Archio

Whether its 5th, 8th, or 1st; saying you can't compare US benefits to that of a "wealthy" European country is ridiculous. America IS a wealthy country.

>You conveniently chose one of the wealthiest countries

Did you know that the United States is the wealthiest country in the world?

Genuine question. If you found out that your water utility was servicing an Islamist group’s house, would you cancel your service because you don’t want to do business with them?

Many poker sites make bank with HTML5 clients :)

One of my favorite quotes of all time is about introverts experiencing fame, from the Rush song Limelight:

  Living in a fish eye lens
  Caught in the camera eye
  I have no heart to lie
  I can't pretend a stranger
  Is a long-awaited friend

>The reward is that the product exists at all.

Why do VCs get any return from startups? Isn't the reward that the startup exists at all?

Better yet, why does Gilead get to write a press release explaining the reason they're asking $3k per person for the drug is so they can "invest in scientific innovation that might help generations to come"? Isn't the reward the money they initially got from the government?

I am getting pretty sick and tired of public money getting used – and rightly so – to fund innovate medical research, and then any and all benefits or profits from the results of that resesarch being privatized.

>How is that different from servers in a restaurant?

I fail to see how that is relevant. I think the closest comparison to DoorDash is ordering delivery from an Italian restaurant – not driving to the restaurant, sitting down at a table and getting table service. And yes, I think many people are aware that it is common for kitchen staff to pool tips at a restaurant, in the same way that they know the same process doesn't exist for delivery drivers.

>would you be upset if Domino's gave an earnings guarantee to their drivers?

I would have no problem with that, but if they have a button on their app that says "tip your driver" it had better all go to the driver.

It blows my mind how many people don't understand why what DoorDash did was bad.

The comparison to DoorDash isn't table service in a restaurant, it's ordering food for delivery to your house and then giving cash to the driver. Where does that cash go? The driver's pocket. That process & the cultural understanding of it has literally been around as long as the concept of tipping.

Here's the real question that answers why people are "upset". If you did a poll of 100 people ordering on DoorDash, and asked them "when you tip on your order, where does the money go", what do you think people would say? 99/100 of them would ABSOLUTELY say "to the driver" and that is everything that is wrong with what DoorDash did. I struggle to engage sincerely in argument with anyone claiming otherwise.

I actually just tried this out- you need to change the region to China Mainland actually, not the language.

I agree that the comparison to Hitler is a non sequitur.

However, as a citizen in a democracy, I am pretty sure the writer of that posts intends it to be a criticism of an authoritarian dictatorship and not China's people or people of Chinese descent.

>That basic logic doesn’t change as the marginal cost goes to zero.

Actually, I think it does change precisely when it reaches zero. It's only because of the marketing language of the industry that we are enticed to believe that something that can be copied billions and trillions of times at no cost is some kind of valuable finite artifact.

>no facility wants to be stuck with a male Medicaid patient

I'm curious, can you elaborate as to why that is?

I experienced this myself as a dual citizen that considered working in Canada. I received an offer in the US that was $60k higher than offers I received from Canadian startups.

Does anyone know what factors (cultural, political or other) contribute to Canadian companies paying so much less than the American ones? You'd think competitive businesses would notice this affect and adjust?

Trailer Park Boys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyTf7y3ityk

There's also the confusion between "passengers" vs "crew" vs "children" or "babies". Souls conveniently includes all of those groups and excludes irrelevant factors like dead bodies.

I'm not sure how you interpreted anxiety on my part here?

The slogan does not make me anxious. I know what it "really" means, and as I stated previously I am 100% in support of that message. I am frustrated because I believe there are better ways to communicate it to people in a way that is generally more persuasive.

I don't think it "hypothetically" harms the cause, I believe that it does. I only need speak to my more traditional extended family members, who will read slogans like this and react in a negative way, even though I know they could be convinced otherwise. Does it suck that they can't "read behind the lines" with slogans like this? Yeah. But public messaging is hard, and just amplifying existing messages won't solve that problem.

Lastly, "I'm not sure that it's possible to come up with a slogan that isn't read badly by opponents" seems like kind of a cop-out. Of course it's impossible to say something someone will take issue with. Communicating messages isn't an all-or-nothing game, what I am saying is I think people need to do a better job changing minds than they are now.

>If you choose to read it as "the future is only female" you can do that, but I'm fairly certain that's not how it's meant to be read.

But there are many well-intentioned people that WILL read it as that. And with this I fault the the writer and not the reader.

I think this is one of the biggest problems modern liberal movements have with messaging. And I say this as someone who 100% is in support of "the future is more female than the past, which was predominantly male" and "black lives matter".

I don't think the issue is in the nature of brevity in communication. When these movements create their slogans, their number one goal seems to be motivating and incensing the base of people that already agree with them. It seems that the question is never asked: "how will this messaging come across to people who don't already agree with us?" - let alone, "how can we convince those people to acclimate to our viewpoint?" A shirt that says "the future is only female" seems likely to increase vitriol by pushing away and shutting down well-meaning disaffecteds that might otherwise be convinced of the liberal cause.

