Clanan

I'm not entirely sure what you're responding to. Your parent comment compared tolerance vs. acceptance, which is somewhat orthogonal to the various topics you mention here (most of which support either approach). The derision of tolerance, which itself is a cornerstone of many societies, requires strong evidence.

In any case, I'm guessing I misread your original intent.

> "kill all men"

> no actual ill will was intended

Pick one.

> Acceptance comes through dialogue, and mutual understanding.

Do you have any actual empirical evidence or research for this? This reads like window-dressing for thought-police. "You don't accept our views? Sounds like you need more dialogue (re-education)."

In a business setting at least, tolerance allows individuals with different beliefs and motivations to work toward shared goals.

I think your first reason is, itself, a controversial approach and might actually justify the no-politics idea. It's all fun and games when we integrate ourselves into a company past the "business-only" level. Until we get fired/leave and end up losing our company-provided social network, friends and meals. Maybe the presence of politics in non-work activities is simply more evidence that employers should avoid socializing their workplaces beyond what's required for business.

As for the second reason, I think it comes down to professionalism. We can politicize anything if we try hard enough. But if our employer says "no politics, just get the work done", then both sides must adhere to whatever policies are provided, within the law. Don't like the bathroom rules or workplace guidance? Work somewhere else.

How obvious is the data recording on a Tesla? There's always a chance an inattentive driver will blame the smart car.

... Until they did? Your comment is true of all bills and all proposals. "Party X was free to vote on it, they chose not to. Until they chose to." Furthermore, the minority had promised to veto all funding unless DACA was included, at all times. Regardless, the above comment was simply pointing out the difference in terms of magnitude.

44 D vs. ~3 R and 8 comments vs. 1. If anything I was generous!

In comparative terms it's minor: 35 million enrolled in CHIP [0] (shutdown) vs. 3.5 million DACA. Hopefully all would agree that neither is minor from a moral standpoint.

[0] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...

Sure, blame them too. If a bill fails, blame everyone who voted against it. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Of course, then you have a situation where politicians (on both sides) will grandstand if the outcome is already decided. For example, if a CR is guaranteed to fail, a moderate Republican will vote against it to appease his base. But if his was the deciding vote, he would vote to pass it to appease his party. Politics...

You're projecting your politics onto the events. The CR already contained CHIP, and the majority already promised a debate on DACA/immigration back in December. The Democrat leadership promised a shutdown if DACA was not added to the budget/CR. They shutdown, but then reversed almost immediately without DACA being added. No idea how that can be labeled a "solid democrat win" without some severe rationalization.

> Thus, any government shutdown is arguably 100% on them.

Under this logic, all outcomes can be blamed on the majority party in all situations, because tool X was used on Y instead of Z. In a theoretical situation where a supermajority vote fails 59-41, isn't it more logical to blame the failure on the 41 opponents rather than the 59 proponents?

I'm particularly susceptible to writing crap commit messages so I really appreciate this article. I've found it very helpful to focus on smaller commits in addition to well-thought messages. Few things are more frustrating than trying to locate a particular change via a commit log and not finding it because I was lazy.

Citations are far more helpful than ranting. If you want a productive conversation, you should provide some. Democratic leaders have made the current budget/CR about DACA, which was not relevant to it. (Ironic because they're in favor of everything in the CR, but they voted against it anyway!) Here's House minority leader Pelosi promising to block any funding that does not include DACA [0]. Yes, the Trump admin could have avoided the shutdown by giving in to minority demands, but that doesn't mean they're at fault, logically.

As for opinions, my political golden rule is "never trust a politician". We're veering far off-topic, though.

Edit: as further evidence of the cause of the shutdown, Senate Minority Leader Schumer just caved. The shutdown was a political gamble for both sides; I'm assuming internal Democrat polling found that they were receiving the most blame. Continuing the disruption would be disastrous. (Obvious, considering they effectively blocked the CHIP children's health insurance.)

[0] http://thehill.com/homenews/house/363778-pelosi-were-not-lea...

FYI this is a great neutral explanation up until the last paragraph, which is politically charged. This attempts to imply the Republican party sought the shutdown. In fact, the shutdown was caused by the Democratic party not voting for the Continuing Resolution (pseudo-budget). 60 Senate votes are required, but the majority party (Republicans) only has 51. It's a big slimy ball of politics all-around.

Also, more on point, many government entities have "carry-forward" funds which are available during a shutdown. In 2013 the Executive Branch (Democrat president) discouraged the use of these funds. The current admin is encouraging their use to ensure as little disruption as possible.

Walmart said it's raising it's minimum wage in addition to bonuses. And there are 163 other companies giving bonuses. But sure, it would be nice for the employees if Walmart gave more of that savings to them.

> $20/paycheck. It is laughable

And we tech people wonder why so much of the country scoffs at our echo chamber. Maybe you've never been on the lower rung of income, but an extra $40/month can be a big deal to a lot of people. Typical median household income in 2017 was $59k, so a 2% increase is meaningful.

But don't let me get in the way of your political narrative.

$1,000 is not laughable to most people.

> The whole thing sounded absurd from the beginning. Do Asians even suffer discrimination in the United States? Honestly, the only organizations I know of actively discriminating against Asians, are Ivy League Universities.

That's... sort of a huge amount of discrimination.

