●● IRC: #techbytes @ Techrights IRC Network: Sunday, November 08, 2026 ●● ● Nov 08 [07:57] *x-amarsh04 has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!) ● Nov 08 [08:05] *x-amarsh04 (~amarsh04@6mnab3uw5dgtk.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Nov 08 [09:28] *FANTOM has quit (Ping timeout: 120 seconds) [09:37] *FANTOM (~fantom@freenode-0m9.8g1.bp0598.IP) has joined #techbytes ● Nov 08 [11:37] *psydroid2 (~psydroid@kcvnmgbxt8eqq.irc) has joined #techbytes ● Nov 08 [12:15] *croissant` (~croissant@8jwsykkupndw8.irc) has joined #techbytes [12:16] *croissant has quit (Ping timeout: 2m30s) ● Nov 08 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1m6s995r2 [13:10] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1m6s995r2 ) [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] " [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Nobody is saying IBM cannot do a sub threshold RA. They can, and they do. Keep a site under 50, or under 25 in New York, and there is no filing. That part is right. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] The problem is the word massive. A massive Q4 cut is not 49 people at one site. It is hundreds or thousands, concentrated in sales and marketing hubs, in a few weeks. You cannot spread that across enough sites, with enough managers and HR paperwork, without tripping a site. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Remote work does not fix that either. Under WARN, a home based employee's site is the office they report to, where their work is assigned from. IBM cannot just reassign people on paper after the fact to a different site to dodge the count. That is exactly the kind of thing that gets litigated. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] And the 90 day rule cuts the other way. Layoffs at the same site inside 90 days get added together unless IBM can prove they were separate and unrelated. A November wave plus a December wave at the same site is one layoff for WARN purposes, not two resets. You only get a reset by waiting more than 90 days between waves, which is not a Q4 blitz. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] So yes, IBM can quietly cut dozens at a time and never file. That is a rolling RA, not a massive one. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] 10 hours ago by Anonymous [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+2/-1) | Reply [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @fp+1m6s995r2 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] +3 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] @ew those WARN numbers are only when they exceeded thresholds - greater than 50 per culling per site. You can get rid of a lot of people every 90 days and never trigger WARN. They only exceed thresholds like that when they get greedy, licking their lips for getting rid of more people. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] 11 hours ago by Anonymous [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+3/-0) | Reply [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @ff+1m6s995r2 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] +3 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] @es baloney. IBM is a pro at evading WARN. It isn't even that hard. They don't have to report at all if they keep numbers under 50 per site. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] If someone is work at home it may even be easier as they are not associated with a site. They can move those employees around on paper by just claiming that a different site is the one providing guidance; it isn't the closest site. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Spread those sub-50 RAs all around and you can hurt a lot of people. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Layoffs or employment losses occurring over a 30-day period (or combined across a 90-day period) are evaluated together to see if they meet the numerical thresholds for a mass layoff. So they get to reset again in the same calendar year. Not exactly a high bar. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] 11 hours ago by Anonymous [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+3/-0) | Reply [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @fe+1m6s995r2 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] +1 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] @ev Last IBM filings on record: all 2025. San Jose, CA, 75 workers, Nov 4, 2025; Coppell, TX, 59 workers, July 2, 2025; Winston-Salem, NC, 72 workers, March 25, 2025 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] 14 hours ago by Anonymous [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+2/-1) | Reply [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @ew+1m6s995r2 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] +3 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] @es there was no warn filings last years layoffs [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] 14 hours ago by Anonymous [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+3/-0) | Reply [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @ev+1m6s995r2 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] 0 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Worth a reality check on the timing here. If this is a real US mass layoff in Q4, the WARN notices would already have to exist. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Under the federal WARN Act, an employer with 100 or more full time employees has to give 60 calendar days written notice before a covered plant closing or mass layoff. A mass layoff triggers it when, at a single site in a 30 day period, 50 or more people go and they are at least 33 percent of that site's workforce, or 500 or more go regardless of percentage. Some states are even stricter. