katedye

They could have sold to a company that would have overhauled their monetization, but you're right that it isn't _unethical_ to shut-down (unnecessary, maybe).

It doesn't really support the theory that billionaires create jobs...

On a more serious note, this was clearly anti-union. But there is some truth to the claims about profitability. I don't know if DNAinfo was profitable or not, but I'm not surprised their margins were thin. There are huge differences in tech adoption in publishing. A site like the Washington Post with a strong tech influence (i.e. bezos money) has an incredibly advanced ad tech stack and optimize the programmatic advertising market. They probably have complex models that price their ads based on historical data and user information, and they've begun to productize their CMS. Whereas publishers that rely on direct sales with brands struggle to stay afloat and without a decent-sized dev team, profitability can be a distant dream.

I didn't know that, but their current homepage, the tone of a few articles, and Wikipedia[1] seems to confirm that news—thank you!

However, I also googled "steubenville hacker"[2] and found a number of other articles confirmed this story. Most were published in the last 10 hours so I'm confident that major publications aren't avoiding this story because it's false, but rather, they haven't picked it up yet.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network) [2] https://www.google.ca/search?q=steubenville+hacker#q=steuben...

Spending on social security (most programs, minus food stamps...I think) is in the neighbourhood of $930 billion. Right now, that's delivered to 65 million people. Of 330 million people total, ~80% are over 21. And it would be safe to assume 50% would qualify (because 1 in three households make between 50k-100k and 1 in four make less than 24k).

That leaves 132 million people drawing from $930 billion, which means everyone gets $7153. For everyone to get $13,000, 71 million people would be allowed to qualify.

This doesn't take into account the taper at all, so it could be stretched to reach more people. But even if 60 million people receive 13k, which leaves ~2.5k for another 60 million, that's still less than 132 million and doesn't align with the author's 6.5k number.

All this is to say: I find the idea appealing because it reduces the cost of bureaucracy and creates autonomy, but I'm not sure if it's feasible.

Sources: https://www.ssa.gov/finance/2015/Overview%20SSA.pdf https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/prog_highlights/i... http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/16/156688596/what-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_...

It seems odd that Orwell advocated for English purism, 1984 makes it seem like using 'base' English words as building blocks and eliminating unnecessary, flowery language was synonymous with fascism (or at least not a good thing)

Every firm has government interests. Its naive to think that $225k has any meaningful sway

This is one of the most beautiful (and minimalist!) onboarding docs I've ever seen. Aside from the Elixir-specific links, it could be used as a template for any developer onboarding.

Anyone else agree that developer onboarding is a mess? (but also a pain in the ass to create and get right)