aisengard

I'd personally add one - if you're an early enough employee, you can have a hand in personally shaping the culture of the company around you. I suppose this can fit into "work a certain way".

Nice try, Elon.

The "ethics in game journalism" was basically a weaselword for what they really wanted - women out of gaming. It's a lot like how "economic anxiety" elected Trump - it's a way to excuse people's inexcusable attitudes towards others.

This is not really true. Sales tax is almost always a tack-on. Netflix can very easily advertise the same prices, and then when sales tax gets added on in your credit card statement they can just throw up their hands and say "the government makes us do this!". At least, that's how I'd see it - I'm paying Netflix X, and I'm paying the government Y. In no way does Netflix "eat" this cost.

Could try and pass legislation to force all companies to only ever advertise after-tax prices, but that's a doozy to enforce.

Sales tax is always regressive. The only ones who are paying it is the consumer.

I mean, this is essentially how the House of Representatives works.

You've done this before with friends and family?

Mixing money and family/friends sounds like it will end horribly. What happens when you don't break even and you need to fire people?

In this simulation you have a kid. What roommate is going to be okay rooming with a little kid? Then you have to consider safety concerns. Are you okay with your kid living in the same place as some stranger?

"Just get a roommate" is not always an option. This applies to lots of other "obvious" solutions people like to come up with when it's not them.

> So what you end up with in this demo is a race against unsustainably high costs because you arbitrarily can't remove them.

Actually sounds pretty realistic to me. People tend not to have as much agency as we like to think.

Huh, looks like nothing happened. What do you know? Turns out, white men have always been the most protected class of them all, and any change to that paradigm feels like an assault. The onus is on the formerly-protected class to think outside of themselves.

The expansion of global trade has done more to stop nuclear war than anything else. You don't want to nuke the guy who gives you all your soybeans.

Or maybe because women are the most extreme example? Women are not a minority - they are ~51% of the population. When most of your population is treated like a second-class minority, well, that's kind of a big crisis.

And yes, it helps that women's issues are du jour. A lot of credit goes to a lot of women for their diligence in this matter.

People are so incredibly desperate to attribute things to people who haven't really done anything. I hate Cuomo too, but I'm not going to descend into nonsense peddling in order to fight him. It only serves to undermine any actual effort of resistance to the man.

One big problem is that we've created a culture where there is literally nothing else other than labor and productivity, literally for productivity's sake. So when we run out of meaningful, productive jobs for everyone, people get depressed because we've drilled into their heads that if you're not being productive, you're worthless.

We need to create a society that values happiness over productivity and efficiency. It means not stigmatizing "laziness". It means not punishing doing something for its intellectual sake rather than for profit or productivity.

Basically, we need to start to discard the 20th century models of capitalism and communism and start focusing on what we want the 21st century to be about.

So think of it this way, how would you feel if a socialist government took over and decided that your 401k is fair game for extra taxation? But it's _your_ money, capitalism promised you! "Boohoo", you should have thought of that before entering into a clearly unsustainable pyramid scheme.

Not so useful or interesting in terms of commentary, is it?

Everyone who has to work a day job to pay the bills (and get health insurance) is working class. We have far more in common, financially, with each other than we do with the financially independent.

The true measure of wealth should be, are you financially independent? Meaning, could you never do wage work again in your life and never have to worry about money? By my calculations that would be in the area of a few million dollars, invested in some bonds, living purely off the interest forever.

Someone has to provide necessities to society. In absence of government directly providing it, we force companies to do it. What you want is, essentially, socialism, with a little bit of the market carved out for market capitalism. Sounds good to me!

That's not a good analogy to something like Uber, because there's no profit motive. What you described is essentially a government works program, which is a great idea! But that's not what anyone seems to be talking about.

Actually, the public has been convinced that regulation on ISPs is a good thing, and that repealing that regulation without replacing it with anything is a bad thing. And I think that's a pretty fair thing to think.

Because the "bloated bureaucracy" is providing vital services to its citizenry, boosting the state's economy and underlying workforce, and therefore boosting the taxes they ultimately pay, hence the fact of NY/CA taxpayers paying far more into federal government than they take out. Look no further than Kansas to see what happens to a state when you cut all local taxes, now its citizens are even more reliant on the federal government.

Agreed that private universities should pay better, but like in any capitalist society they will only pay as much as they need to. In this case, and especially in the absence of graduate student unions (which the GOP also seem primed to do away with), not very much.

The GOP plan does away with the student tax deduction, not to simplify matters, but to punish intellectualism since they're not voting GOP anyway. You can tell, because if they actually wanted to help people, there would have to have been long discussions with heads of universities to come up with a plan to not harm grad students. Obviously, that didn't happen.

I'm not sure universities are to blame for fudging things to, say, get better tax treatment. That's just how the laws are set up. The new plan will do nothing but harm universities, their teachers, and their students. Everyone is still completely correct to blame the GOP for screwing them in this instance.

"This was a very futile and stupid gesture on that employee's part."

Doesn't look like it to me. You're talking and thinking about it, aren't you?

Essentially, they are giving people the opportunity to transfer out 55% of their account balances. In exchange, your account is deleted and you waive the right to the remaining 45%.

If you don't cash out, then they are claiming that your account will be transferred to the new site with balances intact, and withdrawals will be available through the new site with the remaining 45% tied up in a "debt token". The rough idea is that these tokens will be able to be redeemed in the future for some amount.

The calculus for account-holders is such:

1) If you choose to withdraw 55% now, that's the maximum you'll ever get (also, no one has even gotten anything back yet as they say it takes up to 72 hours). So you take the 45% haircut as cost of leaving your coins on an exchange instead of in a wallet you control.

2) If you wait, there's no telling what will happen. The happy path is you wait, then cash out your 55%, and then the 45% is eventually paid back to you over time. This path does have precedence. The unhappy paths are plentiful. The site could get shut down again, for good. They could bar you from withdrawing without proper verification. This could mean providing sensitive items such as your passport and address. Not great from an anonymity standpoint. Then who knows what the FBI or IRS would do.

A big difference is that drinking soda has no effect on the person next to you. Another difference is that drinking soda occasionally likely has as much effect on your overall health as occasionally eating ice cream or a candy bar, which is to say, not that much. Another difference is that sugar and caffeine is much less of an addictive substance than nicotine.

To equate ingesting sugar with inhaling (and exhaling) carcinogens is pretty unhelpful.

Of course, there is more of a sliding scale, where a population en masse ingesting way too much sugar combined with a sedentary lifestyle can be a bigger health crisis than cigarettes, but that has much more to do with culture than the actual fact of the food itself.

But he wouldn't have been convicted without that evidence. It doesn't matter if he can't prove his innocence, the job of the prosecutor is to prove guilt.