926 karma · joined April 8, 2020
Boeing is not going to be disrupted any more than TSMC or ASML will be disrupted. Planes are too complex and too expensive to manufacture correctly.
What? They were warned multiple times of an attack and chose to do nothing.
The problem is that the American hiring culture is uniquely toxic, and this is not at all limited to tech. I read stories of people who are desperately hiring but outsource the application and screening process, only to find the outsourcers put decent candidates in the bin for being from the wrong college, or merely having adjacent (and highly relevant!) experience but not exact experience. In other words, they will only accept a purple squirrel.
I once applied to a maintenance job at a facility where a relative works. No dice. I asked my relative. "Yeah they keep hiring construction contractors who quit immediately because they aren't paying enough, but I already talked to the manager and he would love to have you." Didn't matter, I couldn't get past the gatekeepers in HR. So because the "talent experts" didn't want to hire someone without carpentry experience to change air filters, or pay the carpenters they hired the $20/hour they wanted, they instead hired outside contractors for $150/hour.
In no other country would any of the above be tolerated. Even during the "job boom" of 2021, it was not as easy as it is in Europe to land a medicore position at a mediocre wage. We have a serious cultural issue with hiring and a high degree of arrogance on the part of those doing the hiring. I have no idea how this problem can even be tackled, except if maybe the federal reserve let the economy run hot for several years and forced employers to lower their absurd expectations.
Uber and Lyft decided to leave rather than prove that it's possible for them to pay better wages. They did not say they left because it would be unprofitable, they left because they said it would make rides unaffordable for riders.
> The companies argued that they would be forced to pass the increased cost on to riders, which would result in drivers eventually earning less. In a statement, Lyft called the bill “deeply flawed,” adding, “this ordinance would make rides unaffordable for the majority of Minneapolis residents.”|
(https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/15/technology/uber-lyft-minn...)
The previous discussion title used "Canadian government" to refer to these particular Feds: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39308731
This is Hacker News. World peace and Star Trek-style wealth and post-scarcity could be achieved and we'd still have an overwhelmingly negative Hacker News comment section nitpicking the way peace was achieved, or lamenting that life was better with poverty and the threat of war.
In the age of index funds outperforming hedge funds, the real question is how long they can keep up the grift.
My position doesn't come from resistance to change. It comes from seeing statistics like this: https://nypost.com/2023/06/19/number-of-teens-who-dont-enjoy... and from seeing how social interactions in person have degraded as smartphones became pervasive.
>Banning them from learning the complexities of a new social medium until they’re old enough to get into serious trouble will only hurt your kids.
And yet this is exactly what we do with alcohol. You cannot buy or consume any until the age of 21. Do you think we should simply trust children to self-moderate alcohol consumption?
City planning is one of the most destructive professions in the United States. In terms of death, lost years of life to commuting, health issues, and social ills, it has no peer. We live shorter lives, with more health issues, and are lonelier than our rich peers in other countries because of our centrally-planned built environment. We built cities the same way for thousands of years: for humans on foot; and are only now coming to realize that our great auto-centric suburban experiment was an enormous and historic blunder.
That's one of the main reasons why housing is so expensive in the United States. We paternalistically decide that 760 square feet is the absolute minimum amount of livable space for a one-bedroom apartment, and instead force people who can't afford that much space to split a 1200 square foot apartment with three people.
Adults are more than capable of deciding for themselves how big of an apartment they would like to live in. Banning 60 square meter apartments doesn't help people who can't afford the legal mandated minimum.
So not what most people would consider "affordable". It's "affordable" because it's currently affordable to people making below the area's median income and is deed restricted. It's nearly-market rate housing.
And that's a good thing! We need more housing of all kinds for all people.
>ED1 is not going to end homelessness in LA. (Though some non-profit developers — including the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which spends millions of dollars advocating against housing policies like ED1 — are using the law to build affordable housing for the formerly homeless.)
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is mentioned in a throwaway line, but it's truly one of the most bizarre parts of the housing discourse in California. It's a non-profit organization controlled by Michael Weinstein, who uses the organization as his personal slush fund to sue housing development that would block views from his office and his personal home, and sued to block any development in the city of Los Angeles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Healthcare_Foundation