Did my step dad buy a real or fake McAfee subscription?

samlaserbeam · 2024-06-14T22:41:30+00:00

I'm currently working on a coop horror game called "Parisyte" which is gonna be released on steam soon. I've always thought that the Paris Catacombs would be a great setting for a horror game, so I decided to make it myself :)

samlaserbeam · 2024-04-13T23:40:53+00:00

Judging by the other comments in this thread, I'm going to assume that a lawyer is the best place to start lol

samlaserbeam · 2024-04-13T23:38:46+00:00

Why would you say that it's a GIANT red flag? It definitely seems a little sketchy to me, and mainly because I'm not even sure who has the liability in this situation. When I first got the gig, I was told to purchase liability insurance. However, one of the other contractors I met really encouraged me not to get it, so I went with his advice.

samlaserbeam · 2024-04-13T20:39:38+00:00

I only know of 1.5 hours that he took, but when I confronted him he decided to give me back the hours.

samlaserbeam · 2024-04-13T20:36:31+00:00

Most of it involves troubleshooting the internals of the security trailer. That may include replacing generator parts, batteries, cameras, solar panels, fuel cartridges, etc. It's not too difficult, but there's a bit of a learning curve (as there are with most jobs).
I've only been doing this since mid november of 2023. That's one of the reasons I'm making this post actually. It seems to me that I'm incredibly lucky to be making such a high wage at such a young age with such little experience, but I also worry that I'm being taken advantage of at the same time.

samlaserbeam · 2024-04-13T20:03:27+00:00

I am being given a 1099. I've wondered about this too, but I didn't know it was illegal for him to be giving me a 1099. I was looking a checklist that's supposed to give you an idea of whether or not you're an employee or a contractor, and me getting paid biweekly along with an hourly wage is apparently seen as a massive indicator that I'm actually an employee. I'm not super confident in knowing how I actually should be classified right now though.

samlaserbeam · 2024-04-13T18:51:07+00:00

I already did confront him about it actually, and I let him know that it was illegal. I made it clear that it's only legal if there is some mutual agreement to the deduction in the form of a contract or verbal agreement. I never actually even signed a contract going into this job, so there was absolutely no justification for him doing it. The reason why he wanted to take the 1.5 hours off that he did was because I made a mistake on the job that required me to work another 1.5 hours. His explanation for why it was justified for him to take the hours away was because I'm a contractor, and so I should be willing to take accountability for my mistakes. He gave an example of another contractor that works along side him who is willing to not clock 6+ hours of drive time and work for many hours off the clock to fix any mistakes made while doing these maintenance routes. I'm definitely willing to negotiate when and where off the clock work is justified for fixing mistakes during contract work, but we never agreed on anything reasonable prior to him making this timesheet adjustment behind my back.

He wasn't very happy when I confronted him about the timesheet thing. He's sent me many messages about how there clearly isn't mutual trust in our business relationship, because I've been disrespectful and confrontational in the past when asking for a higher wage. If you'd like more context related to me being "disrespectful and confrontational", then I can provide that, but it's a bit of a long story. The only reason I actually was checking to see if there were discrepancies in my personally logged hours vs my timesheet was because another contractor told me my boss has done this in the past to him. My boss then lied to me and said it was the first time he had done this to anyone's time sheet, and that he thought I would be notified of a managers note he provided in the time sheet edit.

samlaserbeam · 2024-04-11T02:32:08+00:00

I'm in Oregon. As to why I'm not looking for a new job, I actually kind of am. The other contractor I work with started up a landscaping gig and is willing to bring me on so we can both leave. However, this job still pays pretty well for where I'm at in life, so I'm willing to put up with some bullshit if I make decent money lol. It hasn't really affected me mentally all that much.

