What country, or state, or city gets to decide truth? The entire proposition is absurd; people need to be educated to understand that all media outlets are biased rather than trying to have some government agency decide what bias is acceptable.
By comparing it to the FDA, it is quite obvious he means the US Federal Government. Nothing stops other countries from setting up their own "FDA of Data and Algorithms" as well.
I think people need to be educated to understand that citizens of each country have the right to decide how much power private companies are allowed to have over average citizens. Some countries may be pro-business, some may be pro-privacy, and in reality all will fall somewhere in the middle. Any multinational company will have to decide which countries it wants to do business with, and then will be required to meets its regulatory requirements.
I still feel Hillary Clinton will back the working class more than any of the Republican nominees
I don't agree that Hillary is further removed from special interests and big money than Cruz. I am kind of surprised you think differently. I can see being against his politics but not in thinking he is more in the pockets of big business than Hilary. Cruz actually has done - or at least tried to do - what he campaigned and said he was going to do. And he is hated by mainstream for it.
I never said I thought Hillary was further removed from special interests and big money than Cruz, just that she will still back the working class more than Cruz. This is a mere byproduct of being in the Democratic party, where she will be expected to at least pay lip service to economic inequality. Cruz's constituents who care about the working class are still convinced rising tides lift all boats, and will be fine if his focus is on helping big money interests (since they feel it will indirectly help everyone else). My opinions have nothing to do with trusting Hillary any more than I trust Cruz. In fact I trust Cruz more, I simply vehemently disagree with virtually all of his campaign goals.
Since I strongly disagree that lowering taxes on the wealthy will help the working class, I believe Ted Cruz will be a disaster for households in the working class. He will probably make life easier on me (over $200k household income in the Midwest), but I am not interested in politicians making life easier on me at the expense of those less fortunate.
Not sure why ANYONE who visits this page would support Disney after how treated there IT workers. You all are very disappointing...
I am genuinely torn on whether to boycott companies like Disney is worth doing. I think Disney is a despicable company from a moral standpoint, but I find it hard to come to the conclusion that boycotting Disney products is the right approach to fighting the policies I disagree with.
I may be a hypocrite, but I dislike Disney and still watch Marvel movies, ESPN, and plan on taking my children to Disney World (they aren't ready IMHO at ages 18 months and negative a few days). I even just bought my toddler a Lightning McQueen pull back car for her Easter basket, putting even more money into Disney's pockets. Very disappointing indeed.
I will instead fund candidates I agree with who may actually enact the change I want in the world.
So how do we start? During Romney / Obama we were told a vote for Obama was a vote against corporations and the rich. We were told the same thing with McCain vs Obama.
I'll grant you Hillary and Trump are both part of the rich. Do you consider Cruz and Sanders to be part of the rich or not?
Or are we at the no true scottsman stage?
We start by supporting the politicians that are obviously not backing big money interests. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that fits this description in 2016. I still feel Hillary Clinton will back the working class more than any of the Republican nominees, but she is a perfect example of why many voters don't see much difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Someone would have to be intentionally obtuse to not notice a huge difference when it comes to Bernie Sanders. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with his politics or think he couldn't accomplish anything meaningful, but not identifying that he is far more strongly against big money interests than any other candidate is pure ignorance.
I personally think nothing will change in politics until we start voting for and funding candidates like Bernie Sanders. I don't think he will win, but he is still the first candidate I have ever donated money to. I believe he is the change America needs, even if I think most Americans don't realize this yet. Until the American people start voting for presidents and congressmen like Bernie Sanders in droves, I don't feel anything will change in American politics. This is obviously just my opinion, and you can ask my wife if she thinks I am always right about everything.
We didn't get much hope or change from Obama, but that is only because the President of the USA is not a supreme dictator. Complaining he didn't improve things enough is like putting $1000 in your 401k and then deducing funding a 401k doesn't work because you can't retire off the dividends. Even electing someone like Bernie Sanders is only the beginning. It will be a multi-decade long fight (if the fight starts at all).
You haven't thought it through my friend. First off, human want is basically infinite, so there is that.