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Notice does not just go to the employees. It also goes to the state dislocated worker unit and local officials, and the state filings are public. So for a Q4 action, the math is simple. A layoff effective Dec 31 would have needed federal notice by Nov 1 and New York notice by Oct 2. A layoff effective mid December would have needed notice even earlier. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] That leaves three possibilities. One, the notices are already filed and anyone can check their state WARN list. Two, the dates are actually in the new year, which fits the EMEA timing in the post. Or three, this is not a covered mass layoff under WARN at all, because IBM counts per single site, not company wide, and spreads cuts across sites and dates to stay under the thresholds, or labels enough of them as performance separations. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] India is not covered by US WARN at all, so nothing about India tells you anything about US notice timing. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] So before treating this as a done deal for Q4 in the US, ask where the WARN filing is. If there is no filing and no one has a notice in hand, either the date is later than rumored or the numbers per site are smaller than the headline suggests. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] 15 hours ago by Anonymous [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] | 2 reactions (+1/-1) | Reply [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @es+1m6s995r2 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] +3 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] @b5 probably just marketing. RT has salivated over getting his hands on marketing for years. Hes about to finish it off. But who will be left to punch when sales still cant sell shoes to a shoeless man? Pathetic company trying to cut its way to growth. Will get what it deserves. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] 18 hours ago by Anonymous [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+3/-0) | Reply [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @e8+1m6s995r2 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] +6 [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] IBM's gonna finally get what they deserve: AI copy throughout all assets. Should "enhance" the image of the company and show it's true colors. Management the last 20 years hasn't cared about creative execution despite an early history of breakthrough visual and typographic treatment and moving prose. Today's senior management would never have approved the 8-bar; "We need it BOLD, BIGGER!". Glad to be gone. Sorry for the hard-workin [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] g but always disappointed marketers still trying to fix stupid. [13:10] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Nov 08 [14:36] schestowitz[TR2]
  • [14:36] schestowitz[TR2]
    It's FOSS Hate Chromium? Well, Theres a GNU/Linux Desktop Based on it Now
    [14:36] schestowitz[TR2]
    [14:36] schestowitz[TR2]

    Domicile lets you build your desktop in React and CSS, with Manganese being included as the ready-made tiling option.

    • [14:36] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes-itsfoss.com | Hate Chromium? Well, Theres a Linux Desktop Based on it Now ● Nov 08 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1m6s995r2 [15:30] -TechBytesBot/#techbytes- ( status 403 @ https://www.thelayoff.com/t/1m6s995r2 ) [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] " [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Arvind and Rob remind me of the two characters in the movie D-mb and D-mber. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 32 minutes ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | no reactions | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @hy+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 0 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] @hv when the sress of the job is worse then the stress of not having a job, that's your sign [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 48 minutes ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | no reactions | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @hx+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +5 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] For all of you concerned about an RA, just a word of encouragement...being let go from IBM was the best thing that ever happened to my career. Even when it first happened and I had no job prospects at the time, I felt instant relief. The stress of "what will I do going forward" was far less stress than dealing with the day to day nonsense, all of the useless blue tape that did nothing to actually help us achieve our goals, and all [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] the BS spewing from the mouths of arrogant executives who love the sound of their own voices as they run the company into the ground (looking at you, Arvind, Rob, Kareem, and Adam). IBM is a culture of fear. They use that fear to take as much energy from you as they can until YOU either have enough and walk away, or they decide you're no longer useful. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 1 hour ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 5 reactions (+5/-0) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @hv+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +1 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Nobody is saying IBM cannot do a sub threshold RA. They can, and they do. Keep a site under 50, or under 25 in New York, and there is no filing. That part is right. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] The problem is the word massive. A massive Q4 cut is not 49 people at one site. It is hundreds or thousands, concentrated in sales and marketing hubs, in a few weeks. You cannot spread that across enough sites, with enough managers and HR paperwork, without tripping a site. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Remote work does not fix that either. Under WARN, a home based employee's site is the office they report to, where their work is assigned from. IBM cannot just reassign people on paper after the fact to a different site to dodge the count. That is exactly the kind of thing that gets litigated. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] And the 90 day rule cuts the other way. Layoffs at the same site inside 90 days get added together unless IBM can prove they were separate and unrelated. A November wave plus a December wave at the same site is one layoff for WARN purposes, not two resets. You only get a reset by waiting more than 90 days between waves, which is not a Q4 blitz. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] So yes, IBM can quietly cut dozens at a time and never file. That is a rolling RA, not a massive one. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 12 hours ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+2/-1) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @fp+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +3 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] @ew those WARN numbers are only when they exceeded thresholds - greater than 50 per culling per site. You can get rid of a lot of people every 90 days and never trigger WARN. They only exceed thresholds like that when they get greedy, licking their lips for getting rid of more people. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 13 hours ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+3/-0) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @ff+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +3 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] @es baloney. IBM is a pro at evading WARN. It isn't even that hard. They don't have to report at all if they keep numbers under 50 per site. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] If someone is work at home it may even be easier as they are not associated with a site. They can move those employees around on paper by just claiming that a different site is the one providing guidance; it isn't the closest site. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Spread those sub-50 RAs all around and you can hurt a lot of people. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Layoffs or employment losses occurring over a 30-day period (or combined across a 90-day period) are evaluated together to see if they meet the numerical thresholds for a mass layoff. So they get to reset again in the same calendar year. Not exactly a high bar. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 13 hours ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+3/-0) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @fe+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +1 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] @ev Last IBM filings on record: all 2025. San Jose, CA, 75 workers, Nov 4, 2025; Coppell, TX, 59 workers, July 2, 2025; Winston-Salem, NC, 72 workers, March 25, 2025 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 17 hours ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+2/-1) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @ew+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +3 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] @es there was no warn filings last years layoffs [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 17 hours ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 3 reactions (+3/-0) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @ev+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 0 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Worth a reality check on the timing here. If this is a real US mass layoff in Q4, the WARN notices would already have to exist. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Under the federal WARN Act, an employer with 100 or more full time employees has to give 60 calendar days written notice before a covered plant closing or mass layoff. A mass layoff triggers it when, at a single site in a 30 day period, 50 or more people go and they are at least 33 percent of that site's workforce, or 500 or more go regardless of percentage. Some states are even stricter. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Notice does not just go to the employees. It also goes to the state dislocated worker unit and local officials, and the state filings are public. So for a Q4 action, the math is simple. A layoff effective Dec 31 would have needed federal notice by Nov 1 and New York notice by Oct 2. A layoff effective mid December would have needed notice even earlier. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] That leaves three possibilities. One, the notices are already filed and anyone can check their state WARN list. Two, the dates are actually in the new year, which fits the EMEA timing in the post. Or three, this is not a covered mass layoff under WARN at all, because IBM counts per single site, not company wide, and spreads cuts across sites and dates to stay under the thresholds, or labels enough of them as performance separations. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] India is not covered by US WARN at all, so nothing about India tells you anything about US notice timing. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] So before treating this as a done deal for Q4 in the US, ask where the WARN filing is. If there is no filing and no one has a notice in hand, either the date is later than rumored or the numbers per site are smaller than the headline suggests. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 17 hours ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 2 reactions (+1/-1) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @es+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +4 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] @b5 probably just marketing. RT has salivated over getting his hands on marketing for years. Hes about to finish it off. But who will be left to punch when sales still cant sell shoes to a shoeless man? Pathetic company trying to cut its way to growth. Will get what it deserves. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 20 hours ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 4 reactions (+4/-0) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @e8+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +7 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] IBM's gonna finally get what they deserve: AI copy throughout all assets. Should "enhance" the image of the company and show it's true colors. Management the last 20 years hasn't cared about creative execution despite an early history of breakthrough visual and typographic treatment and moving prose. Today's senior management would never have approved the 8-bar; "We need it BOLD, BIGGER!". Glad to be gone. Sorry for the hard-workin [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] g but always disappointed marketers still trying to fix stupid. [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 23 hours ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 7 reactions (+7/-0) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @dk+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +4 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Can you comment further? Will this impact global [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Sales in TLS? [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] 1 day ago by Anonymous [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] | 4 reactions (+4/-0) | Reply [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] Post ID: @b5+1m6s995r2 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] +7 [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] What about quantum purchase of HRL? Will they get rid of redundancy? [15:30] schestowitz[TR2] " ● Nov 08 [17:09] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has left #techbytes [17:16] *psydruid (~psydruid@jevhxkzmtrbww.irc) has joined #techbytes [17:46] schestowitz[TR2] [17:47:40] (Channel) xxxx: Stick to lower than 5% [17:46] schestowitz[TR2] [17:47:58] (Channel) xxxx: and maybe skip a day occasionally since that will drivew them nuts [17:46] schestowitz[TR2] [17:48:16] (Channel) xxxx: :) [17:46] schestowitz[TR2] [17:48:25] (Channel) xxxx: Interesting [17:46] schestowitz[TR2] [17:48:30] (Channel) xxxx: Don' [17:47] schestowitz[TR2] [17:48:39] (Channel) xxxx: t Don't let them have too much info from the WBer [17:47] schestowitz[TR2] [17:48:56] (Channel) xxxx: It'll be easy to to identify them [17:47] schestowitz[TR2] [17:49:02] (Channel) xxxx: nonetheless [17:47] schestowitz[TR2] [17:49:21] (Channel) xxxx: We need to send you to an OS INT course [17:47] schestowitz[TR2] [17:50:15] (Channel) xxxx: No need to even hint at a soucee [17:47] schestowitz[TR2] [17:50:43] (Channel) xxxx: :( [17:47] schestowitz[TR2] [17:51:00] (Channel) xxxx: No wonder they have sold out [17:47] schestowitz[TR2] [17:52:08] (Channel) xxxx: right [17:47] schestowitz[TR2] [17:52:52] (Channel) xxxx: yes ● Nov 08 [20:33] schestowitz[TR2] "Asahi Linux, which works to enable support for Apple Silicon Macs on Linux, is dropping the MIT license and moving to the GNU GPL. [20:33] schestowitz[TR2] Why? Because, according to their statement, of bad faith actors who exploit open source code by using it in other open source code. [20:33] schestowitz[TR2] We were made aware of multiple attempts to exploit our permissive licensing to hijack our work, with a direct view to replacing the project and aggressively monetising Linux on Apple Silicon. [20:33] schestowitz[TR2] This licensing change (MIT to GPL) is happening immediately following Omarchy adding support for Apple Silicon, building upon the Asahi work with the usage of LLMs. [20:33] schestowitz[TR2] And Asahi does not approve of AI usage. At all. [20:33] schestowitz[TR2] We broadly forbid the use of generative Al, says the Asahi AI policy. A contributor using an LLM may be issued with a first and final warning. A contributor found to have concealed extensive LLM use will be banned immediately." [20:34] schestowitz[TR2] "AI tools were used to steal unreleased code is such a bizarre headline. [20:34] schestowitz[TR2] But this truly is the messaging Im seeing throughout the Leftist Open Source social media today. That Omarchy stole code, from Asahi, which was unreleased. [20:34] schestowitz[TR2] 1) If its open source, and you comply with the license terms, you can do whatever you want with the code. Even if the original copyright holder doesnt like you. [20:34] schestowitz[TR2] 2) If code is available on a public source repository, and the license allows it, you can just copy it. Calling it unreleased, and therefore off limits, is just plain odd. [20:34] schestowitz[TR2] Asahi Linuxs anger at another Open Source project building on Asahis Open Source code is one of the most anti-Open Source things Ive seen in quite some time. ● Nov 08 [21:56] *psydroid2 has quit (Quit: KVIrc 5.2.6 Quasar http://www.kvirc.net/)