my_username_is_

If you have a basic understanding of tax rates in the US, this shouldn't come as a surprise. The marginal tax rate always goes up as you earn more income, so for the graph to show it going down then it must be the effective tax rate.

But I agree, it probably will be taken out of context and unfortunately not everyone has even a basic understanding of how taxes work.

>For the normal consumer, probably more about price than anything else

This way just be the bubble that I live in, but I think the average cyclist that I know cares more about tech and marginal performance rather than price. New (performance) bikes commonly sell for thousands of dollars. It's not a world that seems especially price sensitive.

Not the person you're replying to, but in some ways it is.

Part of Hong Kong Basic Law (their Constitution, which was adopted during the handover process) stipulates that "the ultimate aim" is elections by universal suffrage for both the Chief Executive as well as the Legislative Council. So the demand for universal suffrage is simply asking the government to make good on their promises from 1990/1997.

One of the reasons that the extradition bill caused such an uproar in the city is that Hong Kong citizens are protected by rule of law in a way that doesn't exist in China. The law has clear definitions and punishment for rioting, and the actions of some protesters could very well fall into that category. So to ask for all rioting charges to be dropped is asking for the government to give in to mob rule. (Caveat—I don't think the rioting charge would be as big of a deal as it is if it didn't carry a 10 year prison sentence. But it's hard for the protesters to ask for anything less than blanket amnesty... Without looking at a specific case, where do you draw the line? What sort of punishment is reasonable?)

At least with ridehailing apps you have a feedback mechanism to flag these drivers. If enough people have negative experiences, they won't be able to drive for that platform.

>$21 isn’t a living wage for any category of worker in the San Francisco metro area except a single adult or two adults living together

Is it really insane that people should get paid a living wage, regardless of whether it's a 'skilled job' or not?

There have also been public losses. Transit ridership tends to decrease with increased ridesharing. This means more cars on the roads, less money for public transit, and more pollution.

There's a big difference between fiscal policy and sexual orientation, though.

If you say "taxes are theft" I may disagree with your viewpoint, but I'm not personally attacked by it. If your viewpoint is a challenge to their personal identity, you should probably keep that to yourself.

>what are you doing to weather the (inevitable) storm?

Stay invested in equities. Keep some cash on hand as an emergency fund in case you lose your job, but just don't sell your stocks when the market is down. Stay diversified and stay in the market.

I've talked to a few people who work (or worked) at Patagonia recently. They said that LMPGS paints a pretty accurate picture of the company. People are passionate and care about doing a good job, but they also care about enjoying their lives and getting a surf session in when the swell is good.

I would argue that it's necessary to keep a good balance long term. Especially within the outdoor industry, Patagonia isn't going to show up as authentic if their statements about culture are just window dressing. And if people aren't able to pursue their other passions without sacrificing their careers, eventually something will give... And people don't always choose to keep their desk job. So they're either going to lose touch with their consumer and lose their employees... or they're flexible with their hours and let people go surfing. Seems like an easy decision to me.

>What if Netflix (or some other production company) produced a compelling show with an incredibly critical narrative about the PRC and its leadership?

In a way, they've already done this. See "Joshua: Teenager versus Superpower". It's a documentary from the precursor to these protests, the Umbrella Revolution of 2014. They definitely don't take a pro-PRC stance on the issue.

>Would citizens in mainland China be able to access it through roundabout means?

Yes, VPNs are very common (especially among younger and more educated populations)

>Would you be able to sow the seeds of democracy? Would they even be interested?

This is more complicated. It's important to realize that there's a rational reason that many people have for supporting the CCP. On the whole, their lives have gotten significantly better over the last couple of decades. They're optimistic about the future. Attacks on the Party are attacks on the mechanism that has ushered in economic growth. To this extent, I wouldn't expect democracy to be welcomed by the average person any time soon; it's simply not a national value for them in the way that it is for the United States.

(Huge caveat: remember it's a country of over a billion people and making generalizations is necessarily going to gloss over large sub-populations that may have an entirely different world view)

>The legal purpose of a corporation is to generate returns for shareholders. >Goes without saying that corporations should maximize shareholder value using legal means only.

But why? This line of thinking typically assumes that people start companies strictly to make money--an assumption that I see as patently false. There are plenty of for-profit social enterprises (which is to say nothing of non-profits).

For example, Patagonia recently changed their mission statement "We’re in business to save our home planet" [1]. To think that they continue to exist just because Yvon Chouinard doesn't have enough cash in the bank is laughable.

[1] https://www.patagonia.com/company-info.html

No, there is an important distinction between independence and autonomy. A majority of the protesters support "one country, two system", they just want the two systems to be preserved.

Criminal activity has a real cost to society. That's why we've decided that certain things should be illegal in the first place. This is a measure that would reduce the number of crimes that are committed by increasing the personal costs for criminal activity (both for the would-be criminal, and for the company's leadership). Because we see criminal activity in corporations today, I would argue that the costs of committing the crime aren't currently high enough.

Taking the VW emissions scandal as an example, there's an estimate that suggests that there will be 1200 premature deaths because of the increased pollution [1]. This has an obvious personal cost to the victims & their families, and there is a larger cost to the overall economy because of the decreased worker output. This doesn't even take into account the growing cost of pollution as a factor in global warming.

