param

Wait so Super Mario Bros is factually historical?

Your own link [1] says "Ob/Gyn about $30,000- $35,000". The OP said "an Ob's ins CAN COST 71k a year" [emphasis mine] so doesn't sound 'flat out wrong' to me.

Next - could you explain why you are bringing in malpractice CLAIMS data in a conversation about PREMIUMS?

Helpful tip for founders: India has a ton of diaspora abroad and is always looking for a deal to send money back home

I was always iffy about LASIK and got it done to appease my wife & I can tell you it was way simpler than I was imagining.

I can't even put contact lenses in my eye myself, but getting operated was a breeze. I have been glasses free for 8 yrs now - its great!

And do we know why this disparity exists?

Trust in government ops is valuable for success of democracy

I think they are allowing you to sell, not buy

Here is the best argument in favor of the change: >> if the rule had kicked in, some two-thirds of borrowers wouldn't qualify for a payday loan

If the above is true (and not fake news), I would like to understand how the industry was expected to survive with 2/3rd of its customer base taken away in an instant; and what alternative services these customers would have been routed to...

Not my words.

Did I induce cognitive dissonance in you?

Yep, it doesn't go far enough - even if all countries did everything in the accord we wouldn't change anything.

If this was a business setting, a proposal like this would be laughed out of existence. Somehow, when it is a Dem/progressive policy people still take it seriously.

Just do a google search.

Even the UN admits it was a fraud: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-...

A couple of thoughts come to mind when I read this paragraph:

1. If there is meat in her story, I am sure there are multiple lawyers who will be willing to work for a share of the settlement - i.e. she never pays out of pocket.

2. It seems we have a society where the "plaintiff" is wronged bad enough to go to court, but is wronged enough to complain about it and have society decide and punish on her behalf! Even when society doesn't know enough about the case.

This reminds me of the doctor who shot that lion in africa... society punished him really really bad - he lost patients, lost ability to work, and what not. Later, it turned out he had done everything by the book, and is not slated to be punished/held accountable either in US or zimbabwe. Same thing here... idiots on the internet feel they KNOW uber is wrong, and they are willing to punish the company by #deleteuber, and willing to go on a downvote spree towards people like me on online forums.

What happens if 6 months later it turns out Susan was lying? Will all of you come back to upvote me?

Point taken. That's why I am here to sort of point out a counter argument to DHH. He seems to be calling for consumer activism without making a serious case (at least for me) so as to WHY.

There have been allegations of misconduct, fine. Latest there is a sexual harassment claim... Those are VERY attractive to certain class of lawyers. Why not let law take its course? Why do WE, who know nothing of what happened, have to PRE-JUDGE and punish the company upfront?

Again, lets keep subjective opinions out of the picture for a second.

Specifically, In Uber's case, tell me what they did that SHOULD be illegal and we can talk about it.

Yes, and my original comment was that DHH didn't do a good enough effort to convince me. And I was saying that I won't support it.

Sure, but it could also be confirmation bias. Why is it that there have been so many stories of misdeeds and they still haven't been punished?

In your world, it could be because they are an evil monster, and they bought off the cops and the plaintiff.

In my world, it is possible that none of them were instances of breaking the law and worth going after.

PS: read up on confirmation bias.

I agree with you. But that's not the world we live in today.

Because that's what shares represent. I 'give you money' to try to add wealth to the economy. If you do anything illegal, you burn. Not me.

Economics and law 101

Edit - just want to clarify - if the company execs do something ILLEGAL, they should go to jail. Shareholders WILL get punished beause shares will get a hit. But how is it fair to start punishing the company overall with consumer activism just because there are allegations of misconduct?

Why don't you tell me, and why don't your respond to my core argument - which is - why don't we let the law take its course?

Why do we need consumer activism all the time? Are you saying the laws are insufficient? Then tell me which specific laws those are.