Human want is not even practically infinite, it is sometimes very large but quite finite. The incorrect assumption that human want is infinite is one of the mistakes that will cause the next economic collapse - right now we're assuming that the 1% can create enough demand to make work for the 99%, but they can't.
Human want being infinite has nothing to do with the labor requirements of fulfilling those desires. You are describing the problem that the 1% cannot create as much economic demand as the 99% regardless of having similar net worth. These are linked issues but not the same thing.
You are correct that human desire is not literally infinite, but I think sjbe is also correct that human desire can be treated as basically infinite for any discussion of resource allocation.
Specifically it would take Apple that long to do it. For someone else to try and do it would be much harder as they would have to figure out a way to sign the code without having access to Apple's distribution certs or steal them somehow.
Knowing how to build a sledgehammer to bash in a door to gain access isn't the same as a backdoor existing.
But in this case, creating a wall weak enough that a sledgehammer can break into it is no different than building a backdoor yourself. We are talking about a phone with billions of dollars of R&D spending behind it that can be compromised by $100k of development. As I said in another post, they may not have completed a backdoor but they basically just need to finish installing the door knob.
Actually Gates is worth about 1/3 what Apple is ($70 billion vs. $200 billion), so it should be $66,000.
It doesn't change the point that regardless of cost, the house doesn't already exist just because it's cheap (to you) to build.
To fit your analogy better, Apple has spent billions on R&D for the iPhone over the past decade. The end result is a phone that only requires $100k of additional development to break its security. If it is that easy to break into their own phones, I do contend they already have a backdoor; they just didn't finish putting the door knob on yet.
And lastly, from what I can find Apple has almost 8x the net worth of Bill Gates, although I wrote my original post after reading an article from last year when Apple's stock price was high enough they were worth almost 10x as much.
If a person as rich as Bill Gates can spend about $11,000 of contractor time to finish his house, I think it's only semantics to say the house doesn't already exist
There, I fixed your analogy so it lines up with the scale of money we are talking about and so it fits the scenario better.
Apple has claimed it will take "two to four weeks [...] for six to ten Apple engineers and employees dedicating a very substantial portion of their time" to comply with the government's request.
If a company the size of Apple can spend about $100,000 of developer time to get to your data, I think it is only semantics to say the back door doesn't already exist. It would be the equivalent of me saying your house is secure from me breaking in because it would cost me 25 cents to create a master key to your home.
It's not justabout being good or being a good negotiator. It's about getting the right expertise, in the right field, which turns out to be useful and rare later. It is about taking the right chances, and getting the right chances, about knowing the right people and getting along well with them. It's about luck, properties, determination, social skills
We are talking about making $90k per year year, not $200k. It doesn't take much if any luck to find a niche in the IT industry that will pay $90k per year.
You seem to be describing the kind of luck it takes to be in the right industry and the right time to get 2000 hours per year of $250 per hour consulting gigs since your skills are so rare. That I will admit is mostly luck, but building skills that will provide a low six figure income is an almost certainty in the IT industry if manage your career intelligently.
The republican party at its core is there to push the agenda of the rich.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise of your comment. Real Republicans believe that Federal Government is not the answer to every problem. To Real Republicans, the 10th Amendment still counts, just as much as the 1st, 2nd, and 5th.
The problem with your comment is that in practice there are essentially two choices of who holds power in this country. Power is held by the rich or the common people. The only significant voice of the common people is the federal government. State governments cannot exert much power over the wealthy because of how easy is it to move between states. It is also hard for the federal government to exert power of the wealthy, but it is order of magnitudes more capable than state governments.
So while in theory strong state governments are a good idea, in practice only a strong federal government is capable of giving a significant voice to the people. So there really are only two choices:
1) Believe in a strong federal government 2) Believe in pursuing the agenda of the rich.
At some point in the future a strong federal government will not even be enough, and a strong world government will be necessary. Trade agreements play that role now but will be even more important as time goes on.
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform disallowed individual citizens from putting on a TV commercial within 90 days of an election explaining why you should vote for their favorite candidate. That is an individual was prevented, not a corporation. The ONLY way the Supreme court could have decided that case was to strike it down.
