I came across the phrase absent fraud in   I searched for its meaning on Google but didn't find anything.   What does absent fraud mean?     I can’t help but empathize with an employee being fired and will ask multiple questions before any termination. Was there one bad act or a series? Did they have feedback and a chance to change? Was it performance or personality? Absent fraud or transgression, is there a different job in the organization the employee could succeed at? How do we tell them and what, if any, severance is offered? What help can we offer in finding another job more suited to their skills? How can we preserve their dignity?
122685
In the following sentence of today’s Time magazine’s article titled "Obama's Afghanistan problem: Neither Karzai nor the Taliban like the 'Reconciliation' Script," the word absent appears to be used as a preposition having the sense of ‘without.’   “Karzai's independent power base is minimal, as is his ability to influence the outcome of his country's civil war absent direct U.S. involvement. And that gives neither Karzai nor the Taliban much incentive to cut a deal with the other.”  As I don’t think I’ve seen case ‘absent’ being used in this way, I consulted OALD. It defines ‘absent’ only as a noun and verb. The Cambridge online dictionary also defines it as an adjective meaning ‘not in the place where you are expected to be, especially at school or work.’  Is it natural to use ‘absent’ as a preposition as used above? For example, would you casually say ‘It won’t go well absent your help’ in your daily conversation? Is it the same with the usage pattern of ‘short of’?
102425
Since English isn't my first language I think this is the best place to ask this question. I had no luck while looking for an answer on Google.  I'm looking for a word describing a person that thinks they’re the one and only person doing everything (e.g. in a business) while it is not necessary the case.  It could also be a word with a meaning similar to a person claiming all the success of a business but none of the failures.
31248
You are not hired because you are qualified.   I think this means you are hired but it is not because you are qualified. But I think this can  also means you are not hired, and the reason for it is that you are qualified.   Does this ambiguity really exist or do I mistake anything?
17153
Some one who is not good at keeping secrets. In my native language it is called "chugalkhor" but it's a slang. So I can't translate it.  What do you call such a person who can't keep secrets because his instincts don't let him.
32291
I came across this sentence:     Cummings Motors, Smith Electric nor our subcontractors can be held liable.   Is this a proper use of the word nor?  I can understand     Neither Cummings Motors nor Smith Electric nor our subcontractors can be held liable.   But nor without neither? What about neither, nor, nor? Is one nor sufficient?
87411
I read it in an article and I don't understand the meaning of it. "not without some merit". From the context I guess the meaning is: there is some sense in it. However I don't find in the dictionary (vocabulary.com or thefreedictionary.com) an explanation that apt my understanding.  Nor I've found an expression with "merit" that can explain it.  The article is here:
104831
I know that verification is QC (focused on products) but what about validation? I would say its QC too, as it does aim on the product workings, yet no source mentiones that. I am trying to understand, in QA/QC, where these activities belong to.
86711
I spoke to a woman who had several issues dealing with a common process we go through at work. I gave her several solutions to her issues and even explained that one of her main issues was not really even an issue, just something she wasn't understanding fully and actually had the power to manage and maintain. She fought me throughout our conversation and kept repeating that she was having these issues, even as I tried to reinforce that these were solvable and manageable problems. After it was completely clear that everything had been explained and taken care of, she was obviously hesitant to accept that things were actually okay and seemed to want to not be okay with everything, just sighing and repeating, "Well... okay. But.... okay."  It was like she just wanted to be mad, perhaps because she was just foul-tempered, but also like she did not want to let go of the problem. I talk to these people every now and then who just seem unable to let go of that pessimistic mindset and want there to be a problem. Is there a word for this kind of person or a suitable adjective? The words I've come up with that touch on what I'm thinking of are argumentative, irrational, disagreeable, and dramatic, but none of these fully encapsulate that certain quality of just seeming to NEED there to be a problem.
101187
This question is in response to . The original post mentioned that they wish to retract their paper from a "fake" journal. I don't know what a fake journal is but better safe than sorry so I want to make sure what defines a fake journal. In the comments, other people also mentioned "shady" journals and "predatory" journals. This is the first time I encounter these descriptions so I would like to know more about what they entail. I would be interested in hearing about your experience with such journals as well, if any.
