If it’s repeated offenses like the example in the article, it’s a little harder to prove it wasn’t intentional.
If it’s repeated offenses like the example in the article, it’s a little harder to prove it wasn’t intentional.
The apps using GPT4 without regards to safety can be though. Example: replacing human with chatbot for suicide prevention.
The 1m was confiscated because it was ‘illegal income’, not because he used VPN.
Yes, it’s still shitty that using VPN to access GitHub makes his income illegal
using VPN … makes his income illegal
Yes, they fine wasn’t a flat 1m or whatever, but because he earned it while using a VPN on and off(cuz the great firewall periodically blocks github). None of that would of happened if he didn’t use a VPN, so saying that the direct reason he’s in trouble isn’t why he got punished is less honest.
If your complaint is about how the number was determined, perhaps it would be better as “Chinese programmer ordered to pay entire income(1m yuan) for using Virtual Private Network.” Honestly, either headline is fine as long as the details of how that number was chosen is in the article.
It’s a contract thing called detrimental reliance. As I understand it, basically you relied on a promise to do something only in the event the promise was upheld then it wasn’t. It wouldn’t hurt to speak to a lawyer for a consultation. I doubt you’d get the job back, but they could be liable for the damages caused by moving.
Government jobs love them though, Security+ is required for a lot of DoD jobs.