220 karma · joined September 26, 2014
It's all well and good that certain things (quiz) correlate more to performing well in a long-form remote coding task.
But part of the problem of hiring is that these test-style code questions are themselves not necessarily good indicators of future job performance.
The only way to truly analyze whether a given technique is working or not is to follow the candidates through into their jobs and see which ones actually become good long term employees.
The stated rationale is literally "because the public would be against it".
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/opinion/obamas-covert-trad...
I suppose it's to be expected; profits for the next quarter above all other considerations!
Their successors will have to deal with the fallout, not them.
The end of Greater Taylorism is nigh.
How come the minimum wage has been raised many times throughout history, and somehow business keeps trucking along?
Nobody is suggesting raising the minimum wage to $100/hour, that's a false argument.
The market is full of distortions. Indeed the entire creation of the ideology of capitalism was about how best to regulate and harness the powerful market forces.
Just as people can choose who to work for, people can also choose to share information on which employer is a dick.
A while back, Frontline did their own investigation on this very topic, and interviewed multiple underwriters and loan officers who said that the higher ups on Wall Street were literally directing everyone to not abide by their own standards.
You can watch the entire documentary here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/
Lanny Breuer from the DOJ was interviewed in this documentary, and his attempt to explain why the DOJ did not pursue any charges on executives was so laughable, and the evidence presented from Frontline's cursory investigation was so damning, that Mr. Breuer resigned days after the program was aired. After not prosecuting any banking executives, he then of course went on through the revolving door to make $4M/year by taking a position at a corporate law/lobbying firm that defends financial institutions.
This is NOT a "tough case" - the solid evidence is there. This is a case of a captured regulatory system.
Also, to say that ratings agencies simply "fucked up" is disingenuous. They were totally and knowingly complicit as well. The way the system was set up, the more they gave good ratings to crap, the more money they made. That's not just a "fuck up".
To the main point of the rant, aside from the regulatory capture, the difference between teachers and Wall Street is that Wall Street is very good at setting up a system where there's plausible deniability for executives, massive lobbying efforts to garner political influence, and if needed, gigantic legal teams to fight for every inch.
Many places that have very cold winters often also have very warm summers. In which case, do you turn the servers off in the summer?
This makes no sense. Runaway inflation is always a worry in any economy, but "free money" does not cause inflation. The government distributes plenty of "free money" as it is right now, and we're not seeing runaway inflation.
Those who support basic income argue that implementing the policy would more likely lead to the so-called "virtuous cycle" where, because people have money to spend, the economy improves etc. and because you're cutting out the current safety net and bureaucracy that surrounds it, you can afford to give people an income that will provide for their basic survival needs.
I hope when I get this awesome job my employer doesn't mind me keeping all my profiles updated on company hours!
Imagine that, that very same dress is now back in stock. Purchase one today! http://www.romanoriginals.co.uk/
The power of the human species is that we're able to share knowledge. The undisputed best way to learn is through human collaboration. There's a reason why we've designed our education system with teachers/instructors etc. instead of locking students in an empty room with a text book.
The idea that you learn better if you bang your head against a wall for days is just flat out wrong. Perhaps if the person you're learning from is in competition with you, or is a terrible teacher, or doesn't like you, or is in a company culture that is against collaboration, but if you have a competent instructor, learning via collaboration is the undisputed best way to learn. That teacher can (and should) explain to you all the dead-end paths that you would have banged your head against yourself, in a matter of minutes, and you'll get all the same benefits out of it as if you had done it yourself.
A clickbait title in my HN? gasp
The power of markets is awesome! Except when we let it determine wages organically, or when big banks fail - then it's bad!
The idea that we have to construct a society based on idealistic absolutes is nonsense. Some problems are more efficiently solved collectively, others are better solved by the power of the market. Let's harness the power of both.
If the day comes when AI abruptly puts huge percentages of the population out of work and our society faces collapse, one can easily envision a solution that implements structural changes that incorporates both the benefits of market forces and the efficiencies of collective resource pooling.
The government receives less tax revenues because 20% of the population is no longer working (and paying taxes). At some point if enough of the population is no longer contributing, unless there are massive changes in how we manage the economy, the country will become insolvent and won't be able to afford the welfare payments as tax revenue decreases.
You say that "Most people probably shouldn’t go to school" and that "you may just be better off not going to school", but when people call you out on that inane conclusion you tell them you're really just questioning the cost and length. OK, well, make up your mind then.
No doubt the education system should be more attuned to the trends in labor markets, and should be affordable to your average person. That's a far cry from "You probably shouldn't go to school".
Partially it's because that goal is far more difficult and complex than the simple aspirations of Greater Taylorism: to increase shareholder value. It's much easier to increase a stock price than it is to actually provide value for a large number of people, which leads to cases like IBM who spends billions buying back their stock while the actual value of their products declines to near zero.
Next question!