So why do young men study CS in college if programmers aren't glorified? Not to mention that being a "nerd" and "computer whiz" has never been a culturally attractive label, no matter what people might say today.

Here's what I don't understand. Traditionally male-dominated fields rife with harassment issues - like law and medicine - now have much less of a problem, because the gender ratio has been somewhat normalized. Tech companies are actually becoming MORE male dominated - yet medicine and law would be put to shame by the sheer amount of mental and financial resources that tech companies pour into diversity efforts nowadays.

What is different about the tech industry that girls graduating high school are happy to go into studying medicine or law, but don't want to study computer science? It seems the problem starts far before most people think that it does.

Explain why making organ donation after death an opt-out process would have any negative tradeoffs, let alone a net negative effect.

I can't recommend enough the first app I install on any new Mac, ShiftIt: https://github.com/fikovnik/ShiftIt

- It's open source + free - Once you install it and learn the keyboard shortcuts you basically can forget it's there because it stays out of your way

What is the point of this comment?

I initially misread "company" as "country" - and in that interpretation I wholeheartedly agree.

You say that criticism can be destructive and constructive, which is true. Ridicule, defined as "[applying] contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior" can swiftly and temptingly become "deconstructive criticism". Or, "criticism that I find humiliating because I don't like it".

Does most ridiculing, aside from satire, have a benefit? Probably not. But it would be a mistake to make any speech without benefit illegal, especially since it is just so easy for anyone in power to conveniently select people for jailtime when legislation uses such broad words as "ridicule".

Replace "ridiculing" with "criticizing" in your third sentence. The statement is also equally true - criticism of a world leader from within their own country certainly doesn't add strength to the public perception of a nation.

But do you see how dangerous that would be to make illegal, and how it applies to "ridiculing" as well?

Is this satire itself?

>Freedom of expression should end when the right of others to be respected starts.

"Be respected" is such a vague catch-all term to incorporate into legislation. What happens when some action you take is deemed "disrespectful" towards a political figure or other person?

>Certainly in the US when I was living there it was not ok to insult the President

This makes zero sense, unless you lived in extraordinarily isolating circumstances. Americans can, do, always have "insulted" the president, whether in discussion or blogs or opinion pieces or graphics, all the freaking time.

>Probably this has changed with Trump and the WaPo, NewYorkTimes, The Economist and BBC all day trying to shoot him down.

You are woefully misinformed. Plenty of liberals "insulted" George W. Bush during the 2000-2008 tenure, and plenty of conservatives "insulted" Barack Obama during his. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous.

Do Americans disagree? Of course. Do we fight about stuff? All the time. Do we insult each other and write long prose about how the other guy has got it all wrong? Every day. And sometimes it sucks. But the freedom to do all that is what matters.

I don't see the big deal. I'm all for it. I know plenty of countries where unnecessary protesting and unfounded attempts at publicity are illegal. Criticizing the government is pretty much fake news. Everybody hates protestors.

Canadian-American here who was eager about the possibility of working in a Greater Toronto Area company. At one startup I was offered the equivalent of $35k USD per year.

I currently work at a startup in SF making almost three times that amount.

Are you being sarcastic? I repeated multiple times in my analysis that I think there most definitely is a problem with the tech industry, and I don't believe the answer is "women just don't like computers".

I think the question I'm positing here is very reasonable, given how other fields have been able to improve their situations dramatically. I don't know the answer to my question, that's why I asked it.

This incident looks horrible, and it's sad how terrifically disrespectful the administrative assistant was towards the department head.

Events like this often serve (understandably) as explanations for why the tech industry's gender ratio is so heavily skewed. The data, while empirical, seems to be there as well:

>Kieran Snyder interviewed over 700 women who left the tech industry. Almost all of them said that they enjoyed the work itself. It was the work environment that drove them out. And six out of seven have no plans to return.

There's one thing I am genuinely confused by though. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why a woman might want to leave an industry after being treated this way. However, _why is it_ that the tech industry _specifically_ has not evolved like other high paying, high knowledge, and high value fields (principally: medicine and law)?

Medicine and law were both fields traditionally dominated by old white men, that's a simple fact. Another fact is that gender discrimination, harassment, and all of the issues attributed to the tech industry today were also rampant in medicine and law while the gender ratio was so skewed. Yet for some reason, these fields were able to move towards parity, and the gender issues they experience now are a shadow of what they were previously. By gender, roughly equal numbers of women enter medicine as men, for example [0]. If I were to walk into the office of a doctor or lawyer today, I honestly would not be surprised to see a man or woman of any race/background.

What is it about technology, or the tech industry, that is not like medicine or law? While incidents of harassment and discrimination are terrible and deserve the strongest condemnation, I don't think they are the answer for our gender ratio problem. Why is it that while women outnumber men (a lead which grows every year) in graduation rates from colleges, the ratio of CS students in those same colleges is extraordinarily skewed towards men?

[0] http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-graduate...

What point are you intending to communicate here?

That there is a stereotype that people interested in software engineering are "nerds" who are losers and picked on in school? That the stereotype is accurate, and "yet again" software engineers bully other people because they were bullied?