fsaneq2

My point was more that it was surprising to me that someone as vilified as Trump still got almost a third of the votes in CA, but I agree that your point makes that look substantially weaker, so I retract it.

Come on, try to make an effort. Your comment is full of straw men.

EDIT: Removed comment. See better response below.

I find it hard to take a 2.4% difference observed through what seems to be a self reported, necessarily imperfect survey[0] seriously.

[0] http://www.payscale.com/about/methodology

Read the studies yourself! :)

That's not what is meant by wage gap, you have been (intentionally) deceived. The gap only works if you do NOT account for things like "doing the same job".

The problem is that the way the issue is (intentionally, I'm sure) presented is with charged phrases like "for every dollar a man makes, a woman only makes X cents". To a reasonable person, that sounds like it implies "for the same work" -- otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges, so they must not mean that, the reasonable person thinks. And so the reasonable person gets (rightfully) angry and it becomes a very emotional issue, even though it was based on deception. In that sense, what most people imagine when someone says "wage gap" doesn't exist.

Many people find it more convenient to instead believe the difference is caused by people in charge automatically offering women less than what they would offer a man. Of course, studies controlling for the type of job, credentials, experience, ability, etc., show that to be a poor hypothesis, but it is nevertheless a phrasing that makes it easy to make people angry (and vote for you).

That has been proven false, negligible or within noise over and over.

The version stubbornly pushed is simply that median_salary(all women) != median_salary(all men).

The concept of minimum wage is beneficial to the big players as well, because the small players will eventually have neither the money to pay people more than they're worth nor the upfront capital to develop the machines to replace them.

You will also never be able to justify hiring more expensively if you can instead use a cheap/free machine, which is of course where we're heading, since people refuse to acknowledge the truth in OP's quote.

> Hackers are demanding a payment of $300 per machine, roughly equal to 300 Bitcoins currently worth around 510,000 euros.

EDIT: nvm. Apparently they mean to imply they have about ~1759 infected machines.

Uh, it's their platform, their rules?

Which is a problem why? Uber is not a charity.

How is it Apple's problem to pay for Ireland's mistake?

> If successful, the state would collect 75 percent of the penalty, while the rest would be paid out over to the company's 65,000 employees

What is the logic for the state somehow being entitled to such a huge cut? Presumably, if anyone was wronged here, it was the employees.

Not sure why this type of thing keeps on popping up as "news". The fact that jobs requiring no skill will be driven down to bad conditions/pay/whatever is sort of axiomatically obvious and inevitable given how capitalism and a more-or-less free labor market works.

Having held one of these shit jobs in the past to get myself through college, I understand how much it sucks, but complaining/negotiating when you have zero leverage simply does not work (in the sense it is very likely not the highest expected value use of your time -- IMO a good way is education, get yourself ready for a slightly better job, repeat until happy).

This entirely depends on what utility you assign to a given amount of money.

For many people who are well-enough off to consider having a good risk floor, the utility of a non-life-changing amount of extra money is nearly zero. It is only once you get into the high jackpots that it gets interesting.

Depending on your situation it can be completely rational to play the lottery or be a startup employee.

Is HN being censored? Why is this not on the front page, with 611 votes as of right now?

I agree with you, I'm just disappointed with the article I guess -- it seems to dress up completely banal information as research/news.

For instance it basically says that a largely fixed dollar amount that doesn't vary that much by house, electricity consumption, looks large if you make $10,000 a year but looks tiny if you make $100,000 a year.

Okay, but what does that have to do with the article? It brings nothing to the table.

Of course we should innovate and keep bringing costs of everything down; this will happen with or without city planning.

This reads like a huge tautology. If you cut down bills people have to pay, they'll have to pay less. Brilliant..?

> The good news is that reducing poverty by cutting monthly expenses would be a big boost for people on the lower end of the economic spectrum, without hurting the middle or the top

Oh, well if you also assume you have a source of money appearing out of thin air (!), then, well, this is just pure genius.