McCain-Feingold does stop individual citizens from buying expensive TV adds, but it does not stop individual citizens from pooling their money into outside groups, like super-PACs. Corporations have the same limitations. which is why you don't see corporations buying ads. They send money to super-PACs just like individual citizens.
I don't like that super-PACs can exist, but I have never seen anything wrong with the Citizens United ruling. I strongly dislike the ramifications, but the legal argument is sound. I'm more upset with the 4 justices that voted against Citizens United since it shows both sides are primarily ideologically motivated, not motivated by the law.
Let us know how your world of convenience turns out when the government forces everyone to digital transactions and then punishes anyone who doesn't march to their tune by disabling their digital account. Then you can ask yourself who was responsible and who wasn't.
Get out of your bomb shelter every once in a while to get some fresh air.
All through history, luddites have been scared that technological advances would take away jobs and push people into poverty, and it has never happened.
History never repeats itself, but often it rhymes.
If it was so easy to look to the past to predict the future, established industries would never have to worry about disruption from startups and both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would be out of the presidential race by now.
We can learn things from the past, but we need to put those teachings in a modern context. The automobile industry overtaking the horse carriage industry did not doom everyone in the old industry to a lifetime of unemployment. But they did have 50 years to make the transition as it took a long time for this change to take place.
The fear is not just that new technologies will kill jobs. That has always happened, and new jobs have come in. The primary fear is that new technologies will kill jobs fast.
The secondary fear is that technology will soon reach a level where a larger percentage of the population would be unemployable. This has happened to other species in the past (such as the horse), but humans have been able to easily stay ahead of the curve so far. Although if the vast majority of manual labor jobs are wiped away, it is a stretch to believe everyone will become knowledge workers or creative performers.
Get off your high horse with all your "responsible adult" nonsense. Other than a hundred dollar bill and a twenty in my car and a few in my house in case of emergencies, I have no need for cash in my house. I can't think of a single time in the last decade I needed cash in my house, keeping that emergency cash is mostly just a habit at this point. The emergency cash in my car actually has been used once when I lost my wallet a few years ago.
All of your steps, including using a bank machine at the grocery store or next to your work, are just as if not more labor intensive than writing a check every few months when someone doesn't have a Paypal account or their own merchant account. There is also just the cognitive load of remembering you need more 5's or 10's in your house. Unless you live in some rural area where people still use flip phones I still see no reasonable reason to carry cash.
My wallet generally just has some ones and fives to tip a valet when necessary, which is generally all this responsible adult ever needs cash for.
Cash is a much simpler process than your convoluted pain in the ass check approach. Cash doesn't require a check book, pens, writing, smartphones, picture taking, bank accounts, and all of that crap.
So instead you have the pain in the ass problem of making sure you have the right amount of cash on you in the right denominations. You listed a lot of steps in the check writing approach, but they are all trivial. One trip to the bank takes likely 10x more time an effort than all those steps put together. Heck even taking the time to grab money out of your wallet and count it isn't much less time than writing a check, and now your babysitter has to drive to a bank to deposit the money. Unless you are hoping the child just spends it on candy instead of learning good money management skills.
I am an anarchist -- a socialist libertarian -- and I am amused at your own totally class-unconscious sense of entitlement, Bernie Sanders supporter.
Pray tell what my sense of entitlement is? To the best of my knowledge I am grateful for benefits I have had in my life, and do not feel I am entitled to anything. I have been poor enough to lose teeth because I couldn't afford a dentist and work in fast food so I could take expired food home to feed myself. I have also gotten my act together and worked hard to give my daughters an easier life. I was able to do this because society significantly helped me through minimum wage laws, unemployment payments, my parents who valued education (even when I wasn't listening), public schooling, and government backed college loans. It also required a lot of hard work on my part. I still have six figures worth of student loan debt to pay off, but thankfully have a six figure income to pay it off with.