That's a whole lot of stretching to justify the communist approach. Are you really arguing that a dishwasher is worth just as much as a server? I don't think any businessperson will agree with you.

You might be more successful by just arguing that value shouldn't be tied to wages (which is what your quote is really pushing.)

I was actually referring to the ProPublica article linked in the parent comment of mine. I believe it's much longer than yours so I was surprised it skipped such an alarming fact. I can certainly appreciate the tradeoffs of what to mention in only 2,000 words!

There are already unfunded pension plans and systems waiting to blow up in the next decade. This article [0] details the South Carolina government pension plan, covering 550,000 residents, which is currently $24 billion in the red.

Your response is engaging in "political crap" by providing no evidence besides name-calling. For some actual proof of the Social Security situation, here's the SSA report [1] explaining how its Trust Fund will run out in 2035. So yes, Social Security will still exist, but it will rely on short-term funding rather than a big account. That's fine in theory, provided the budget is there. (It likely will be; I imagine the politicians will cut military funding before they hurt SS!)

[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/collapsing-pensions-will-f...

[1] https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

Sure, tons. A simple Google search turns up reams of sources (and articles about sources). A few random readings show studies on single-mother families having highest rates of poverty, increased rates of smoking, lower health, etc.

That was a fascinating, and heartbreaking, read. The statistics are astounding. I'm disappointed though that the author completely omitted any discussion of single-parent families. 66% of black families are single-parent vs. only 25% of white families. I would think that would have a huge impact on well-being and health of the mother, in general. Even just in terms of making time for doctor's visits, etc.

Concrete proof has not emerged. Right now it's at the "numerous senior sources say..." level of reporting. The full answer is now known by Congresspeople but it's classified [0]. We'll see if it gets leaked. It's not proven but I certainly wouldn't say zero evidence; reports at this "truth level" happen all the time, and are widely circulated and trusted.

Circumstantially, I think strong evidence that this happened is the Trump team's behavior after he was briefed by the NSA director, Admiral Rogers. The day after their confidential meeting, all relevant activities were immediately moved out of Trump Tower.

Anyway, this is off-topic and is a testy topic as it is so I apologize for the tangent. On topic I agree it shouldn't be possible for anyone to do this, no matter their politics.

[0] http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-yes-congress-ha...

There's now substantial evidence that this is exactly what happened with the Obama administration and Trump's campaign. The former used an unverified dossier as an excuse to begin surveillance via FISA. So this isn't even a theoretical issue.

Before anyone grabs a pitchfork, focus on the issue at hand and not the current politics. Doesn't matter who's in the White House - friend or foe, would you want them to have this power?

Looks like the numbers are around 70/10,000 vs 50/10,000? I'm assuming they used the percentage for the clicks.

It doesn't look like the author accounted for reporting differences, which can have a huge impact. For example, U.S. babies born significantly pre-term (e.g. 20 weeks) who do not survive are counted as infant deaths, whereas in most other countries they're counted as stillbirths and don't affect infant mortality stats. Also the US has higher rates of infertility treatment-related deaths because such treatments result in twins and triplets with lower rates of survival.

Beam me up xrb_11wod9ygmnqr4jw4kefp3n3rij8nm34d7cpkwr8u3dz84k7qe4cg4r8kugn1

I believe the new tax bill excludes architecture and engineering from that list. In other words, they would get the deduction.

Is this the same department that requires the carcinogen label on every product under the sun? I'm probably being pithy, but that alone pushes me to ignore their recommendations. Never mind the dodgy physics...

I'm not very familiar with their history, honestly. But aren't you excluding two very good examples? Abstractly, I consider their effectiveness as separate from whether this should be under their purview. If they're ineffective, they should be fixed instead of having other agencies subsume their responsibilities.

Here are the salient quotes from the repeal which, I think, indicate the tech reaction to it might be overblown and might be "encouraged" by big tech players who aren't doing this for altruistic reasons. The key here is that the repeal allows the FTC to regulate things, and it's better at breaking monopolistic practices. (I'm still not sold on the argument that this will push innovation, though.)

> 500-504 The FTC’s unfair-and-deceptive-practices authority “prohibits companies from selling consumers one product or service but providing them something different,” which makes voluntary commitments enforceable. The FTC also requires the “disclos[ur]e [of] material information if not disclosing it would mislead the consumer,” so if an ISP “failed to disclose blocking, throttling, or other practices that would matter to a reasonable consumer, the FTC’s deception authority would apply.”

> 507-508 Many of the largest ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc.) have committed in this proceeding not to block or throttle legal content. These commitments can be enforced by the FTC under Section 5, protecting consumers without imposing public-utility regulation on ISPs.

> Invokes Sherman Antitrust acts

FCC also reserves the right to return to Title II classification, which AT&T tried to block in this:

> 176. We also reject AT&T’s assertion that the Commission should conditionally forbear from all Title II regulations as a preventive measure to address the contingency that a future Commission might seek to reinstate the Title II Order.647 Although AT&T explains that “conditional forbearance would provide an extra level of insurance against the contingency that a future, politically motivated Commission might try to reinstate a ‘common carrier’ classification [2015 Net Neutrality Regulations],”648 we see no need to address the complicated question of prophylactic forbearance and find such extraordinary measures [are] unnecessary.

Edit: the vote also keeps the government from classifying the internet as a public utility. I think that's a good thing because the govt could otherwise step in and "regulate" content it doesn't agree with.