fsaneq2

It's funny seeing all these people vehemently defend their $15/mo. In the bay area, where this launched, that's like what, two beers at a bar?

I don't get the money argument at all. Negotiate yourself a $15/month raise, if you feel that bad about it. And yes, no shit, in some places in the world (like back home for me) this won't make sense -- so what?

The one thing I'd want to have is some kind of ceiling on the gas price. I checked this morning and the prices seemed quite good, but what guarantee do I have that they won't randomly jack up the price when I'm not looking?

Lolwut, what kind of cars do you drive that them lasting 70k is incredible?

> "It's hard to challenge yourself and others to go beneath the surface, but the rewards are great."

The author of the post seems entirely reasonable and I'd love to have a discussion with him about this type of stuff.

The problem, at least for me, is that it's difficult to tell upfront who's reasonable and who is not. What I mean by reasonable is someone who will put forward an honest effort to have a discussion, as opposed to deliberately trying to insult the other party (like the CEO from the article), or deliberately trying look for unintended missteps and immediately paint the opponent as some kind of racist monster (like some POC).

I used to be quite honest about these things; now with more experience I think I am less so.

This seems really sad, and like a step backwards, but I don't really see how to solve it without somehow being able to guarantee the other party will cooperate. Of course, if it is your wife, I'm sure you trust her a lot and she trusts you as well, which facilitates the discussion. However, realistically the vast majority of these discussions will be between people who not only don't trust each other as much, but they might even see each other as foes/adversaries.

In that scenario, I'm not sure it's a good idea to "challenge yourself [...] to go beneath the surface".

I don't think that's what he's trying to say. He's probably referring to the fact that unless you're black/poc/whatever you're not allowed to have an opinion; it's the blacks/pocs/whatevers that are making him shut up, not the other way around.

Out of curiosity, is there a way for a non-citizen to vote?

I see the logic of requiring you to be a citizen, but it does nevertheless feel a little unfair -- I live here too, and I pay my taxes like everyone else.

Awesome, is there any data like this for SF / bay area?

I'm pretty sure she was just being sarcastic...

Yeah, back when I got the ticket I was really angry (can you tell from my comments on this topic? :P) and considered doing this.

The problem is that regardless of how angry petty bullshit injustices like this make me, it is simply not worth my time to go fight a parking ticket (it was like $100 or something) in person. Same thing for hiring a lawyer -- it's cheaper to just pay. Plus, I imagine they have the final word anyway and I'm quite disillusioned with the fairness of their whole "trial" thing.

I suspect this is the case for many/most people who get these tickets, and probably a large part of the reason that they can get away with it. It's disgusting but true, and besides someone exposing the scam with data like this, I'm not sure what else I could've done.

Heh, please, don't defend these POS. They're cheating and they know it.

I got a ticket for the car being "double parked"; I sent a picture of how it was parked (right next to the curb in a legal spot). It was a rainy day, so you could even see that the car must've been in that spot for a while -- it's not like I moved it there to take a picture.

Later, I got a prewritten appeal denied notice -- it wasn't even specific to double parking, and mentioned none of the evidence I sent.

I also have several friends with similar experiences.

So, please, let's fire them, instead of making improbable excuses.

We need this in SF. SFMTA ticketed my car for no reason before; I tried their "appeal" process, only to get a response that sounded like they didn't even read what I said.

I would imagine it's partly an emotional thing; it's hard to blame the pilot or think that the pilot was negligent, when clearly any error he makes can be fatal to him as well as the passengers.

Whereas if a doctor makes a mistake, nothing really happens to him. Thus it's easier to imagine he's just being negligent / doesn't care, which generates more anger than an honest mistake.

So what? I'm sure they could replace them if they felt like it was worth it. Clearly they don't.

We are talking about universities here, presumably, since the title is "college sex-assault trials belong in court". So, dismissing them as an "exception" is neither helpful nor relevant.

I have no idea about how fair the system is out of college. My point was about how unfair it is _in_ college.

> "When advocating for rape victims, who are severely disadvantaged in these situations"

Curious if you have a way to back up the claim the accusers are severely disadvantaged? Based on how it is at Stanford and many universities in the US, the system is certainly stacked in the accuser's favor. See, for example: https://www.thefire.org/stanford-trains-student-jurors-that-.... This leads to terrible mistakes, Joe Lonsdale comes to mind (it was since reversed, but the damage is likely done by then).

Edit: to downvoters, care to explain why..?

It was set up there precisely because there was a lot of water available... it used to be an oasis.

Las Vegas is probably way better at water management than say the Bay Area, which most people don't criticize for this, even though we ship water from a billion miles away (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy).

To say that it is a "bit slower" than an Aventador is very misleading. In a 0-60 straight line drag race, maybe. But that's not particularly hard to do (that's why Mustangs are cheap), and also not the point of any serious supercar.

From the video linked, it sounds like they can (legally) switch bikes during the race, so they could just switch back to a legit bike close to the finish.

It's an interesting article, but how exactly is "skill" measured for things like [1]? I couldn't find a description of this in the article or the linked paper (that I skimmed).

Furthermore, how does this account for personal preference for less dangerous jobs for example? I'd much rather be a waiter than a coal miner, even though you could say both require the same/no skill.

Pay is only one of many different aspects of compensation (a more dangerous/stressful job will likely pay more even if it requires the same skill; many teaching jobs have a lot of vacation which you might value more than a pay increase, and so on).

[1]: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Blogs/social-mobility-memos...

Oh, yes of course. I meant to say that I came to this conclusion for the super cheap pools which this question was about (Lyft had (has?) $5 rides in SF, Uber had something similar).

When I talked to drivers, I came to the conclusion that the drivers are paid more than the passengers are charged, which makes sense. Uber makes huge losses every year.

The hope is that this can last long enough before the drivers can all be fired and replaced with automated cars, or at least that the system will get better (i.e. better at stuffing cars full of people, more demand by training people to order the carpools, etc.).

> If you own a gun you are statistically more likely to get shot or killed.

Or is it that if you have reason to believe you might get shot or killed, you are more likely to buy a gun?

I don't have an account, but I just made one because I'm genuinely curious about whether you have a good source for this claim. The usual study referenced for this is deeply flawed; if I remember correctly it examines people who were shot and checks whether they owned a gun. Of course that study is completely invalid because of the selection bias involved. P(X owns a gun | X gets shot) is not the same as P(X gets shot | X owns a gun).

There is also data showing for example that "the higher a state's firearm ownership rate, the lower its firearm homicide rate" – see https://www.facebook.com/UnbiasedAmerica/photos/a.1301843271..., based on FBI data.