I also think society should do even more to help people out, but don't think anyone should just complain while they wait for more assistance. You still have to live in the real world while you are fighting for a better one. I would have preferred paid paternity leave so I didn't need to use over a year's worth of vacation time in a couple months, but I didn't childishly lambaste my employer because they don't offer it. I did what I had to do, while letting my employer know it is a perk I feel should be offered and making campaign donations to politicians who agree with me. Now it's my turn to be on the side of society helping people less fortunate than myself (not that I'm done receiving the benefits of our society).
I think any person should be able to afford to make it on their own, given good work ethic, no matter their skillset.
Making it on your own is a fantasy. No one makes it on their own. Society is necessary for anyone to live a modern lifestyle. Depending on where you lie on the socio-economic ladder, you may need to rely on society a little more or less than others. I have lived "on my own" working temp jobs for minimum wage and with a six figure salary at different times in my life, but one universal truth is I have relied on society for my quality of life my entire life. And so has everyone else.
When you live on a minimum wage salary, part of relying on society is banding together with other people for acceptable living conditions.
Or look at it the other way around. Yelp is expecting people to live in one of the most expensive areas in the country on minimum wage and make ends meet. Perhaps Yelp should set up an office somewhere cheaper, if it wants to pay low wages.
Why shouldn't Yelp have entry level jobs in expensive areas so employees can build the skills and experience necessary for higher paid positions? It isn't like you can't live in the Bay area with $1600 per month in after tax income. You just can't live like this woman was trying to do, in the privacy of your own apartment. I don't even know anyone living in Chicago with under $80k salary trying to do the same.
I'm not sure how hard it was to find roommates 20 years ago, but today its not much different than the effort it takes to find an apartment in the first place.
Her complaint amounted to an admission that she couldn't find a job which would support her lifestyle choices.
By "lifestyle choices", you mean her choice to have food and heat.
No even close. The lifestyle choices were moving to one of the most expensive places in the world with no significant job lined up, and wanting to live on her own with no roommate.
Her complaint amounted to an admission that she couldn't find a job which would support her lifestyle choices.
Lifestyle choices like eating regularly, living inside shelter with running water and electricity... how dare she think she's entitled to such things from a days wage!
Get your head out of the clouds. This woman was living in one of the most expensive areas in the country with no roommate and a minimum wage job and expected to make ends meet. That is ludicrous. In 2005 I was making only a couple dollars over minimum wage and had 4 roommates in a five bedroom townhouse. And this was in the Midwest over an hour from the nearest major city.
I am a liberal supporter of Bernie Sanders, but even I don't think this woman's problems are caused by her employer. Moving to San Francisco with no savings and no social safety net from friends or family and no significant job lined up is objectively stupid. Not taking advantage of the likely dozens of apps that help you find roommates is almost just as bad.
There is no sob story here. This is a naive and entitled kid who hopefully has learned something from the experience.
Reads article: Hmmm, apparently they're not sure why, but think it's something to do with how men and women describe things.
The researchers determined that 44% of the user names could be easily determined, and that 9% of the user names where usually guessed wrong. So what I would like to see is the results for user names that looked male but were actually run by a female, and vice versa. That should have been done long before running imperfect sentiment analysis.
If the user name Mike1923 was actually a woman, did that seller also make 80% of what the actually male user Tom8463 made? If not, the study might be on to something with their SJW claims. Otherwise the research just shows their sentiment analysis isn't good enough., or they didn't do a good enough job controlling for other factors.
Considering they missed this obvious method of determining if the results were valid, I'm voting they didn't do a good enough job controlling factors.
I lived one zip code away from a large group of affluent Chicago suburbs for $700 monthly rent in 2010, which would have allowed me to buy 2-3 designer jeans per month for the cost of rent in your area
In Chicago, you can be living "one zip code away from an affluent neighborhood" and still be living in one of the worst f*cking ghettos in the US. (e.g. Austin, Woodlawn...) Rents may be cheap but it's hardly a bargain...
It was the suburbs not the city, where being one zip code away only means the schools suck, not that they are ghettos.
Slashdot Mirror
What country, or state, or city gets to decide truth? The entire proposition is absurd; people need to be educated to understand that all media outlets are biased rather than trying to have some government agency decide what bias is acceptable.
