PauliExcluded

Milei received the controversial medal of the “Bolsonaro Club”. What do the 3 i’s mean and why are they criticized?

Other people who have received the medal includes Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán, among other prominent right-wing leaders.

In his brief visit to Brazil, President Javier Milei was inducted to the exclusive “Bolsonaro Club”, a distinction created by former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro for his closest ideological allies.

During the induction ceremony, Milei received the “medal of the three i's”, a significant symbol within the Bolsonaro circle, with homophobic and sexist overtones. When asked about the meaning of the three i's, the Argentine president was informed by Eduardo Bolsonaro, Jair's son, of their connotations.

The first “í” stands for “imorrível” (immortal), highlighting Jair Bolsonaro's survival after the attack suffered during his presidential campaign. “They stabbed him and he is still alive,” Eduardo emphasized.

The second “í” is “imbrochável”, a word without exact translation into Spanish, which, according to Bolsonaro Jr., alludes to male virility during sexual intercourse, provoking laughter and a jocular apology to Karina Milei for the explanation.

The last “í” is “incomível” (incompatible), which the Bolsonaro family uses to indicate that they have never had sex nor romantic relationships with men.

However, the awarding of this medal was not without controversy, as it was criticized by some who consider it homophobic. On social media, there was both support and rejection of Milei's visit to Camboriú, where he met Jair Bolsonaro, highlighting the polarized opinions regarding this event and its political implications.

Amazon told its corporate employees on Monday that they had to return to working in the company’s offices five days a week starting in January.

The new rule — up from a three-day-a-week mandate set in 2023 — appears to be the most stringent return-to-office decision among big tech companies and could be a harbinger of more to come.

That Amazon, which has always operated with tighter rules for its corporate work force than its peers, is leading the way back to the office is not a surprise. Amazon has over the years shunned plush corporate campuses and lavish employee perks common among tech companies, while giving managers attrition targets for how many people should leave their teams.

“If anything, the last 15 months we’ve been back in the office at least three days a week has strengthened our conviction about the benefits,” Andy Jassy, Amazon’s chief executive, wrote in a memo. Mr. Jassy said in-person collaboration allowed Amazon to move fast and retain its culture, which he said had become particularly hard to maintain as the company grew quickly during the pandemic. “We want to operate like the world’s largest startup,” he wrote. The change will affect more than 350,000 corporate employees. Amazon also has more than a million employees working in warehouses and operations.

An internal site for Amazon employees, viewed by The New York Times, said that attendance would be monitored by swipes of corporate badges, and that employees must return to the office even if there were not many members of their team in their location. It said the company was working to make conference rooms more available and was adding about 3,500 so-called phone booths in offices to accommodate the additional employees.

Amazon’s internal messaging channels lit up with discontent over the changes, according to screenshots of the messages. “The whole situation is just very depressing and de-motivating to say the least,” one message said. They also questioned how the changes fit with Amazon’s stated mission to become “Earth’s best employer.”

Since they essentially shut down their offices in the early days of the pandemic, tech companies have been inching toward getting employees back. Right now, other big tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Meta and Apple expect employees to work in the office two or three days a week.

Giving employees workplace flexibility allowed companies to save money on office space and to offer work flexibility as a perk. But executives are increasingly saying there have been trade offs that they no longer want to make.

As employers focus on productivity, they also note that outside the office people have returned entirely to prepandemic levels of activity.

“There is a sense the pendulum swung way too far in the opposite direction — this ‘the office is super optional,’” said Zach Dunn, co-founder of the workplace management platform Robin, which has helped companies put in place hybrid policies. “A lot of people are swinging back to this idea, ‘We were better off beforehand.’”

Nick Bloom, an economist at Stanford who studies work-from-home policies, noted that many companies had frequently done turnabouts on their return-to-office rules. In a February survey of more than 2,600 workers, nearly 40 percent said they had experienced two or more changes in company R.T.O. rules.

