is actually more like 6%. And indeed sentences are normally reduced to 1/6, but not because of good behavior, but "regime progression" which technically allows you to work outside prison during the day but there's not ever enough room in prison for spending the night so you just become free.
Take a relatively harsh 12-year sentence for murder. Multiply by 6% for the chance you get caught and divide by 6 for regime progression. You spend 43.8 days in prison in average. The 6% figure includes people who murder in public and don't even try to run away. Be a little smarter about it and your sentence is effectively zero.
It's pure impunity for criminals. And a harsh life for honest people. Not hard to predict the outcome.
It's unbelievable that to some, the solution to the high crime rate in Brazil is putting more people in jail when a significant part of our prison population hasn't even been tried for their crimes yet. It's always shocking to read such a take, but I am then immediately reminded of the fact that we tend to gravitate towards easy answers to complicated problems. Hopefully one day you can move past that.
As a brazilian I can say that you must keep thinking about those things and someday you'll understand why your arguments are full of prejudice and ignorance.
Would you mind to make a clear counter-argument, so it informs all of us what "arguments are full of prejudice and ignorance" and why?
I found the arguments very well rounded, with good references, sound math, and a window to personal experience that reflects the lives of many back in Brazil.
I am not going to pour more anecdotal evidences to reinforce the original argument, but there is a widespread problem of impunity in Brazil: the low-hanging fruits (known “chicken burglars”) are severely punished, in my opinion, while the extreme cases (both assassins and politicians) are “roaming free”.
As many things in Brazil, I have the impression that justice is only “para inglês ver” (just for the show).
At last, I suspect you might be biased by your own prejudices when reading and reasoning on the arguments of superflit.
Thus, I think it is important to neutrally reason and point out the flaws of the argumentation, as well as show new perspectives, instead of an empty, straw-man attack, full of personal sentiment behind it.
I’m already reaping the rewards of WFH. I used to have the energy to go to gym maybe twice a week after work, then eat some rubbish food because I didn’t have the energy to spend another hour in the kitchen.
Now I can be at my gym when it opens at 06:30, have a good workout, shower, walk home, cook breakfast, and still have 30 mins before I need to start working.
I can even fit in short cardio sessions in the evening and have returned home and made a nutritious meal by the time I’d normally just be getting home from work.
I go to the gym seven times a week now with no net reduction in my free time.
I eat a better diet. I save money. I’m happier and more relaxed. My home office is a much more productive space than the noisy open plan office we have.
I never start the working day in a bad mood whereas a bad commute (delays, bad weather, unpleasant people, etc) used to put me in a lousy mood for the rest of the day.
Not all commutes are equal (both in environmental footprint and desirability). One of my favorite commutes was about an hour by train -- I lived 5 minutes from the station and my job was a short walk from the station. It was a reverse commute, so I always got a seat.
I got a lot of reading done and I didn't consider it to be "wasted time".
Another favorite long commute was 45 minutes by bike, almost all on a separated bike trail.
Of course, my current 30 second bedroom to livingroom commute is probably my favorite commute of all time, but my point is not all commutes are horrible. And even my current work-from-home commute has its drawbacks, like no clear separation between office and home life.
So why was the employee not OK with taking a pay cut for all those benefits? And if he is gonna be remote anyway, then why not outsource his job to a country with lower cost of living and therefore lower cost of labor?
And doesn't mean that we have to pay everyone more who _has_ to come to work? I.e. because they need to go the factory floor? Or they need to go the power plant?
> And doesn't mean that we have to pay everyone more who _has_ to come to work? I.e. because they need to go the factory floor? Or they need to go the power plant?
You only have to pay someone more if you cannot find someone to do the job for lower pay.
Yes, or at least if you move to higher cost markets (Zurich, sf, etc.) You'll be paid more than you might have been otherwise. It just happens than Google already has established offices in like all of the most expensive cities.
I agree. With the 40 hours I’ve saved each month, I’ve wound up giving easily at least 10 more hours to my employer. I’ve used the remaining 30 to connect more with my spouse, work out, improve my home, read, and take mindfulness breaks.
My employer gets more labor. I feel more rested, so I engage more with my work. I’m interested in hearing perspectives where this is a bad thing.
I can do that.
Usually I ask a friend to count up to 3 and then on 3 I dilate the pupils immediately.