[1] http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deat...

>It’s unreasonable to expect one person to actually have the kind of accountability you seem to think CEOs are simply choosing not to exercise.

If the CEO was subject to this sort of personal risk, I believe there would be far more systems/processes in place to make sure that there wasn't any sort of illegal activity going on (random external audits/investigations, more protections--or even rewards--for whistleblowers, etc.)

>Beverage giants are under pressure to boost recycling and cut down on plastic that’s filling the world’s oceans and waterways. Aluminum cans generally contain more recycled material than plastic bottles and are less likely to float away in the ocean.

The featured article seems to suggest that it's because of the waste created by plastic products, and not the health effects of microplastics

In a glass or steel bottle?

NYC isn't the only model for density. Small houses on small lots can and does create lots of housing in places that don't typically come to mind when you think of dense (as this blog points out, Provincetown MA is one example: http://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20141104.php#.XUHrGO...)

I'm not as close to the situation right now, but several mainland Chinese people that I talked to following the mid-June protests (up to 2m protesters) hadn't heard of any of it happening

As of my writing this, HKFP hasn't written about this exact story

It also assumes that you're not going to bring in any more income for the rest of your life too. While the OP could retire and live on a beach somewhere for the rest of his life... By the nature of being someone who posts on HN, I'm betting that that's not the case.

People in HK typically don't use Chinese apps to communicate. WhatsApp and Telegram seem to be the most popular right now, and both use end-to-end encryption. Suggesting communication over WeChat to your average Hong Konger is laughable.

As not2b suggests, it's more nuanced than "Hong Kong is just another city by 2047". Firstly, they're supposed to be separate for at least 50 years. The ambiguity comes in with determining how separate the "two systems" really should be. Are they allowed to specify the national curriculum? Are they allowed to extradite criminals?

After the 50 years are up, Hong Kong can potentially continue to act semi-autonomously as an SAR. (It's just not supposed to change until after that date.) Hong Kong's current status is economically advantageous to China, as companies have a place to make inroads to the large Chinese market in a business-friendly environment that typically respects the rule of law. The SAR is also given special economic status by some foreign countries, which would likely be taken away upon 'complete integration'. The integration that you're talking about is going to be a long process, and there won't be a singular point where it's clearly happened. So we shouldn't be surprised that China is making efforts to integrate now, but we also shouldn't be surprised by the resistance.

Exactly this. Plus there's a PLA garrison in Hong Kong anyways. The bridge (and high speed rail to Kowloon) are about creating better links through the region, enabling further economic growth and creating a stronger sense of "one country"

There's no reason to keep her around either. Every time there's a new protest, the first demands are: 1. Full withdrawal of the extradition bill, 2. Carrie Lam resigns. The bill is politically unviable for the foreseeable future, and Lam is its figurehead. If they want to take steam out of the protests, they need to address these sticking points.

If they have a new CE come in, fully drop the bill, and actually set up an independent investigation into police brutality, it would take a lot of wind out of the sails of these protests before people dig their heels in on other issues (abolish the functional constituencies, establish universal suffrage, etc.)

Military response would draw a lot of negative responses from the international community, and would be a clear rebuke of the "one country, two systems" that Hong Kong is supposed to be operating under. This could put HK's special economic status in jeopardy, which would be both damaging to Beijing as well as the HK business elite. It's better for the CCP if they can have the city suppress the protests using their own police force. After all, Western countries use the police to control protests all the time.

Protesters are already facing threats of physical violence, so saying that there won't be overt military action isn't likely to change many minds. Dozens have been injured in altercations with the Hong Kong police department since protests started last month. There have been several accusations of police brutality, coming from both protesters and journalists. There are also accusations that the police are already using the PLA or other forces from the mainland to bolster their ranks, but it's hard for me to tell how likely that is too be true. The primary pieces of evidence that I hear are officers covering or wearing incorrect identification numbers, and officers speaking little/no Cantonese & speaking Mandarin instead.

If it's still within the return window for the product, it seems perfectly reasonable to honor the discount. Amazon would actually save money by doing this, because they're not incurring the costs of the additional delivery or return.

It's missing the chain stays (a section of the frame linking the frame near the rear wheel to the pedal area). There would be a large cantilever arm trying to support a large part of the rider's weight, and it would likely break under the stress.

Not my area of expertise here, but I would think that doing so would help by reducing the overall volume of your waste. As food breaks down into soil, it packs tighter and reduces its overall volume. I assume that garbage trucks are limited by the volume that they can carry, not the weight, so reducing your waste volume should help reduce your overall carbon footprint by marginally reducing the number of vehicle-trips that it takes to collect your waste.

That being said, I would have to think that reducing the amount of waste that you create in the first place will have a bigger impact than reducing the volume of a given mass of waste.

>One of my friend trying to help found out first time it hurt a lot when tear gas residue touch your skin. And she is just helping. But whilst crying and painful our kids just wash their eyes and skins. And go back.

My favorite line that I heard from one protester was "tear gas isn't so bad, it's sort of just like chopping onions. I eat spicy food worse than it all the time". You can't help but smile at that kind of attitude.