I skimmed through the article fast, so here is what I gleaned:

1. Donald Trump is bad, Thiel is bad for supporting him.

2. There are problems at Uber

3. ... ?

4. Lets punish ALL shareholders, and YOURSELF, by not using the service.

5. ... ?

If some law has been broken, I would prefer that the guilty person(s) be held accountable. I am not sure why I have to pay more for taxis at this time

Oh come on... he's just setting up the chess board to run for the US presidency in 20 years. Give him space to do it

>> The company apologised for the "isolated incident" and said that it's "looking at ways of further enhancing security at all our power plants."

How about designing the system so that it doesn't have a single point of failure?

What do you do? I am hiring and we have remote roles and a global team so everyone keeps their own hours.

Disclaimer: I like SA

With that bias out of the way, I would recommend you go back to the source and then judge him.

I can't find the source post for the first one, but the second one is here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102881545031/pegs-and-holes

If you read it carefully, you will realize that he is not defending rapists, he is saying you can look at the situation as a mental health problem - similar to the EU view of drug abusers - they are not criminals, they are patients.

He has, multiple times on his blog, put forth his theory that humans are 'moist robots' - he does not believe in the concept of free will; so this post is entirely consistent with that.

Seems like it would be a simple inexpensive investment (probably completely outsourced) for YC to set up fortnightly (down from Tuesday dinners/weekly) dinners for founders of a single batch to come and report updates to each other.

I recall reading somewhere that YC batches are now split into clusters because there are so many companies in each batch. Maybe these dinners can be cluster specific as well.

As the companies grow in size, they can democratically decide to reduce frequency to monthly - I can see how changes would be slower as the companies become larger.

Edit: To clarify, this is purely a peer group - no YC presence needed. Have to do it this way to scale.

Read the article. The author mentions that he repeatedly requested his employer to sponsor his GC. They made him wait and eventually declined. He tried to change employers at that stage because he knew he needed a path to GC, but was unlucky and got screwed at that stage.

There is not much more he could have done.

Canada (and I believe some other countries, like Australia) has a points based system. You can fill in a PR (equivalent to US Green Card) application from the comfort of your home country. When you are filling up the application, you can tally the points and know for sure whether you meet the cut-off to have your application be granted - i.e. you don't need to submit if you aren't going to make it. Points are given for your age (younger is better), education (masters is better than just bachelors) and your language proficiency (in English and French), among others.

Then, you wait a while and once the application is granted, you directly get PR. You have a period of time - say 1 yr - to move to Canada, and another period within which you should find a job.

i.e. - when you apply for a job, you are already a permanent resident.

Now that's what I would call a humane immigration system that also manages to attract 'desirable' immigrants. If Canada had America's weather, I would have never moved to the US.

Voluntary: done, given, or acting of one's own free will

India's population control has been voluntary. Aside from a failed attempt in 1975 (declaration of emergency/forced castration of a negligible number of people), all of the decline in fertility in India has been voluntary.

> they addressed the issue of over-population, something that a country like India has failed to do

India took the path to education and propaganda to voluntarily reduce the fertility rate. I don't think India has failed in its initiatives. Instead, I think they are going extremely well given that there is no legal limit on how many kids you can have. India is on track to reach peak-population by 2060. [1]

Most educated middle class couples would not think of having more than 2 kids (this has been true for the last 15/20+ years) and now we are entering a phase where a small minority is choosing to go without kids, completely.[2]

The total fertility rate in India has gone from 6 to 2.5 in the last 50 years. (Google for "total fertility rate india")

Edit: One more thing - there are 11 states in India that are at or below a TFR of 2.1 [3].

Net net - far from a failure, India is making good progress.

[1]: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indias-population-w...

[2]: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/...

[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertil...

Greenwald has said on multiple occasions that he feels very comfortable coming to the US because of its constitution and freedom of speech as an explicit granted right. He isn't going back to the UK anytime soon.