By comparing it to the FDA, it is quite obvious he means the US Federal Government. Nothing stops other countries from setting up their own "FDA of Data and Algorithms" as well.
I think people need to be educated to understand that citizens of each country have the right to decide how much power private companies are allowed to have over average citizens. Some countries may be pro-business, some may be pro-privacy, and in reality all will fall somewhere in the middle. Any multinational company will have to decide which countries it wants to do business with, and then will be required to meets its regulatory requirements.
I still feel Hillary Clinton will back the working class more than any of the Republican nominees
I don't agree that Hillary is further removed from special interests and big money than Cruz. I am kind of surprised you think differently. I can see being against his politics but not in thinking he is more in the pockets of big business than Hilary. Cruz actually has done - or at least tried to do - what he campaigned and said he was going to do. And he is hated by mainstream for it.
I never said I thought Hillary was further removed from special interests and big money than Cruz, just that she will still back the working class more than Cruz. This is a mere byproduct of being in the Democratic party, where she will be expected to at least pay lip service to economic inequality. Cruz's constituents who care about the working class are still convinced rising tides lift all boats, and will be fine if his focus is on helping big money interests (since they feel it will indirectly help everyone else). My opinions have nothing to do with trusting Hillary any more than I trust Cruz. In fact I trust Cruz more, I simply vehemently disagree with virtually all of his campaign goals.
Since I strongly disagree that lowering taxes on the wealthy will help the working class, I believe Ted Cruz will be a disaster for households in the working class. He will probably make life easier on me (over $200k household income in the Midwest), but I am not interested in politicians making life easier on me at the expense of those less fortunate.
Not sure why ANYONE who visits this page would support Disney after how treated there IT workers. You all are very disappointing...
I am genuinely torn on whether to boycott companies like Disney is worth doing. I think Disney is a despicable company from a moral standpoint, but I find it hard to come to the conclusion that boycotting Disney products is the right approach to fighting the policies I disagree with.
I may be a hypocrite, but I dislike Disney and still watch Marvel movies, ESPN, and plan on taking my children to Disney World (they aren't ready IMHO at ages 18 months and negative a few days). I even just bought my toddler a Lightning McQueen pull back car for her Easter basket, putting even more money into Disney's pockets. Very disappointing indeed.
I will instead fund candidates I agree with who may actually enact the change I want in the world.
So how do we start? During Romney / Obama we were told a vote for Obama was a vote against corporations and the rich. We were told the same thing with McCain vs Obama.
I'll grant you Hillary and Trump are both part of the rich. Do you consider Cruz and Sanders to be part of the rich or not?
Or are we at the no true scottsman stage?
We start by supporting the politicians that are obviously not backing big money interests. Bernie Sanders is the only candidate that fits this description in 2016. I still feel Hillary Clinton will back the working class more than any of the Republican nominees, but she is a perfect example of why many voters don't see much difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Someone would have to be intentionally obtuse to not notice a huge difference when it comes to Bernie Sanders. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with his politics or think he couldn't accomplish anything meaningful, but not identifying that he is far more strongly against big money interests than any other candidate is pure ignorance.
I personally think nothing will change in politics until we start voting for and funding candidates like Bernie Sanders. I don't think he will win, but he is still the first candidate I have ever donated money to. I believe he is the change America needs, even if I think most Americans don't realize this yet. Until the American people start voting for presidents and congressmen like Bernie Sanders in droves, I don't feel anything will change in American politics. This is obviously just my opinion, and you can ask my wife if she thinks I am always right about everything.
We didn't get much hope or change from Obama, but that is only because the President of the USA is not a supreme dictator. Complaining he didn't improve things enough is like putting $1000 in your 401k and then deducing funding a 401k doesn't work because you can't retire off the dividends. Even electing someone like Bernie Sanders is only the beginning. It will be a multi-decade long fight (if the fight starts at all).
we have been told for a while that the rich are to blame and how we had to vote against the rich to be happy. Well, that has not made things better.
We haven't started voting against the rich yet, so how would our lives have been made better by it?
