Major carriers don't hire "starting" pilots. Pilots start by doing traffic reports, sight seeing tours and tiny regionals. Regardless of the ATP cert.
And those per-hour wages... they aren't allowed to work 40 hours a week, max out at 90 hours a month and only average 900 hours a year. (A standard salary is 2000 hours a year.)
You -could- make a decent living as a pilot, but it takes ten years to get there. During which you're pretty poor. Why bother? (Yes, I'm certified.;) )
It's not just the head tax. It's all the other taxes and regulations and controls too. Just because a specific straw broke the camel's back doesn't make THAT straw the bad straw... there are many other straws there.
Just because you could probably survive giving me $1000, doesn't mean I'm entitled to force you to do that, does it?
And if your choice was to be around people who would say that it DID entitle me to force you to give me that $1000... call it, for the sake of argument, regional quality-of-life-benefits, suppose you were insightful enough to realize that there would almost immediately be another round for reduction of income disparity (which could be reduced better by fixing schools.) So I realized you STILL had another $1000, and could afford to give it, so I took that too.
Or you could move five miles, to an area with lower crime, better life quality, but a bit less central... and nobody regularly extorting $1000 payments from you because you "could afford it".
What would a rational person or business do? Just because they could afford it, doesn't mean it's something they may choose to afford or even should choose to afford.
Before you disagree, please remit that $1000. Because it's probably a rounding error on your 401K and I know you can afford it.
Under normal conditions, you might be right. But Seattle ain't normal. "Individuals" are so heavily taxed in Seattle that they have to get creative. Hence this, and a pseudo-income-tax that wasn't, that both happened this last year.
Washington State can't have an income tax, but the property tax is extremely high. There's a high-ish sales tax. Refinancing an average property results in over $15K of state taxes. Seattle has a high "soda tax"... which Costco protests on their pricing placards. Seattle also has high minimum wages and high mandatory benefits. These are individual taxes, even though they're paid invisibly by the employers. For now, they're still primarily born by the tech industry, but Sawant wants to drive that out because it increases income disparities. She'd rather everyone be poor. But she'll have to get really creative for the next attempt.
Grocery stores are all low-margin businesses. Your view, that if a business can't afford to pay the tax, they shouldn't be in business, sounds like the petulant socialists here (Seattle.) You should WANT jobs and businesses, rather than making it harder for them or pushing them over into Bellevue, Renton and Lynnwood.
The proper stance to take here is one of mutual respect. The city and the company came to an (presumably) mutually beneficial agreement. The city doesn't need to grovel to Amazon, but treat them with respect, and expect the same in return.
The city and Amazon were at a mutually-acceptable position prior to this tax. The city unilaterally is changing the agreement. That doesn't really sound like "mutual respect" to me.
It's not "grovelling" for the city to stay with status quo. They're expecting AMAZON to grovel, by accepting the new tax without complaints or reactions.
Whenever Amazon (or any developer) builds a new building in Seattle, they must pay massive "impact fees" that cover, or are meant to cover, expanding the infrastructure to support the impact. This includes traffic, utilities, law enforcement and more, and are a significant chunk of the total development cost.
Except healthcare in Europe requires longer waits, government control and restrictions such that those who can often fly to the U.S. for private care. And except for that so many European grad students "finish up" in the U.S., at a far higher rate than vice-versa. But other than those two exceptions, your two examples are spot-on.
The vast majority of Amazon's Seattle employees are not from the Seattle or Washington educational systems. Well, the janitors and baristas perhaps.
Seattle's not "asking" Amazon to give a "tiny" bit back either; Seattle is changing the rules at the muzzle of a gun to extort millions of dollars, when Amazon has already provided a massive boost to the economy and tax base.
But as a liberal, you want more money. This is the kind of selfish short-term thinking that will destroy this country. (Gee, I've read that last sentence somewhere before!)
The trouble is, actually being in compliance isn't enough. You have to be able to afford the lawyers to defend against the accusations, even when they're completely invalid. All you've done is reduce your risk; you haven't eliminated it.
His resignation letter specifically referenced the "social injustice movement" and the Outreachy program... which is very specific and very discriminatory. Of course, an "Outreach" program by definition is trying to "reach out", but that doesn't make much sense in a faceless meritocracy such as an open source code base.
And that is part of his point... the code of conduct shouldn't require tolerance for any "political belief"; political beliefs shouldn't be part of the code discussion at all. (Hence his use of the word "permeated.")
What you're missing is that you're relying on the reporting rather than reading his letter and following the link in his footnote.
He isn't being asked to behave "reasonably well"; he's being asked to sanction discrimination. And you openly being happy to exclude people because they don't agree with you, when they BUILT the community, is pretty much his point of the problem... you haven't helped the community or committed code, but you come in and apply SJW (his term) values.
Of the two of you, one is behaving as an intolerant bigoted bully... and it isn't him.
Not constraining the language is the worst error you can make. New programmers and fledgling developers tend towards the newest bright shiny object... which often cannot really do the job.