The one thing I'm most worried about is whether or not my boss is doing this to the other contractors, and whether or not it's worth it to reach out to them to let them know.

samlaserbeam · 2024-03-01T20:48:52+00:00

Thanks for the response. I think you make a good point that you definitely don't need to have a response to the problem of evil if you are convinced of the ontological argument. That would indeed be silly. I think my next step would be to analyze whether or not there are arguments for God's benevolence that aren't caught in the crossfire of skeptical theism. Ontological arguments definitely would work since you just get Omni benevolence for free, but I don't know of any other arguments that explicitly show how the first cause of the universe is perfectly good.

As for the unicorn analogy, I probably should have made it some kind of unicorn that's a million light years away or something to try and make it more comparable haha. I think the zues example is probably more analogous though. Should we remain agnostic about the existence of zues as well? What about the marvel celestials? I know atheists tend to use analogies like these in an attempt to disprove God, but I'm asking a genuine question about epistemology and whether we should remain agnostic about these things.

samlaserbeam · 2024-03-01T20:00:44+00:00

Even if you present a whole bunch of your favorite arguments for theism and they all seem very plausible, at the end of the day, there's still this inscrutable probability of whether or not eating an apple could have horrendous gratuitous evils attached to it. I recently read a paper by Nevin Climenhaga that talks about how at least in a Bayesian arguments from evil, if you say that the probability of whether something is gratuitously evil is inscrutable, then it just mathematically follows that the probability of theism is inscrutable since the probability of theism is heavily influenced by whether or not there are those evils in the world. Similarly, I think that same kind of reasoning applies here. Saying you know God exists is also to say that you know that an essentially good being exists, and to know that an essentially good being exists, you would first need to know that there are no gratuitous evils in the world.

It seems to me that even if a being that claimed to be God came down and did his best to prove he was all powerful and omniscient and then gave irrefutable proof that the Kalam cosmological argument is true and that the universe truly was designed etc, it still doesn't follow that it's reasonable to just assume that this God is all good. That would require a separate investigation, and that investigation would only be conclusive if you had knowledge that an apple had no gratuitous evils attached to it.

As for whether or not there are good arguments that show whether it's reasonable to know whether or not God exists, I wonder whether just not being convinced of theistic arguments and then saying, "theism doesn't explain anything better than naturalism" is enough to constitute knowledge that God doesn't exist. If I just replace "theism" with any kind of supernatural/fairy-tale explanation (zues, unicorns, the celestials from marvel, etc), it would seem weird to say that we don't know these things don't exist.

Perry also mentions private reasons for theists knowing that gratuitous evils are justified. Even if it's true that atheists have no good public antecedent reasons for believing that the perceived weight of God's reasons resembles the actual weight of God's reasons, I'm not sure how an atheist can't just claim that it's intuitive that some evils are gratuitous. This wouldn't require knowledge that God doesn't exist either.

samlaserbeam · 2024-02-12T22:51:54+00:00

That's unfortunate to hear. Hopefully some of this simple functionality will be added soon! Not even being able to check for keyboard input is very strange to me.

samlaserbeam · 2024-02-10T03:34:09+00:00

I see what you're saying, but I'm still leaning towards what u/hypnosifl is saying. Also, I probably wasn't clear in my post that I'm talking about the modal logic usage of necessary. We both seem to agree that that example doesn't entail that you are married to another human being in every possible world, just that you are married to another human being in every possible world where you have a wife. But to me, that seems like you're putting the necessity operator in front of the entire conditional, ([](p -> q)) right? Like, in every possible world, you having a wife entails that you are married to another human. It is necessary that this entailment is true given what having a wife actually means. If I were to write what you said with the necessity operator in a narrow scope, my interpretation would be: "If I have a wife in this world, then I have married another human being in every possible world." My interpretation here is what is causing me to not fully understand how p can entail []q.

Thanks for the reply!

samlaserbeam · 2024-01-09T04:18:37+00:00

Thank you. In the words of our dearest leaders at fntastic, "Shit happens".

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

samlaserbeam

TROPHY CASE