alexqgb

I ask, because that would be the ethical way to handle what this app is doing for you.

Because I promise you, "government" behaves very differently in these two situations.

That's not a coincidence. It's a direct product of cosmopolitanism. The cities that represent it most clearly are its capitals. Like any working system, it has rules. If you want the benefits, you need to play be the rules. If you don't, you're free to leave. Goodness knows your apartment won't go unfilled for long.

Others, for whom this connection may not be so clear, take a more exploitative view of the public sphere, in which their own role is all take and no give. They may see taxation as forced extraction, but that view is hardly shared by everyone. Moreover, were they allowed to act on this view freely, the public sphere would surely collapse - which a clear majority clearly recognizes.

In this regard, tax law is no different from laws against, say, murder. Most people are internally resistant to the thought of killing others. But the law still exists because "most" isn't "all". In cases of extreme anti-social behavior, the few - if allowed to run riot - really can secure tyrannical domination of the many (classic example: the mob in Sicily).

Using this "on average" bullshit when making adverse reccomendations aimed specifically and directly people who are anything but is an especially nasty sleight-of-hand, and sound reason to disregard the writer's claims of good-faith and benovelence.

Of course, it's possible that Damore is just an brainless idiot who is too intellectually mediocre to check his own work for basic logical consistancy, but he lost the benefit of that particular doubt When putting Harvard and MIT on his CV.

At this level, the rules are different. If, like Damore, you're presenting yourself as one of the best and brightest, you better live up to a very high standard when taking public shots at the standards of others. Otherwise, you could get dumped very unceremoniously.

"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs."

So yeah, it was referenced, specifically, explicitly, and used in direct support of the central argument that the preponderance of men in Google's ranks was biologically determined, meaning a number of Google's D&I initiatives were misguided, at odds with scientific consensus, and should be discontinued.

Since 3 DoF systems are widely-viewed within the industry as being time-limited, most designers with long-range plans for their work will build for 6 DoF first and foremost, and maybe develop a 3 DoF version if the basic concept and funding stream allows.

Being a general authoring tool rather than a specific title, Google's VR Blocks fit squarely (sorry) in the Do 6 DoF First category.

No the answer here is "sorry, but no" to all the people who have decided to block density in central areas in order to keep their own property values astronomically high.

There's no good reason why we should be shipping everyone but the richest workers in their economic prime to painfully remote locals because people in San Francisco's Sunset District are blockading the kinds of buildings that make places like Barcelona, Amsterdam, and Brownstone Brooklyn such attractive places to live.

I wouldn't call your suggestion deliberately cruel since you don't seem to have any idea how socially damaging this kind of isolating displacement can be. But I would say that the forced separation of people from their famalies and communities is a really hideous policy outcome, and one that should be strenuously avoided.

Obviously, if somebody wants to move far away, fine. But forcing them to do so is horribly wrong.

It may turn out that the I and the O are, themselves, fairly complex concepts that are only understood within particular, highly-specialized markets. That's fine. People in those markets can still easily describe and discuss what your product does without anyone from your company being there. And that's the goal.

It's not about what the marketing team says. It's about what's said when the marketing team doesn't even know the conversation is happening.

That's it.

"But...but redistribution!"

Yeah, about that. Unless you've been protesting the massive policy-driven upward redistribution of wealth that's happened over the past three decades, your position probably isn't as principled as you imagine. More on the specifics of how the great grift worked can be found here https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-07/how-middl...

If you think the government we have is a reflection of the popular will, you are deeply mistaken. Indeed, the whole point of gerrymandering, Voter ID, registration purges, and a host of other practices that have flourished in post-VRA era, is to ensure that the will of the majority is not embodied in the government.

We've never had a minority in power that was this formally unopposed, while being this hostile to the popular public interest. As far as the health and even survival of our republic's democracy goes, this is uncharted territory.

Hospitals and pharmaceutical companies then negotiate directly with the state. And as far as what they can be expected to accept without going out of business themselves goes, we can get a pretty good idea from the expenditures of every other OECD country.

The point of controlling costs is to provide incentives for developing drugs that not only work, but that do so at non-ruinous prices.

And yes, you can very easily argue that many other costs don't add value. That's why pointing to the superior overall life-expectancy in other countries is such an important part of the argument. On balance, every other system in the developed world does more, for more, with less. Our system offers bottom-of-the-pile rankings by every major measure.

Finally, "struggling with costs" is a non-starter as far as arguments against single-payer go since what things cost and how you come up with the money are clearly two different things. Saying "country X is having a hard time funding their health care system at 10% of GDP" in no way undermines the case for dumping a system here in the US that costs us closer to 18% of ours.

Seriously, we could make massive improvements to ours simply by picking the name of any other OECD country from a hat, and just implementing their system. Literally anything is better than what we've got here, and it's not even close.