Hb1: Fill & Download for Free

#1 White board interviews requiring syntax means excuse yourself to the restroom, run away and flame them on glassdoor.#2 You want it fast, cheap and coded well. Pick any 2.#3 More perks, games, cute onsite gimmicks = less family time for you and more free code for them.#4 The HB1 visa program & Indian outsource companies are a complete gimmick to help USA companies get cheaper labor and to not have to pay for training, interviewing or decent working conditions.#5 Sitting us together in loud bullpens and open floor plans guarantees less code, more walks and poor attention span.#6 The more meetings you call, the less code I write.#7 You are either a manger or a developer - Pick one and stop failing at both.#8 Software testers and testing hours are not a luxury, they are more like a seat belt.#9 Everything in the supply cabinet is free, every day, and unlimited. Take what you want, as much as you want and keep it.#10 Complex password requirements are stupid. Nay, using passwords is stupid. Don’t you people have fingerprints and know what nt authentication is?

The problem with hard and soft is that they are ill defined.People talk about hardness without clarity on what it means, often flipping between alternative meanings, without realising. This easily leads to confusion and error.There are two ways to look at it. The first meaning is about the objective, the second is about the outcome.“Hard Brexit” as an objective: a Brexit can be hard if it results in leaving all the institutions of the EU, essentially putting us back to square one. We’re out of the EU, now let’s negotiate what sort of relationship we want in the future. Call this HB1.“Hard Brexit” as an outcome: a Brexit can be hard if it results in a disruptive step change in our trading and diplomatic relationship from the day we leave. Call this HB2.The confusion is the following. By talking about HB1, people move unconsciously to assuming this implies HB2, which it doesn’t. (I’ll take it that HB2 would never be an objective of the UK government, so nobody is asking why the government is choosing that).I’d argue that HB1 is just “Brexit”. Anything less than HB1 is not really Brexit.But what does this mean?Just about the only thing we know is that a hard Brexit (HB1) will mean a change in our relationship with the EU. More than that, we cannot say. Alternative scenarios are mainly about whether the transition is a smooth one or a sharp one.In a previous answer, I considered the following three scenarios with probabilities attached to each one. This was nothing other than guesswork of course but think it’s still broadly right. There’s obviously a more granular approach but for simplicity, I keep it as the following:Trade deal and financial settlement agreed by end of the Article 50 process, all done and dusted: 10% chance. In this case, HB1 does not become HB2 and is the best possible outcome for the UK. It would allow the UK to transition seamlessly from an excellent trading relationship to a slightly less good one. It would allow the UK to then move quickly to a higher growth trajectory by undertaking economic reforms that are difficult or impossible within the EU. I’d argue it would also be the best outcome for the EU too, (but at the moment, they don’t see it like that). A friendly, prosperous neighbour is what every country desires. The US is far happier having friendly, prosperous Canada to its north rather than, say, hostile, impoverished Syria. The US is definitely not ok with Cuba being 100 miles away over the sea.Basic principles agreed by the end of the Article 50 process but a transitional period is needed for implementation: 60%. As per above, in this scenario, HB1 does not become HB2. This would be the second best possible outcome for the UK. It would avoid a transitional disruption but it would delay the benefits of Brexit being implemented. The 3–5 year transitional period would allow the UK and EU to disentangle and reform their complex relationships and move relatively seamlessly from being cohabitants to friends.No agreements, talks break down, no trade deal, no financial settlement: 30%. In this case, HB1 becomes HB2. Or if you like: a hard Brexit becomes a hard exit. This is the worst outcome for the UK because it involves a disruptive cliff edge. At that point, the UK and EU are technically trading on WTO terms, because in the absence of a Free Trade Agreement, all WTO members are bound to trade with other WTO members on the terms prescribed by the WTO.The problem with the third scenario is that because there’s been a breakdown in the relationship, you cannot rely on the EU (or for that matter, the UK) to work in good faith, to develop the necessary logistical and practical arrangements to make the new relationship work. It’s not absolutely the end of the world because there are EU organisations whose job it is to ensure there are no logistical barriers to trade. These organisations are functional and apolitical. Also, there are some things government and business can do to prepare for such an outcome, to mitigate its impact.Nevertheless, in this scenario, the disruption would cause a material economic hit for both the UK and the EU (but larger for the UK). The worst thing, however, is that it would get the UK and EU’s relationship off on a very bad footing. Over time, both would heal. The UK would be able to reap the benefits of Brexit in time but would have some damage to repair first.Notice, finally, that in talking about “a trade deal”, I don’t dwell on the question “what sort of trade deal?”. That’s because the difference between a comprehensive FTA and an agreement to trade on WTO terms is not all that great, either in the tariff or non-tariff dimensions.By far the bigger difference is between an agreement to trade on WTO terms, and a default to WTO terms through a lack of agreement. This, however, has nothing to do with a hard Brexit (HB1).An agreement to trade on WTO terms, implies cooperation in good faith, in all the logistical, procedural and interpretive dimensions of trade. If something doesn’t work, fudge it; find a work around; an interim solution pending a robust one.A default to trade on WTO terms on the other hand, implies a lack of good faith cooperation, in the logistical, procedural and interpretive dimensions of trade. If something doesn’t work, screw it; trade will be disrupted and there will be economic harm to both sides.This is the scenario that, in the nomenclature of the above, I’ve called HB2; although in all candour, I think it’s the only really coherent meaning of the term, “Hard Brexit”.

Of course not. The presumed protection is to have laws to protect women and children from sexual assault.There is no evidence to show that transgender people are any more likely to sexually assault others than the general population.There are already laws against sexual assault.The HB2 law (not HB1 as stated incorrectly) was designed to project homophobic religious prejudices on to historically discriminated against minorities.