The weather is finally beginning to warm up, which means more and more people will be enjoying fun outdoor activities. However, if riding around on an ATV is your cup of tea, you might want to tune into a recent recall issued by Polaris Industries Inc.
Nobody likes to feel that they benefit from slavery, but the modern “good life” is underpinned by people forced to produce more than they consume so that others can consume more than they produce.
It seems President Trump isn’t’ the only one under fire these days. His daughter, Ivanka Trump, is now being accused of “improperly leveraging the power of the White House for private profit” by the San Francisco-based clothing company, Modern Appealing Clothing. According to the lawsuit filed by the clothing company last week, Ivanka Trump Marks LLC is has been “exploiting the power and prestige of the White House for personal gain” by promoting products at government events.
It’s not uncommon for eager job applicants to have to endure a personality test of some kind upon applying for a new job. However, one US company is putting a new spin on things with their self-proclaimed snowflake test aimed at weeding out “overly sensitive, liberal candidates who are too easily offended.” It seems this particular company is looking for a specific type of candidate, and certain members of the millennial generation may not fit that bill. But what does this new test entail?
Despite ethics concerns, the federal government has issued a ruling claiming President Trump’s latest Washington hotel is in fact NOT in violation of the lease. The ruling came as a surprise to many who pointed to a clause in the lease agreement that states “no government official can be a party to it.” But should we really be all that surprised? After all, Trump oversees the organization that holds the lease to the Trump International Hotel, the General Services Administration (GSA), so he pretty much became the landlord of his own hotel when he was sworn in.
Over recent months, there have been many food recalls due to a number of different concerns. Now another has joined the fray. Recently, nearly one million pounds of breaded chicken has been recalled by OK Food, Inc. due to reports about metal objects being found in the ready to eat chicken products. According to a notice issued by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the recalled chicken that has been shipped to stores across the country “may be contaminated with extraneous materials, specifically metal.”
A new prank has law enforcement agencies and officials worried, prompting them to issue a warning to iPhone users. Why iPhone users and not Android phone users? Well, the new prank involves Siri, the virtual assistant that comes installed on Apple iPhones. It’s been discovered that a number of social media posts have been “encouraging users to ask Siri about the number 108.” The problem with this command and a handful of others is that it actually ends up instructing Siri to dial emergency services, which can, according to a Texas Sherrif’s department, “potentially tie up emergency lines.”
Having a mortgage as a divorcing couple will be your biggest liability. Depending on any pre-nuptial agreements and settlements, traditional divorces split assets equally between the two divorcing spouses. However, debts and liabilities are also split equally. This is true of the home and also true of the mortgage attached to it. Therefore it is
While it’s understandable that businesses would prefer to keep certain trade secrets and proprietary formulations under wraps, matters of food safety should be considered in a different light. If brands feel like they would lose market share to competitors who hadn’t sold or distributed dangerous products, perhaps that fear should be realized for the good of consumers everywhere. This is the problem of information asymmetry; that is, when buyers and sellers have different levels of information about a product that lead to different decision-making capabilities.
Vince Chhabira gave final approval on Thursday to a $27 million settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit against Lyft brought about by its drivers.