Alright, I'll bite, even though I can't vote here, so I suppose my opinion doesn't really matter and I would not say I am a strong supporter of either candidate.

There are many issues with your question ("Why would you support a racist candidate if you weren't also racist").

First, most of what I've heard about Trump being a "racist" is his comments about illegal Mexican immigrants (which is not a race... it's a group of by-definition criminals, since last time I checked illegally entering the US is, well, not legal). Similarly for the more rigorous checks of people coming from countries having known radical islamist ties -- not a race (and FWIW, many leaders across the world are proposing essentially the same thing -- but Trump gets singled out for some reason). People also seem to paint Trump as being very anti-immigration, though I fail to see how Hillary is any better. Neither appears to have any plan to do anything about highly skilled immigrants -- Hillary does have some stop gap measures for non-skill-related immigration (why does this take priority over immigrants who contribute more to the economy..?), but that's about it.

So then, I'm not that convinced he's a racist in the first place, at least not much worse than everyone else. It's not like you're either an angel or a racist -- probably everyone has some unconscious prejudices, and I'm not going to base my rating of people based on how carefully they choose their words. Content not delivery.

But more importantly, it is entirely possible to support a racist candidate even if you are not racist. Simple example: one candidate is racist but has mostly reasonable policies. The other candidate is "not racist" but proposes to nuke all of the world the day they're elected. It's always a tradeoff.

As I've said in another comment, I would guess that being pro or anti LGBT is strongly correlated to age. Old generations were told it's bad, young generations are told it's good, and they vote accordingly -- only a few care enough to research it. It's hardly a good predictor for how good of a human being you are.

Therefore, this will naturally cease to be a problem as the old generations die out, and we're already seeing signs of it.

One would hope that we can thus move on and start discussing more interesting things (college republican/democrat debates, where you are automatically a monster if republican, I'm looking at you).

I doubt it controls for age? (Also what's up with the tiny sample?)

To expand a bit on the age thing (and I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this again): for the older generation the default position was to be against gay marriage. Today, the default position is to be for it.

Does that mean today's generation is superior? Probably not, as I would guess most people haven't actually read the science/whatever on their own. They just parrot back the opinion of their social circle, unless it's an issue they actually care passionately about (then they might actually research it). Exactly like the older generation.

So basically... there's a difference in the initial conditions. Does it really matter? Would you be any different if brought up under the old conditions? Does whether you were told gay marriage is good or bad influence your ability to come up with a good economic policy?

I find it a little silly to have to wait for the older generations to die out so the percentage drops to a prettier level before we can have debates again.

It's more that the whole crowd is cheering than there being one guy.

My comment is obviously a simplification and was meant to be somewhat provocative. I also haven't run a survey of all republican voters, so I don't know, perhaps you're right. The crowd's reaction certainly seems to contradict you though.

And looking at say Trump's website -- https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions -- none of this is even mentioned. Sure, maybe in some outlier areas, mumbling something about overturning nationwide gay marriage will get you a few votes.

But I think that the average republican couldn't care less, and it's a shame the relatively minor outliers keep on being brought up, ruining any interesting discussion in the process.

Well, yes -- but the letter is to Niantic, not carriers.

I think the difference is that the French perceive obvious religious clothing similarly to someone wearing a T-shirt saying "I vote republican/democrat" in huge letters -- though I don't know, maybe that'd be considered fine too in the US (US schools, that is)?

I see it as clearly unnecessary/voluntary (so it's quite different from being gay like in your example), so it's an attempt to advertise, which leaves a bad taste in a place like a school.

Having been brought up in a French system and then going to a US college, I must say I strongly prefer the French system.

I guess Americans would take offense to this view, but I find wearing religious clothing in a public institution such as a school incredibly obnoxious and pushy -- it's akin to your professor suddenly starting to push his/her political views onto you in an unrelated lecture, or something.

It's not that it's bad to wear religious clothing or have political opinions -- it's just that a school should be a place of learning, not propaganda.