You haven't thought it through my friend. First off, human want is basically infinite, so there is that.
Human want is not even practically infinite, it is sometimes very large but quite finite. The incorrect assumption that human want is infinite is one of the mistakes that will cause the next economic collapse - right now we're assuming that the 1% can create enough demand to make work for the 99%, but they can't.
Human want being infinite has nothing to do with the labor requirements of fulfilling those desires. You are describing the problem that the 1% cannot create as much economic demand as the 99% regardless of having similar net worth. These are linked issues but not the same thing.
You are correct that human desire is not literally infinite, but I think sjbe is also correct that human desire can be treated as basically infinite for any discussion of resource allocation.
Specifically it would take Apple that long to do it. For someone else to try and do it would be much harder as they would have to figure out a way to sign the code without having access to Apple's distribution certs or steal them somehow.
Knowing how to build a sledgehammer to bash in a door to gain access isn't the same as a backdoor existing.
But in this case, creating a wall weak enough that a sledgehammer can break into it is no different than building a backdoor yourself. We are talking about a phone with billions of dollars of R&D spending behind it that can be compromised by $100k of development. As I said in another post, they may not have completed a backdoor but they basically just need to finish installing the door knob.
Actually Gates is worth about 1/3 what Apple is ($70 billion vs. $200 billion), so it should be $66,000.
It doesn't change the point that regardless of cost, the house doesn't already exist just because it's cheap (to you) to build.
To fit your analogy better, Apple has spent billions on R&D for the iPhone over the past decade. The end result is a phone that only requires $100k of additional development to break its security. If it is that easy to break into their own phones, I do contend they already have a backdoor; they just didn't finish putting the door knob on yet.
And lastly, from what I can find Apple has almost 8x the net worth of Bill Gates, although I wrote my original post after reading an article from last year when Apple's stock price was high enough they were worth almost 10x as much.
If a person as rich as Bill Gates can spend about $11,000 of contractor time to finish his house, I think it's only semantics to say the house doesn't already exist
There, I fixed your analogy so it lines up with the scale of money we are talking about and so it fits the scenario better.
The back door is already there.
Prove it or STFU
Apple has claimed it will take "two to four weeks [...] for six to ten Apple engineers and employees dedicating a very substantial portion of their time" to comply with the government's request.
If a company the size of Apple can spend about $100,000 of developer time to get to your data, I think it is only semantics to say the back door doesn't already exist. It would be the equivalent of me saying your house is secure from me breaking in because it would cost me 25 cents to create a master key to your home.
It's not justabout being good or being a good negotiator. It's about getting the right expertise, in the right field, which turns out to be useful and rare later. It is about taking the right chances, and getting the right chances, about knowing the right people and getting along well with them. It's about luck, properties, determination, social skills
We are talking about making $90k per year year, not $200k. It doesn't take much if any luck to find a niche in the IT industry that will pay $90k per year.
You seem to be describing the kind of luck it takes to be in the right industry and the right time to get 2000 hours per year of $250 per hour consulting gigs since your skills are so rare. That I will admit is mostly luck, but building skills that will provide a low six figure income is an almost certainty in the IT industry if manage your career intelligently.
The republican party at its core is there to push the agenda of the rich.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise of your comment. Real Republicans believe that Federal Government is not the answer to every problem. To Real Republicans, the 10th Amendment still counts, just as much as the 1st, 2nd, and 5th.
The problem with your comment is that in practice there are essentially two choices of who holds power in this country. Power is held by the rich or the common people. The only significant voice of the common people is the federal government. State governments cannot exert much power over the wealthy because of how easy is it to move between states. It is also hard for the federal government to exert power of the wealthy, but it is order of magnitudes more capable than state governments.
So while in theory strong state governments are a good idea, in practice only a strong federal government is capable of giving a significant voice to the people. So there really are only two choices:
1) Believe in a strong federal government
2) Believe in pursuing the agenda of the rich.
At some point in the future a strong federal government will not even be enough, and a strong world government will be necessary. Trade agreements play that role now but will be even more important as time goes on.
