rad88

You are obviously bound to the supply of the market. What I'm saying is that the market is bigger than you assume. The number of women interested in and capable of a career in programming is much greater than the number of those who actually want to work at your company.

No doubt. I'm not here to say any company can have ~50% female engineers if only they did what we do, but this idea that a more reasonable expectation would be 16% strikes me as bullshit.

So I'm boasting a bit, not claiming this is normal, but just to say... come on guys, think bigger.

The number I think is important is not how many CS grads there are (no one on my team has a CS major) or how many software developers there are, it's how many people are interested in and capable of this job. I don't know what the "true" ratio is but I'm sure it is more than 16% of women which is where ardit anchored it.

It often comes back to this "pipeline" problem, but we need to think of our companies as being part of the pipeline. I don't have a CS degree -- I came out of college with a BA -- but I landed a firmware programming job, 2 jobs and 7 years later I am experience and "senior". If you're willing to train smart people, you can sideline the pipeline issue.

~60% of the developers on my team are women. It's not magic. Also, in a big company most employees are not engineers, so the relative lack of female CS grads shouldn't mean there are so few women that you need to hire them for events.

The whole point is to eliminate social programs.

Those are great achievements but still nowhere close to the grandiosity of his vision. I appreciate that he is an accomplished person and CEO but that doesn't mean he's going to colonize Mars and give us instant transport between any two cities on Earth.

It's a good term that is being appropriated. Emotional labor described some aspects of jobs such as customer service, nurse, etc., where the work actually requires feeling certain emotions so that your client can feel empathized with. What the author is talking about is simply domestic labor.

By indicating you want it and being a participant in the market for it. There are people who, knowing you are like them and enjoy that sort of thing, will make it for you. To make you happy. It's that sick.

Bad apples means tiny minority. The proportion of porn being exchanged on Tor marketplaces that involves children or abuse is not tiny.

On the other hand you have people who are not materially threatened by white nationalism deciding to kick the hornets nest because they're in a bad mood. That was bullshit and should be condemned. The far right's persecution complex is directly tied to their violence and oppression against more vulnerable groups, so when some tech CEO validates that complex needlessly it really is counterproductive and harmful. The position of "don't pull this bullshit because it comes back on us" is not abstract, although the people who pulled the bullshit might not be the ones who see it come back around.

Ideological consistency and abstract virtue are things for the far-left/right almost by definition. If a centrist is protesting or standing around doing nothing it's for another reason. That might span from "actually believes it protects peoples' material safety better" to "is completely clueless" or "doesn't want to speak up and face extermination themselves", etc. You're basically calling it virtue signalling but that is often just a way to dismiss someone's authentic concerns or motivation.

One of the basic contexts of the debate is the question of whether tech workplaces are hostile to women. The tone of the email making claims about women in the workplace is relevant.

> 90% of women in china would not consider dating a man who earn less than the median income.

4/5 women in China are married by age 30. By ages 35-39 only 4.6% are unmarried. I guess eventually they all settle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng_nu#Culture_and_statistic...

The account for sure. I wonder about everything else though? Maybe it's naive but it seems like you could create a "presidential" tweet anywhere from their DBs to their CDNs.

"unwarranted scrutiny" is a funny term here.

> He barely even won --- he lost the popular vote by a greater margin than any candidate in US history.

This point unfortunately plays into the messaging that you're criticizing sama for. The electoral college was the winner take all victory. They actually call it a genius masterstroke that he "focused" on winning in the most strategic and economical way.

Besides, it's not enough dismiss him or the strategy as having "barely" won. If things had gone the other way in those determining districts then he would have "barely" lost. He lost the popular vote by millions but it was still within ~2%. With a candidate like Trump you need to do better than that by far. He should have been defeated unambiguously, and yet he managed the astonishing feat of just barely eeking out a win.

On the face of it, claiming you lack the ability to access your own phone appears evasive and dishonest. Beware of this. Apparently misleading or obstructive behavior might cause more severe consequences than invoking your legal right to remain silent, speak with an attorney, etc. Asserting constitutional protections against unlawful search or self incrimination is not an antagonistic act and is less likely to anger an officer or escalate their investigation.

Uber enacted their tipping policy to keep total control over prices and moreover to keep prices low.

When they were sued by their own workers because of this and had their backs against the wall, they had to claim it was because of this racist hand-wavy BS.

It was a ret-con and an incredibly cynical and insulting thing to do, but that's now the official reason they didn't allow tips.

This is the claim made by Uber spokesmen. I also heard it directly from an Uber manager. It disgusted me too.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/04/27/uber-resists...