41240
I'd like to know whether the question in DS-160 form implies other country refusals as well? In 2009, I was refused and banned by UK for future applications for 10 years since they did not find my language requirement document genuine.   I have been currently working for a global company and thus need to travel to US with B1/B2 visa; however, I do not actually know what to answer for below question:  "Have you ever sought to obtain or assist others to obtain a visa, entry into the United States, or any other United States immigration benefit by fraud or willful misrepresentation or other unlawful means?"  Does that question related with my current situation? I sought advice from my company's own visa department, and they told me that related question is only for United States applications and thus need be answered as "No".   I would gladly answer “Yes” and explain my situation rather than misrepresent myself, but would like to get your advice about the situation as well as I am not comfortable giving unnecessary details if it is not mandatory.   Regards,  Update: As of 2019, I succesfully been granted a visa to US for my business travel. Answered the question "No" like suggested here if anyone's wondering. Please note that application been done after my ban for UK expired, though I am not sure if it is effected anything at all.
33230
I reviewed  in the First Posts queue.  Which said      i changed it to 'localsystem' and done. thanks much   So it obviously was a potential low quality post. But sometimes such answers can be spot on, so I checked it out, better safe than sorry. I turned out the post had been deleted. Great! So I clicked "No action needed". Then I got this:    You can imagine I felt "wrongfully accused".  I think that deleted posts should not be used for review audits, because the meaning of "No action needed" is not clear in this context.
118398
As I tried to research and ponder , I couldn't help but wonder:   How many steps (i.e., persons) removed does one need to be from a source of material/non-public information regarding a company to avoid accusations of ?   For example, if the CEO tells a trader that tells his brother who tells his barber who tells his son who tells his wife who invests in the company, is the last person guilty of anything illegal?   Or, is there no degree of separation that makes having the information legal?    In other words, is it always illegal as long as a court can prove the flow of insider information? Does the final person's intent and/or ignorance that the information they received is material/non-public factor into the legality of any trades made following receipt of insider info?
103314
Looking for some powerful, formal words with a slight negative connotation for a resume/performance assessment. The general context pertains to computer software development.  These aren't my problem areas, they are areas that were problems in someone else's work that I have identified (thus saving the day).  Here's the actual context:     Regularly conducted memory audits to identify problem areas
77097
I know the question a bit vague but that's the only plausible inquiry I could come up with. I wanted to what word can be used if someone is disappointed and they are surprised as to the fact that to start with they never thought the subject matter or the person which disappointed them would have such an effect on them.
29705
Questions   What certifications do you have? Has your certification (or lack of one) ever worked for or against you?   Do you intend to reach out for certification? Do you renew your certifications? If so, does your employer actively support the renewal?
106494
Context:  I'm modeling for a lending company and I'm modeling our loan approval process. I have some basic dimensions relative to our business figured out:   Time(day)    Account    Opportunity    Channel   And I and getting to the modeling of fact table(s) around the loan approval and credit decisioning process. An opportunity will get one or more "Credit Reviews" which have a series of steps they go through before arriving at a "Credit Decision". My instinct is to model the fact grain at the credit review step level or maybe the credit review level (or have one fact for each grain).  I'm working with some analysts who are used to using a “canned report”, one flattened table extracted from the source system that is at the opportunity level, and finds a "best credit review", and do a lot of their reporting from that.   I'm trying to explain my credit approval fact and how it would work and they think it's "overly complicated" and seem to want a fact table that is one-to-one with the opportunity, which is a dimension. And contains information on only the "best" credit review. In my mind that seems odd. I haven't run across a fact table that is at the same granularity (one-to-one) with a dimension. Have you ever heard of this? It feels like they are just trying to reproduce what they are used to, a non-dimensionally modeled data mart table at the opportunity level.   I'm trying to explain the utility of having a fact table that is at a higher granularity than they are used to in order to support many questions about the data rather than one, but I seem to be running into a wall getting this concept across. I’m not sure who is right here.  My question is this: Is it every appropriate, say in this situation, to model a fact that has the same cardinality as a dimension (one-to-one) with a core dimension? What would you recommend for this situation?
55781
I'd be greatly appreciative of a cleverly devised idiom/phrase that depicts the following concept:     Results without work/effort.   ...and/or...     My Work/Effort; Your Result.   Any idioms/phrases you can recount or conceive would be of use.    Contextual Edit:  The idiom/phrase should be in the context of service offering/hiring or task delegation, not free-loading as most answers thus far have understandably assumed. E.g.     [You hire me for] My Work/Effort; [My work/effort produces] Your   Result.