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform disallowed individual citizens from putting on a TV commercial within 90 days of an election explaining why you should vote for their favorite candidate. That is an individual was prevented, not a corporation. The ONLY way the Supreme court could have decided that case was to strike it down.
McCain-Feingold does stop individual citizens from buying expensive TV adds, but it does not stop individual citizens from pooling their money into outside groups, like super-PACs. Corporations have the same limitations. which is why you don't see corporations buying ads. They send money to super-PACs just like individual citizens.
I don't like that super-PACs can exist, but I have never seen anything wrong with the Citizens United ruling. I strongly dislike the ramifications, but the legal argument is sound. I'm more upset with the 4 justices that voted against Citizens United since it shows both sides are primarily ideologically motivated, not motivated by the law.
Let us know how your world of convenience turns out when the government forces everyone to digital transactions and then punishes anyone who doesn't march to their tune by disabling their digital account. Then you can ask yourself who was responsible and who wasn't.
Get out of your bomb shelter every once in a while to get some fresh air.
All through history, luddites have been scared that technological advances would take away jobs and push people into poverty, and it has never happened.
History never repeats itself, but often it rhymes.
If it was so easy to look to the past to predict the future, established industries would never have to worry about disruption from startups and both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would be out of the presidential race by now.
We can learn things from the past, but we need to put those teachings in a modern context. The automobile industry overtaking the horse carriage industry did not doom everyone in the old industry to a lifetime of unemployment. But they did have 50 years to make the transition as it took a long time for this change to take place.
The fear is not just that new technologies will kill jobs. That has always happened, and new jobs have come in. The primary fear is that new technologies will kill jobs fast.
The secondary fear is that technology will soon reach a level where a larger percentage of the population would be unemployable. This has happened to other species in the past (such as the horse), but humans have been able to easily stay ahead of the curve so far. Although if the vast majority of manual labor jobs are wiped away, it is a stretch to believe everyone will become knowledge workers or creative performers.
Get off your high horse with all your "responsible adult" nonsense. Other than a hundred dollar bill and a twenty in my car and a few in my house in case of emergencies, I have no need for cash in my house. I can't think of a single time in the last decade I needed cash in my house, keeping that emergency cash is mostly just a habit at this point. The emergency cash in my car actually has been used once when I lost my wallet a few years ago.
All of your steps, including using a bank machine at the grocery store or next to your work, are just as if not more labor intensive than writing a check every few months when someone doesn't have a Paypal account or their own merchant account. There is also just the cognitive load of remembering you need more 5's or 10's in your house. Unless you live in some rural area where people still use flip phones I still see no reasonable reason to carry cash.
My wallet generally just has some ones and fives to tip a valet when necessary, which is generally all this responsible adult ever needs cash for.
Cash is a much simpler process than your convoluted pain in the ass check approach. Cash doesn't require a check book, pens, writing, smartphones, picture taking, bank accounts, and all of that crap.
So instead you have the pain in the ass problem of making sure you have the right amount of cash on you in the right denominations. You listed a lot of steps in the check writing approach, but they are all trivial. One trip to the bank takes likely 10x more time an effort than all those steps put together. Heck even taking the time to grab money out of your wallet and count it isn't much less time than writing a check, and now your babysitter has to drive to a bank to deposit the money. Unless you are hoping the child just spends it on candy instead of learning good money management skills.
You're completely ignoring the cost of cash.
And you are completely ignoring the real benefit of cash. It is for only claiming 90% of your sales and pocketing the rest tax free.
I am an anarchist -- a socialist libertarian -- and I am amused at your own totally class-unconscious sense of entitlement, Bernie Sanders supporter.
Pray tell what my sense of entitlement is? To the best of my knowledge I am grateful for benefits I have had in my life, and do not feel I am entitled to anything. I have been poor enough to lose teeth because I couldn't afford a dentist and work in fast food so I could take expired food home to feed myself. I have also gotten my act together and worked hard to give my daughters an easier life. I was able to do this because society significantly helped me through minimum wage laws, unemployment payments, my parents who valued education (even when I wasn't listening), public schooling, and government backed college loans. It also required a lot of hard work on my part. I still have six figures worth of student loan debt to pay off, but thankfully have a six figure income to pay it off with.
