abhi3

He'll end up paying millions of dollars in damages most likely not covered by insurance and might be subject to criminal charges if the State decides to prosecute

Most likely he didn't expect a lawsuit, stupid nonetheless.

> Nevertheless, the threat of defamation suits can stifle women from coming forward, even if they have legitimate accusations of sexual harassment, she said.

The accused must usually be given the benefit of doubt in cases of anonymous allegations without any corroborating evidence. But cases like these should not be used to cast doubt on the motive/credibility of women brave enough to risk their identity and careers to come out.

It seems to me that the solution is not to ban advertisement but only certain kinds of them such as ones containing strong emotional (Ads guilting people into buying insurance) or aspirational content (won't you look so cool if you lived 'The Marlboro Life')

The thing is if the goal is to create jobs then this policy is counterproductive. It's a great way to ensure that in 20 years time India has no car industry left. When foreign companies have had decades long lead in autonomous tech there's no way Indian companies will be able to compete with them either in foreign or even domestic market when self-driving cars are allowed.

Create a few extra jobs now and destroy an entire industry in the long run. Just like India has a blanket ban on all small drones which just means that whatever innovations come from the drone industry, India will only be its importer.

The sad thing is Nitin Gadkari one of the more sensible ministers and yet this is coming from him.

It would be legal as long as there is no coordination with the campaign but I can imagine enterprise ending class actions against FB by minority shareholders if the Board violated their fiduciary duty to shareholders by involving FB in the campaign.

Also, if it looks likely that Trump is going to lose then the Democratic primary will be super-competitive. Elizebeth Warren and Sanders are going to eat him alive.

Can't do that. Zuck can't use FB resources or any form of support from FB (other than employees who volunteer outside work hours) for a political campaign. If he does he'll have to reimburse the fair value of services received from campaign funds.

I suppose UBI would only be provided to citizens and not immigrants (until they become citizens)

It definitely stacks the odds against you if you are aiming to be part of the top one percent. But if you aiming to be one of the few dozen people as successful as Zuckerberg, then I think your odds are better if you had a tough life vs. a privileged one.

In the pursuit of success like Zuck's sometimes being 'unlucky' can also mean getting lucky.

Being raised in a family that struggles to make ends meet might give one the grit and character one needs to succeed. Not being popular, athletic or good with people might push you into more intellectual pursuits.

> Why didn't the same thing happen in math and engineering fields? Are we really supposed to believe that women entered the medical field in vast numbers because the medical field rapidly became much more welcoming of women?

No. You are supposed to believe that discrimination against women in medical fields was no higher than what existed in society unlike in fields like Finance and Tech where there always was and continue to be a disproportionately higher degree of bias

I laughed a little while reading this comment. Of course the opposition party blames Gulen, they must be relieved that Erdogan blamed it on Gulen and not on secularists like CHP.

1. Don't get purged out of the establishment

2. Let the Islamist factions fight each other!

> If the worry is that future migrants might not pay their way, why not charge them more for visas, or make them pay extra taxes, or restrict their access to welfare benefits?

What do you do when after a couple of years those very same immigrants starting protesting and rioting for civil rights like equal access to welfare benefits, equal taxes, right to vote and attribute racism as a motive for denying it to them rather than the original policy goal of making them pay their way and not overwhelm the locals in elections?

Sounds good, doesn't work.

A world of free movement would be poorer as mass immigration would overwhelm developed societies, increase conflict and eventually lead to even more protectionism than existed before (Brexit).

Rule of law and institutions in developed countries will suffer and mass migration would also destroy the economies of the migrant exporting societies (Puerto Rico).

Mosquito elimination is considered for metropolitan areas where it'd have an insignificant environmental impact rather than as a global extinction.

>Also more related to your comment the "don't watch ISIS videos it gives them power." I think it's misguided. Just out of curiousity I tracked down a couple of them online and it was very thought provoking. It did not make me fear ISIS more, but it did help me understand the situation more. Just not convinced intelligent people should avoid uncensored information collection

I think there has to be a better way to educate oneself/understand the situation than to watch terrorist propaganda. ISIS does not create videos 'to help people understand the situation more' but to radicalize suspectible people into becoming terrorists

For some context: http://www.coindesk.com/30-million-ether-reported-stolen-par...

That's like 30 Million USD at current prices? This is close to the DAO hack in USD value, not another fork now surely?

I see no social benefit that accrues from allowing trading (vs. investing) in the stock market. The usual arguments that traders make in its favor are just a plain attempt at legitimizing their stealing from market participants who are less sophisticated and resourceful.

1) Efficient price discovery - Individual stock prices often move 20,30,50%+ in short periods of time, prices can't be efficient with such high volatility. Trading more likely causes inefficient pricing due to speculations, margin calls, trigger orders.

2) Liquidity - Sure they do increase liquidity in the market but as long as sellers can find buyers I don't see any benefit from increased liquidity other than (3)

3) Bid/ask spread - I'll admit that lower spreads are desirable and traders to play a vital role in keeping it so, but I'll question how important it is for a long term investor if has to cover a spread of an extra 0.1% and then weigh that against the social cost of tens of billions of dollars worth of wealth transfers from retail traders to some HFT shops in New York.

Not an American but reading all the outrage gives me the impression that police in US is just going around seizing a couple of thousand dollars from anyone they can find to fill up their budget and hope no one will go to court because it'd be more expensive for the accused to hire a lawyer. Nevermind that contingency fee arrangments are widespread and that small amounts of cash, even to the extent of a few tens of thousand dollars can easily be proved as legitimate money if one has a job. Not familiar with US civil procedure but it should involve showing your tax returns and asking for a summary judgment, and later a tort lawsuit against the State for all the suffering caused. I would be interested in knowing the median amount seized by police in such cases. Maybe its just a case of politicians one after another not being ideologues about property right but recognizing the merits of adopting a pragmatist approach to augment law enforcement budget by seizing large amounts of obviously ill gotten wealth without having to discharge a high (and expensive) burden of proof in each case. If so, sounds good to me.

I know most commenters are well meaning, but the problem here is not that the owner was stupid enough to be overtly racist.

Top comments on this thread:

> Stupid of the host to act like that

> The host deserves a larger fine for her stupidity alone. She told the women who reserved straight up that she "wouldn't rent to an Asian."

> I think people should be able to discriminate for anything they want when letting others into their home whether it's a business related visit or not.

> I wonder if this whole thing really happened or was completely made up.

In case someone wants to learn more about the work that got him imprisoned but also won him the Nobel Prize, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_08

"Pretty Spot on" is not good enough when your and other users lives are at stake.

In India, you can. Having assets dispropotionate to known sources of income creates a presumption of corruption, plus one can also be charged for tax evasion.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/disproportionate...

Not much demand for URL shorteners pre-twitter.

Sounds good in theory but what you propose gives representation to extremist fringe groups as well who other have to throw their weight around more mainstream candidates in a first past the post system. Imagine both ultra conservative and ultra left having a combined one-third representation.

>Nowadays information is just a Google search away

Knowing what is credible and what is not on the internet is a skill in itself. If you don't have that skill you'd likely be telling people all about how Bush did 9/11 or how hillary killed a DNC employee.

So is my password safe?

Alphabet could complain or there could be a whistleblower