sfkdjf9j3j

Most data in WHOIS is a dead end. Try looking up a few sites, apparently everyone lives in Panama now.

As of their most recent 10-Q, they have about $1.8 billion of unrestricted cash.

This framing is also sort of a misrepresentation. It's an annual government-funding bill, and it includes some money for COVID relief. All of the broader criticisms about horse trading still apply of course but those apply just as much to separate bills with informal agreements on votes. The only difference is it's really inconvenient to hold hundreds of votes in order to make sure the forestry service janitors get paid, etc. etc.

Most places with on call shifts (that I've worked for at least - VC funded tech companies) treat it as a responsibility like any other for a salaried worker. I'm sure individuals have quietly negotiated special deals as they tend to do, but it's definitely not a common practice to pay extra for it specifically.

> To reduce the pain further, consider upping on call bonuses for the entire week

Are you guys getting bonuses for being on call? I kind of signed up for it (SRE) but I'm curious if this is more common in jobs that aren't primarily concerned with reliability.

In the comments (which I don't recommend reading, they're full of extreme racism), an apparently regular user says they tried getting donations before but it's never enough to last more than a few months.

You've piqued my curiosity - where is this normal and accepted?

Presumably because it's a lot cheaper and more convenient.

It would also be weird if managers were to capriciously hand out options to employees as short term performance bonuses.

That a lung cancer occurs at some rate such that a particular study could only detect it when smoking five cigars a day doesn't actually tell you anything about your individual risk without knowing the population size of the study. Well, it tells you that there's probably some causative connection between smoking and cancer, but it definitely doesn't give you a "safe" threshold beneath which you can smoke without risk.

Also, shouldn't you be more concerned about oral cancers and cardiovascular disease? I understand most people don't inhale cigar smoke into their lungs like they do cigarette smoke, so you would certainly expect the lung cancer risk increases to be relatively lower.

That's too low. I usually tip my customer service reps 25% of whatever they save me.

Rather than pay for early exercise costs and cover the tax burden, I think it makes more sense for early companies to extend the period employees can exercise options to 5-10+ years after they leave. Several places actually do this already, I've been offered it without asking in fact!

Small companies probably can't afford to pay taxes for everyone's 83b elections, nor can they afford the 401k match or the other missing perks. After all, if they could afford to compete on cash comp with big tech cos, surely the founders would rather do that and preserve their own equity stake.

But with exits taking longer and longer, such an exercise scheme lets rank and file employees preserve some small upside that they have earned themselves, and not worry about hurting their career by being forced to wait for an exit.

I think I generally agree that employees get a pretty bad deal. I think it used to look better, but these days you can make so much more money so much faster working at Google than you can at a random startup.

She's a PhD researcher, not some kind of equality police, so presumably if the world suddenly became perfectly just overnight, she'd continue doing research but in a different area. I imagine all the AI biases that she is known for would still exist in this perfect world, the impacts would just be less disparate.

But this seems sort of like overengineering? I'm not sure we're at any substantial risk of the world suddenly becoming fair, so it seems odd to spend time worrying about what might happen if we run out problems to solve.

I don't think insulting the few people who make a good faith effort to understand your project is going to help its reputation.

I'm not trying to solve all the problems of the working class (which is not a monolith except when viewed through certain narrow theoretical lenses). I am just clarifying that race-based slavery was fundamental to southern society and economy, and it is ahistorical and misleading to suggest that it only or even primarily benefited a tiny minority of wealthy plantation owners.

This is actually a really interesting point/question, and it's one that doesn't have an easy answer. It's true that, overall, most slaves (in pre-civil-war US) were owned by a small number of plantations. But in some southern states, nearly half the White families owned at least one slave. In those families, obviously the women and children didn't themselves "own" any slaves, but they nevertheless controlled that person's labor. Similarly, wealthy plantation owners frequently rented their slaves to poorer whites. So even a relatively unprivileged class of White people benefited from slave labor directly despite themselves getting a raw deal relative to the land owners.

But ultimately, the south fought a civil war in order to preserve the institution of slavery because it was the fundamental organization of society on top of which the economy was built, and many non-elite white men nevertheless allied themselves with this effort.

As for projecting the past, I don't know. It's certainly plausible that White people today are still reaping the benefits that were established by slavery and racism in a broad, systemic sense. As far as I know, my relatives didn't own slaves, but my relatives did do things like get mortgages that Black people couldn't do. That doesn't seem fair does it? It's a little bit like inheriting stolen property. But if you go back far enough, what isn't stolen property?

Sorry, could you clarify what precisely is a "well studied phenomenon" and maybe link some of the studies? With this sort of research you have to be extremely careful about what claims you assert it supports because there are often serious methodological issues. I also notice in your post that you use the phrase "virtue signal", which suggests a certain political view on your part, so I want to make sure I'm responding to exactly what you claim so we don't get confused by terminology or matters of degree.

I feel like someone needs to put a big flag at the top of the comments section asking people to at least skim the article. Maybe the problem is the paywall? Anyway, the people they spoke to all left the company prior to George Floyd's death.

As the article says in the second paragraph, the employees that they spoke to left in 2018 and 2019, so this response is irrelevant. I personally find it reprehensible and deliberately lacking context as well but you are entitled to your opinion.

The headline doesn't really tell the full story in this case. The article describes increasing concentration of control of farm land via certain financial products (and direct ownership). It's more of a collection of quotes than an article I suppose but it touches on the effects of this on economic inequality, agricultural monoculture, land stewardship concerns, that sort of thing.

That's just how so-called "Rationalists" like to write. They have a lot of interesting ideas that are fun to learn about but the core community itself is basically a bunch of computer programmers who believe they can solve the worlds problems simply by thinking a lot and writing a blog post that uses a big metaphor.

I don't think that's what's going on here. Swift and Go were both projects that Apple and Google respectively dedicated a lot of engineering resources to growing into mainstream popularity. AWS would have to spend a decade stewarding Rust the same way to get the same "halo effect".

Is there any research that suggests such a dramatic effect as you're implying? It's obviously plausible that there is some genetic component to longevity but I have a hard time believing that isn't dwarfed by quality of healthcare and nutrition.

That said, it doesn't really invalidate what the article is talking about.

That's not what happened here though, there's no competing off duty cops protecting Apple's executives.

I agree but I want to point out it's actually worse than you make it sound. One of the indicted officers is second in command in Santa Clara County!

In U.S. cities it's more like thousands or tens of thousands of bike commuters (during good weather), but commuter bikes are either rented from bikeshares or are junkers that get replaced for a couple hundred dollars from time to time. If any market has customers, it's high end.

I think if you're doing this level of nit-picking, it's far more likely that somewhere along the line a scientist used a 32 bit floating point in their analysis and blew the precision out of the water before the number even got to you.

OOC are you a Parler user/have you visited the site? If this is a victory for free speech, it's certainly a Pyrrhic one. Twitter and facebook comments seem like the pinnacle of civil discourse next to the stuff I found on Parler just by creating an account and following all the recommended content in the onboarding process.

Here's one data point that is at least related: http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw18-chand-hate.pdf

Americans were indicted for lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, witness tampering, and a few other crimes related to inconsistent testimonies and lies, etc. And of course a bunch of Russian nationals were "indicted" for "crimes against the United States" type things but nobody is under the illusion they'll actually be prosecuted.