I also think society should do even more to help people out, but don't think anyone should just complain while they wait for more assistance. You still have to live in the real world while you are fighting for a better one. I would have preferred paid paternity leave so I didn't need to use over a year's worth of vacation time in a couple months, but I didn't childishly lambaste my employer because they don't offer it. I did what I had to do, while letting my employer know it is a perk I feel should be offered and making campaign donations to politicians who agree with me. Now it's my turn to be on the side of society helping people less fortunate than myself (not that I'm done receiving the benefits of our society).
I think any person should be able to afford to make it on their own, given good work ethic, no matter their skillset.
Making it on your own is a fantasy. No one makes it on their own. Society is necessary for anyone to live a modern lifestyle. Depending on where you lie on the socio-economic ladder, you may need to rely on society a little more or less than others. I have lived "on my own" working temp jobs for minimum wage and with a six figure salary at different times in my life, but one universal truth is I have relied on society for my quality of life my entire life. And so has everyone else.
When you live on a minimum wage salary, part of relying on society is banding together with other people for acceptable living conditions.
Or look at it the other way around. Yelp is expecting people to live in one of the most expensive areas in the country on minimum wage and make ends meet. Perhaps Yelp should set up an office somewhere cheaper, if it wants to pay low wages.
Why shouldn't Yelp have entry level jobs in expensive areas so employees can build the skills and experience necessary for higher paid positions? It isn't like you can't live in the Bay area with $1600 per month in after tax income. You just can't live like this woman was trying to do, in the privacy of your own apartment. I don't even know anyone living in Chicago with under $80k salary trying to do the same.
I'm not sure how hard it was to find roommates 20 years ago, but today its not much different than the effort it takes to find an apartment in the first place.
By "lifestyle choices", you mean her choice to have food and heat.
No even close. The lifestyle choices were moving to one of the most expensive places in the world with no significant job lined up, and wanting to live on her own with no roommate.
Her complaint amounted to an admission that she couldn't find a job which would support her lifestyle choices.
Lifestyle choices like eating regularly, living inside shelter with running water and electricity... how dare she think she's entitled to such things from a days wage!
Get your head out of the clouds. This woman was living in one of the most expensive areas in the country with no roommate and a minimum wage job and expected to make ends meet. That is ludicrous. In 2005 I was making only a couple dollars over minimum wage and had 4 roommates in a five bedroom townhouse. And this was in the Midwest over an hour from the nearest major city.
I am a liberal supporter of Bernie Sanders, but even I don't think this woman's problems are caused by her employer. Moving to San Francisco with no savings and no social safety net from friends or family and no significant job lined up is objectively stupid. Not taking advantage of the likely dozens of apps that help you find roommates is almost just as bad.
There is no sob story here. This is a naive and entitled kid who hopefully has learned something from the experience.
Reads article: Hmmm, apparently they're not sure why, but think it's something to do with how men and women describe things.
The researchers determined that 44% of the user names could be easily determined, and that 9% of the user names where usually guessed wrong. So what I would like to see is the results for user names that looked male but were actually run by a female, and vice versa. That should have been done long before running imperfect sentiment analysis.
If the user name Mike1923 was actually a woman, did that seller also make 80% of what the actually male user Tom8463 made? If not, the study might be on to something with their SJW claims. Otherwise the research just shows their sentiment analysis isn't good enough., or they didn't do a good enough job controlling for other factors.
Considering they missed this obvious method of determining if the results were valid, I'm voting they didn't do a good enough job controlling factors.
I lived one zip code away from a large group of affluent Chicago suburbs for $700 monthly rent in 2010, which would have allowed me to buy 2-3 designer jeans per month for the cost of rent in your area
In Chicago, you can be living "one zip code away from an affluent neighborhood" and still be living in one of the worst f*cking ghettos in the US. (e.g. Austin, Woodlawn...) Rents may be cheap but it's hardly a bargain...
It was the suburbs not the city, where being one zip code away only means the schools suck, not that they are ghettos.