Offices across the country have reached over 50 percent of prepandemic occupancy, according to Kastle, the workplace security firm. Just over a quarter of paid workdays were done from home in August, according to research from Stanford.

At some companies, the specter of layoffs has motivated employees to spend more time in the office, wanting to strengthen in-person relationships. Amazon also said on Monday that it planned to increase the number of people a typical manager oversees by 15 percent by the end of March.

Mr. Jassy also said the company was making the change in order to flatten its organization, but employees questioned whether it could also open the door to layoffs.

Amazon left open the possibility that some managers could be laid off, according to an internal Frequently Asked Questions page with more details, viewed by The Times. It said each team would review their structure and, “it’s possible that organizations may identify roles that are no longer required.”

In the past, when Amazon has eliminated roles, it has laid off employees if they do not find or accept a new position at the company.

NAIROBI, Aug 19 (Reuters) - In eight years of working as a taxi driver in Kenya's capital, Judith Chepkwony has never seen business this bad.

A bruising price war between ride-hailing companies Uber Technologies (UBER.N), Estonia's Bolt and local start-ups Little and Faras has driven fares down to a level that many drivers say is unsustainable, forcing them to set their own higher rates. "Most of us have these cars on loan and the cost of living has risen," Chepkwony told Reuters. "I try to convince the customers to agree to the higher rates. If they can't pay, we cancel and let them find another driver."

About half the passengers who get in touch eventually agree to pay more than the price flashing up on their app generated by the companies' algorithms, Chepkwony said, keeping her going.

But Uber has said such arrangements break its guidelines and told its drivers to get back into line, setting up a clash between the slick, automated world of the international ride-hailing industry and the messier realities of one of its biggest developing markets.

The East African nation of 50 million people has been rocked by deadly protests against tax hikes which, together with high prices of basic commodities and elevated interest rates, has been blamed for lower disposable incomes. Kenya, Nigeria and Tanzania - with their growing economies and relatively low car ownership rates - are among the most important markets for Uber in Africa, its executives have said. But there have been challenges along the way. Drivers have gone on strike in Kenya, twice this year and at least once last year, over low commissions.

Uber Head of East Africa Imran Manji told Reuters it was reviewing reports of customers being overcharged. "We encourage all riders to report such instances."

Linda Ndung'u, Bolt's manager for Kenya, said they were discouraging fare-hiking while the industry searches for a solution to balance the needs of drivers and customers.

While everyone waits, the drivers are finding ways to get round the industry's united front.

Many say they use walkie-talkie app Zello to collectively agree on higher prices, meaning a customer will get the same rate even if they shop around.

Drivers have also produced a fare guide, which they print, laminate and post up inside their cars for customers to see.

One seen by Reuters set the minimum fare at 300 shillings ($2.33), above the 200 shillings set by Uber and Bolt who sometimes offer further discounts.

"We first ask the client where they are going and how much is shown on the app. Then we propose a rate based on our chart which can also be done by quickly multiplying by 1.5," Nairobi-based driver Erick Nyamweya said.

"If they agree, we take the ride. If not we either negotiate further or decline because the current rates are not sustainable with higher fuel and spare parts prices."

There has been some movement. Local start-up Faras Cabs raised its fares by up to a fifth this month to accommodate drivers' demands, Chief Commercial Officer Osman Abdi said.

At the end of the day, it is the customer that pays, in money and time spent haggling.

"The negotiations end up taking so much time that it ends up beating the logic of trying to save time by taking a cab," said one customer, Lameck Owesi. "It is frustrating."

($1 = 128.5000 Kenyan shillings)

Deleted because I accidentally posted to the wrong comm

While this article is a form of advertisement, it does a decent job at explaining why Google results are so bad when you search for product recommendations.

AUSTIN (KXAN) — The Seattle Children’s Hospital filed a lawsuit in Travis County District Court on Dec. 7 against the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG), after that agency requested documents related to gender transition policies and any such care provided to Texas children.

