Kevin Turner @keturn@toot.cat

infotainment high-five apophenia markup language support system

Have you ever tried to get the cover off of one of these incandescent-bulb-sized LED lamps?

It's a hilarious exercise for those of us who grew up thinking of light bulbs as the most fragile of things that would crack and implode if you sneezed wrong.

I have put this thing under the leg of a chair and sat on it and it barely cares.

#HowManyDoesItTakeToChangeALightBulb

Hey, if you're a person who likes to have serious thoughts about competitive sports and gender, I have found the 14 kiloword article for you: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/

That's it: Self-destructing posts are like the *opposite* of pinned-posts.

You pin a post when it has something you want all future visitors to see it when they look up your page.

You make a self-destructing post if it's okay that some people see it now, while it's timely, but that you don't want to leave a big pile of on the profile that introduces you.

For a long time I didn't get the appeal of the time-limited social media content (e.g. Snapchat, 24-hour Insta stories, etc). Why would you post anything to a network if you didn't want it to be referenceable forever?

I'm slowly coming around to it.

Sure, both the host and anyone with read access to your feed _could_ capture it and archive or redistribute it, so don't trick yourself into thinking those aren't still risks. But it filters the audience a bit (in some self-selecting way I probably don't understand too well), and it's a way to share things that don't accumulate on your profile page as it's seen by future visitors.

How did plastic straws get banned before gas-powered leaf blowers?

This is my sign according to https://www.merriam-webster.com/time-traveler

infotainment high-five apophenia markup language support system

From @chawleeknight@twitter.com:

fae (xe/xyr): may i have your pronouns?
me (they/them): sure! they/them
fae (they/them): thanks :)
me ( / ): wait

- https://twitter.com/chawleeknight/status/1185048782783700992

After seeing this clip https://i.imgur.com/OZlTjrg.gifv

I went on a little exploration of triple pendulums last night.

There was a kinetic sculpture artist here in Oregon, Ken Patton, who did a lot of neat stuff, including rotation in more dimensions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rgs4KTdl1o

http://www.kenkinetic.com

Doikayt: A Jewish TTRPG Anthology
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/5527230/doikayt-a-jewish-ttrpg-anthology

I have no additional commentary; the tagline is likely enough to pique your interest if it's your kind of thing. I was excited to be told this is a thing that exists!

--
necessary rider for all Kickstarter links:

I support the efforts of the Kickstarter staff who are working to form a union, as do the organizers of this campaign! At this time, Kickstarter United is not calling for a boycott, but is asking management to #RecognizeKSRU

tl;dr: Is it legal for an employer to require you to pay for the things they require you to have to do your job for them?

Not always! Check local labor laws. Especially if you're at or near minimum wage. Especially if California laws may apply!

If it's not in law, it's also a reasonable thing to put in an employment agreement! So also check with your union rep to see if they've negotiated for these sorts of protections in your contract.

That's right: if your job in California requires you to use your personal phone, your employer should be reimbursing some nonzero part of your phone costs, on top of any wages.

This is probably part of the reason why it's such a big hecking deal for California to classify drivers of ride-hailing companies (or Transportation Network Companies) as employees: California is much more serious about not pushing operating expenses to employees.

One important California ruling happened in 2014, in the case of Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service:

> Does an employer always have to reimburse an employee for the reasonable expense of the mandatory use of a personal cell phone, or is the reimbursement obligation limited to the situation in which the employee incurred an extra expense that he or she would not have otherwise incurred absent the job? The answer is that reimbursement is always required. Otherwise, the employer would receive a windfall because it would be passing its operating expenses onto the employee. Thus, to be in compliance with section 2802, the employer must pay some reasonable percentage of the employee's cell phone bill.

The other caveat to that "equipment shall be provided" line is

> except that an employee whose wages are at least two (2) times the minimum wage provided
herein may be required to provide and maintain hand tools and equipment customarily required by the trade or craft.

"customarily required by the trade" sounds like it could have a lot of room for interpretation, so maybe that's something for case law.

The Wage Orders vary by industry (there are 17 versions!), and that section doesn't apply to persons employed in "administrative, executive, or professional capacities" and I think "professional" is a really unfortunate choice of words there given that the line DIRECTLY before that reads

> This order shall apply to all persons employed in professional [...] and similar occupations

so I guess a person can be employed in a professional occupation in either a professional or non-professional capacity?

They do define all these things.

California requires employers to take much more responsibility for necessary expenses!

Employees much be reimbursed for "all necessary expenditures."

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_Deductions.htm (cites labor code 2802)

and Wage Orders of the Industrial Wage Commission say:

> When tools or equipment are required by the employer or are necessary to the performance of a job, such tools and equipment shall be provided and maintained by the employer

w/ caveats

Another Oregon-specific note: An employer may not deduct such an expense from your paycheck.

They might make a paycheck deduction sound like a good idea, e.g. "otherwise you'll have to spend money on a hammer before payday!"

but I think what that prevents is them saying "You'll need to use this hammer, and it costs, uh, $500, so this hammer is yours now and we'll pay you $500 less for the work you do this week."

Other footnote: The maximum length of a pay period in Oregon is 35 days. And the statues say something about them being "regular", so if everyone _usually_ gets paid every two weeks, but your employer tries to make your pay period 35 days this time to get you to cover a big expense ... I Am Not A Lawyer but that sounds Questionable to me.

I have no idea what happens if you can't pay for it up-front under those conditions, but there exists an option to use some payment plan that spreads the cost over multiple pay periods, possibly at added expense (loan fees, interest, etc).

Guess that's a question for a lawyer.

In Oregon, employees "may be required to purchase required items as long as a purchase does not have the effect of taking an employee below minimum wage in any pay period."

So as long as you can pay for everything required to do your job, during the pay period in which it's required, and that doesn't put you below minimum wage, that's a legal thing for an employer to ask here.

source: https://www.oregon.gov/boli/TA/Pages/T_FAQ_Tadeduct.aspx