> This product cannot be shipped to the state of California due to current California state laws. Additionally, this product may not be available to purchase from Royal Canin directly if you are located in Nevada, parts of Utah, Arizona, Hawaii, or parts of Oregon because your order may be fulfilled from California
Really? Why? Here in Australia the meat isn't very popular despite supply, gets used mostly in pet food (and the leather is used as well). I'm sure we'd happily export it to anyone interested, why would Cali ban it?
California bans all sorts of things. Foie gras, wood stoves, apples from some other states in the union, reference to a nationally recognizable sports team, allowing animals to have sex within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship[0], driving in a housecoat (but only if you're a woman)[citation needed], and the eating of any frog which dies in a frog race (really).
How does that work? Is it for worry about pests, or insecticide use? I thought the US Constitution prevents a state from banning products from another state.
I looked in the online California Code at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml but found no mention of "housecoat" or "house coat". I also found nothing relevant for "robe" or "robes". Could you point out the relevant law?
It appears to be in place to allow frog-jumping contests while preventing the frog-jumping contest from being used as a way to get other other laws related to the capture and use of frogs.
Quoting http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/06/local/me-frogs6 : "After a thorough legal review, the lawyers discovered a provision tucked into the California Fish and Game Code in 1957 that basically exempts "frogs to be used in frog-jumping contests" from general wildlife rules."
Mark Twain's story about Calaveras County may be the reason behind that law.
Yes, California’s ag quarantine/inspection laws are about pests (and the prohibited without certificate imports are part of those laws). California is unusual in enforcing its quarantine laws with border inspections, but not in having them.
> I thought the US Constitution prevents a state from banning products from another state.
State ag quarantine laws are common and have generally been held Constitutional absent federal action that overlaps with or expressly preempts them.
> How does that work? Is it for worry about pests, or insecticide use? I thought the US Constitution prevents a state from banning products from another state.
That said, I'd like to be clear in not knocking all laws of this sort, for example laws about citrus are obviously informed by: https://californiacitrusthreat.org/
> I looked in the online California Code at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml but found no mention of "housecoat" or "house coat". I also found nothing relevant for "robe" or "robes". Could you point out the relevant law?
I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I could not find it. I've seen it printed in so many places that I started to believe it without seeing the exact wording of the law. In fact, the only code referencing 'woman' in the Vehicle Code is about ownership.
The ag laws are among the few that make sense. Agriculture is big business in California, and we've been overrun by invasive pests a few times now. It makes more sense to keep them out than to try to eradicate them after they become established.
If I had to guess why we ban kangaroo meat, it's probably because too many people think they're "cute".
Those sound like archaic unenforced laws which every state has. But they really do have a very overbearing government. It's very common to see labels like "not available in California" or "known to the state of California to cause cancer".
The Bay Area has a pretty bad remote work culture. The vast majority of companies prefer if you’re physically here. Sure you can work from home or work remote while traveling for a few weeks, but for some insane reason most companies insist on your home base being here in the Bay Area. I’m sure there are notable exceptions and some people will disagree with me, but after 5 years here I’ve experienced first hand the aversion to remote work suffered by most Bay Area companies.
I'll make an observation that no one else has in this thread:
Effectively managing an organization that is at least partially remote is more difficult, and my experience in the Bay Area is that management skill is often overlooked and underdeveloped, particularly in startups.
I've seen several companies with very very competent technical founders, very capable engineering team, and not one person in the company that can manage their way out of a brown paper bag. The only way for that kind of structure to work is having everyone in the same room.
Oh come on, you must know it's not just "some insane reason."
A culture of remote work takes a lot of discipline, as it's so easy to have an in-person conversation, make a seemingly small decision at the time, and immediately the remote workers feel out of the loop.
Remote work is actually /hard/ to support, and a company has to make it a priority to do it well and be disciplined about writing down all communication. Otherwise, they're setting up their remote employees for failure, which nobody wants.
Also, there are things a remote worker just can't do; stand at a whiteboard and evaluate paths forward, for example. If a company values that sort of collaboration above anything else, it is certainly not "insane" to want people in the office.
I work on a big company with offices all over the US. My team is spread out over five different offices (which is pretty impressive given there are only seven of us). There's not much difference between being the only one on your team at your location and working from home.
While it's true you have to have software and processes in place to communicate, it is doable.
> Also, there are things a remote worker just can't do; stand at a whiteboard and evaluate paths forward, for example. If a company values that sort of collaboration above anything else, it is certainly not "insane" to want people in the office.
In my experience, meetings like this are more often than not a huge waste of time. Since I started working remotely I am less distracted and more productive, and have no trouble collaborating with other devs.
I agree. I contracted with a pure remote company for a while and we had less scheduled meetings but actually collaborated more. The one thing the remote company didn't have was the project management types who call meetings all the time like in my current job.
Great, if all you're given is a set of requirements. If you're trying to figure out what a product should do, look like, or build a larger system, a whiteboard is invaluable. Most of those meetings aren't scheduled, either.
Your last point is one I'd take a step further. The kind of collaboration you describe is necessary for non trivial products. So for them, at least for the people working on the harder problems, 100% remote just isn't feasible.
Non-trivial projects aren't very common even in the bay area.
Edit: I just got out of a meeting with someone in eastern Europe. An extra $20 for a camera pointed at the whiteboard solves the collaboration problem 90% of the way.
One can buy a MS Surface or iPad Pro (or Wacom tablet for PC/laptop) and share a virtual whiteboard via webex/gotomeeting/etc. Remote work can be incredibly efficient. It is easier for new companies/teams to start as remote vs. switching existing team to support remote work, but it can be done.
Pretty scary this new trend. They could create a replication bot and get seemingly original content avoiding deletion for spam from twitter, but still being able to inject spam in some of the tweets.