However, hospital claims that the OAG lacks jurisdiction to demand such records from the hospital, and that Washington’s “Shield Law” protects it from requests made by states that “restrict or criminalize reproductive and gender-affirming care.”

“The Shield Law prohibits Washington-based entities such as Seattle Children’s from ‘[c]omply[ing] with subpoena, warrant, court order, or other civil or criminal legal process for records, information, facilities, or assistance related to protected health care services that are lawful in the state of Washington,'” the lawsuit stated.

KXAN reached out to the OAG multiple times prior to publication; however, the agency never replied to our requests.

What does the OAG want?

According to copies of the OAG’s requests (included in the hospital’s lawsuit), the OAG sent two demands — a civil investigative demand and a notice of demand for sworn written statement.

The first demand, which has an issue date of Nov. 17, told the hospital that the OAG was investigating “misrepresentations regarding Gender Transitioning and Reassignment Treatments and Procedures and Texas law” that allegedly violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act.

That demand gave the hospital until Dec. 7 to produce documents to the OAG for the agency to identify the following:

All medications prescribed by the hospital to Texas children The number of Texas children treated by the hospital Diagnosis for every medication provided by the hospital to Texas children Texas laboratories that performed lab tests for the hospital prior to prescribing medications Protocol/guidance for treating Texas children diagnosed with gender identity disorder, gender dysphoria or endocrine disorders Protocol/guidance on how to “wean” a Texas child off gender transitioning care The other demand gave the same deadline date for the hospital to answer questions about the above points under oath.

Both demands include a notice that failure to comply could result in a misdemeanor criminal charge that would carry a $5,000 fine or jail confinement of up to a year.

Hospital leaders affirm no Texas ties

While OAG extended its reach across state lines, the hospital has not, according to the hospital’s Chief Medical Operations Officer Dr. Ruth McDonald and two hospital senior directors.

McDonald, in a sworn affidavit, told the court that the hospital does not have property or accounts, nor employees who provide “gender-affirming care” (or administrative services for that care) in Texas or based in Texas.

“Likewise, SCH [Seattle Children’s Hospital] providers have not provided telemedicine services to Texas residents for ‘gender-affirming care’…or ‘Gender Transitioning or Gender Reassignment Procedures and Treatments,'” said McDonald in her affidavit. “Based on a search of records by our revenue cycle department, there is no record that SCH has provided any ‘gender-affirming care’…or ‘Gender Transitioning or Gender Reassignment Procedures and Treatments’…using public money from the State of Texas or with reimbursement from Texas’s Medicaid or Texas’s child health plan programs.”

The affidavit also claims that the hospital “has not marketed or advertised” transition-related medical care in Texas.

The two other affidavits were filed by a senior director responsible for the hospital’s email system and the senior director responsible for the hospital’s electronic health records system. Both swear that all of the servers and devices providing those services are based in Seattle.

Sham requests and overreach of authority

“The Demands should also be set aside because they are not bona fide investigation into violations of the DTPA and therefore are not proper exercise of the Attorney General’s authority,” the lawsuit states. “The Demands are an improper attempt by the Attorney General to investigate and enforce recently-enacted [Texas] SB 14 against Seattle Children’s based on healthcare services that may have been provided by or at Seattle Children’s within the State of Washington.”

The lawsuit cites definitions made in Senate Bill 14 that restricts the law’s scope to Texas:

“Seattle Children’s is not (and cannot be) in violation of SB 14. The Demands are, therefore, an improper and ultra vires attempt to enforce SB 14 beyond the scope of the statute and beyond the authority of the Attorney General,” the lawsuit states. “The Attorney General, through the Demands for documents and information…is improperly attempting to investigate healthcare that did not occur in Texas.”

Along a similar line, the hospital’s attorneys claim that such an investigation violates the U.S. Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause, which prevents States from enforcing “protectionist” laws that would erode a national marketplace.