Uber's claim is that black people are known to tip poorly, and so drivers would be incentivized to cancel their rides in favor of fares they expect will tip better. Therefore they don't allow tipping to prevent racism. Supposedly...

It seems highly unlikely to me that Kalanick has any ability to influence Trump/Bannon's policy in this area. But I'd like to address to aside you made about "legitimacy".

GP talked about legitimizing policies. That is quite different than questioning the legitimacy of the electoral vote.

Trump signed an order that was illegal, apparently, to lawyers and laymen alike, because it authorized revoking legal permanent residents of their right to entry into the US without due process. Federal judges have ruled this to be the case, and yet for unknown reasons certain Border Patrol/Homeland departments are defying that order (which is not in keeping with their legitimate authority).

It's substantially likely to be illegal even without that exclusion because it includes discrimination based on the Christian faith of residency applicants.

The Constitution is the source of the legitimacy of presidential orders, and this policy is in multiple ways incompatible with that.

Why would Trump listen to what Kalanick has to say about a policy order that is notionally an urgent response to national security threats from Iranian/Syrian/etc. travelers?

With Steve Bannon speaking into the other ear? Bear in mind his strategist is (apparently) deferred to over even Homeland Security officials and DOD commanders when it comes to these matters.

The fact is Kalanick is not going to influence Trump on this issue, but by remaining on the advisory team he might secure a sweet (life saving) deal for Uber down the road. The cost? Trump gets to use him as token for proof of legitimacy/economic acumen/America First/etc.

It wouldn't be the same thing. But that didn't happen, her sentence was reduced by 2-3 decades and she'll be out in a few months. It's clearly clemency.

Many if not most Americans have investments, so the effect is not exactly balanced. Households that could do so would adjust their portfolios taking into account the additional guaranteed cash flow.

Investment also reacts positively to the expectation of inflation, though that's getting more speculative. I think I've reached the limit of what I can do with Econ 101, but I hope to have shown that there's at least a principled claim to UBI being inflationary. Rising consumer price levels alone is inflationary under some definitions, and the effect on investment is not straightforward.

There is another issue besides the labor/wage effect on price, that aggregate demand is increased and therefore at current prices aggregate supply does not meet demand. Aggregate price levels should increase (keeping it at econ 101 since we could speculate about investment at this point).

edit: consumption increases despite the distribution being balanced since it's assumed that the transfer is from a minority of tax payers with significant income/assets to a majority that sees a substantial increase to their minimum guaranteed cash flow.

The economics suggest UBI is inflationary even if budgets are balanced. For several reasons -- the most 101 is that an increase in the real value of the welfare scheme decreases the labor supply, implying rising wages and therefore rising prices.

They are at a disadvantage trying to find work on the other side of the country due to currently being homeless on the West Coast. People look for work starting nearby and then at increasing distances because that is the practical way to find work and minimize the risks and costs (financial and otherwise) of moving.

But if they were guaranteed a life in Illinois or North Carolina, maybe they would move? You and I don't know, but there is no reason to suspect they are simply being stubborn or foolish. It's entirely natural and rational to want to live, with your kids, in roughly the same region continuously.

TFA describes a mom who is keeping it together for a family of five on a $11/hour wage (they lost the home when the dad got injured), and teachers who are commuting 2+ hours each way to get to work.

What evidence do you have that these people are too foolish to understand our economy? Or too stubborn to do what is needed in order to succeed?

Every company with investors has to be more than it is.

> I'm not especially interested in whether or not it's cosmically fair when deciding whether or not it's deserved.

The argument about the "risk-tasking investors" rightfully owning the work of the "risk-free employees" is an appeal to fairness (the investors could lose their investment while the employees still gain their salaries), so by the way it does seem that you are interested in that.

Early efforts in organizing the company and navigating difficult waters are work and those employees should be compensated with ownership. I don't think that subsequent work by subsequent employees should not be compensated in this same way. Mark Zuckerberg and half a dozen friends created a company valued at $98M by Accel in 2005 and enjoyed ownership of that. Today he and 15,000 others create a company valued at $360 billion, of which he enjoys 25% ownership while the combined ownership of the rest is miniscule.

If you own a large amount of value or wealth that you did not create, I would say that is undeserved.

Founders and early employees contribute work and are hopefully rewarded for that work with ownership stakes in the company. Rightly so. But as the company grows, and to the degree that it necessarily hires additional employees, the proportion of ownership held by these early employees becomes undeserved (in the simple above sense of the word). Their large ownership positions remain, even as it becomes clearer and clearer that the value of the company is created by its hundreds/tens of thousands of employees.

So if you start a business and make a profit (a hard thing to do!), that is not undeserved. But if business grows and eventually the value is created by 15,000 people all together, you don't deserve 25% of it.