I extremely hate this idea. I I already hate the automated systems that are definitely designed to make you give up just trying to talk to an actual human being. Hopefully, we can get more lawsuits around the world like the Air canada one where they are liable for any bs the ai decides to make up, along with actual laws saying the same. Hopefully, it would discourage them.
There are games for me on Windows 11 that won’t run but will just fine on linux, and vice versa. For games that won’t run or run well enough on linux, I have windows dual booted, but that’s all i will use it for. Also I nice little boot U.I. that pops up every time I power on or restart my pc so i can pick which i want to load up.
Already installed Bazzite on my Legion go with my laptop and desktop next. No reason for me not to continue putting it on my devices just because they are going to rework it. Recall is always going to be a major security risk despite a few extra measures. They have definitely shown they can’t think about these things. At least there was a heads up on this one for people to point out obvious issues, but that won’t always be the case.
Also, i guess the next question is what counts as misbehaved since the company gets to decide? Does calling in sick for a day count? What about if they want you to do something that they legally can’t ask you to do and you say no? It sounds more like a ploy to control the workers even more, whether or not what SpaceX does is legal. Sure if its not legal they can sue and maybe even win, but SpaceX could drag out the suit till it has to be dropped from a lack of funds on the employees side or make it not worth the amount they would win.
It’s if SpaceX decides that the employee misbehaved, not the company that misbehaved, that allows them to ban that employee from selling private stocks. Also if you leave the company for any reason you lose out on 6 months of them or if you are fired they will buy back all of your stocks at $0, all the while you are paying taxes on your stocks. So the employees could possibly end up losing money from taxes on something they never actually got because the company said so.
From what i read, a federal jury already decided the case months ago. This was the final hearing on what is to be done to rectify the play story monopoly, in other words a jury has already heard all the facts and the judge even more so. At what other point should the judge declare intent? If anything the judge has heard everything there is to hear and is taking a no bs stance against a company who says it would be to expensive to do these things despite designing it that way and being worth 2 trillion dollars, they know they have the money to do it and he knows it as well.