Five years ago, many "developers" who had been at large companies but never a crucial part of an existentially-important project, such as at a smaller company where completing and shipping functional software matters, jumped onto the Node.JS bandwagon for micro-services. Node is single-threaded, doesn't have good type safety and, even with promises, very hard to inspect. It is very portable, but not the correct choice for services. Especially in a CI/CD world.
That is a case where constraining the language absolutely should have been done. C++, C#, Java, GoLang... many far better choices.
True but misses the main point. I won't invest $50K in training a junior to a useful level, and then have to pay them as a non-junior to keep them, when I could save that $50K and start with the skills.
A similar "study" in Washington State this past year reported similar findings, but actually included the questions. From memory, they had defined "driving" as being behind the wheel, en-route. Not necessarily moving. In Seattle's stop-and-slow traffic, you can spend five minutes stopped at a light; it's not "distracted driving" to check your email when there's no velocity and no where to go.
Let's get the questions (which are suspiciously missing, even as they trumpet "occasional distracted driving") before we attribute any credibility to this study.
Given that the FBI can't even track down messages sent between their own agents that they were required to "compliance" and archive, I'm not sure how encryption can add more difficulty. They've got a Keystone Cops vibe going there.
I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word "compelling". Or perhaps "legal". It may not seem ethical, but what they're doing is using another bit of data you are voluntarily (by virtue of your chosen browser settings) providing to "fingerprint" you. It is a bit worse than IP Address or cookie tracking, or way back when mobile phones included a device identifier in the header, but only barely.
So why is it compelling? Because their revenue is based on tracking and monetizing your interests.
Why is it legal? Because there's no law against it.
They weren't "railroaded". They wrapped themselves in dynamite, doused in gasoline, with lit candles all around them, and sat on the railroad track when they vocally violated not just the law but then the court orders.
They only looked at eight countries total, including the U.S. and Canada. No others as sparsely populated as Canada. It's a bit like breathlessly claiming that they're below average half the time!
I've taken a few jobs like that, temporary or "ramp us up" jobs. And they've usually turned into permanent positions. I've hired that way too. It's sort-of temp-to-hire, a way to do a more thorough interview without the risk of having to fire someone.
The "climate change" concern in the 60s and 70s was global cooling, not global warming. The only bit you got correct is that Carter got involved; he signed the National Climate Program Act to deal with "the global cooling crisis."
I worry for Slashdot when I see such revisionism as yours upmodded to +5.
Your first sentence has nothing to do with the rest of your post, or with this issue.
The left seems to be against decriminalization more than the right, often citing:
Prostitution is inherently misogynistic and demeaning to women. Apparently no woman should be allowed to decide that for herself.
Human Trafficking. Some undocumented women are enslaved and forced into prostitution. Not all prostitutes fall into that category, but one hallmark from the left is to regulate more rather than less.
Prostitution takes advantage of the downtrodden. In other words, because it's unsavory, only a desperate woman would engage in prostitution. Anyone patronizing a prostitute is, by definition, abusing her. So we must protect her from this option and remove this potential source of survival income.
No-one is taking a stand for decriminalization. But most of the outrage these days focuses on protecting women, immigrants and the downtrodden, rather than on the NIMBY morality of the right wing.
Slashdot Mirror
Major carriers don't hire "starting" pilots. Pilots start by doing traffic reports, sight seeing tours and tiny regionals. Regardless of the ATP cert.
And those per-hour wages... they aren't allowed to work 40 hours a week, max out at 90 hours a month and only average 900 hours a year. (A standard salary is 2000 hours a year.)
You -could- make a decent living as a pilot, but it takes ten years to get there. During which you're pretty poor. Why bother? (Yes, I'm certified. ;) )
It's not just the head tax. It's all the other taxes and regulations and controls too. Just because a specific straw broke the camel's back doesn't make THAT straw the bad straw... there are many other straws there.
Just because you could probably survive giving me $1000, doesn't mean I'm entitled to force you to do that, does it?
And if your choice was to be around people who would say that it DID entitle me to force you to give me that $1000... call it, for the sake of argument, regional quality-of-life-benefits, suppose you were insightful enough to realize that there would almost immediately be another round for reduction of income disparity (which could be reduced better by fixing schools.) So I realized you STILL had another $1000, and could afford to give it, so I took that too.
Or you could move five miles, to an area with lower crime, better life quality, but a bit less central... and nobody regularly extorting $1000 payments from you because you "could afford it".
What would a rational person or business do? Just because they could afford it, doesn't mean it's something they may choose to afford or even should choose to afford.
Before you disagree, please remit that $1000. Because it's probably a rounding error on your 401K and I know you can afford it.
Under normal conditions, you might be right. But Seattle ain't normal. "Individuals" are so heavily taxed in Seattle that they have to get creative. Hence this, and a pseudo-income-tax that wasn't, that both happened this last year.
Washington State can't have an income tax, but the property tax is extremely high. There's a high-ish sales tax. Refinancing an average property results in over $15K of state taxes. Seattle has a high "soda tax"... which Costco protests on their pricing placards. Seattle also has high minimum wages and high mandatory benefits. These are individual taxes, even though they're paid invisibly by the employers. For now, they're still primarily born by the tech industry, but Sawant wants to drive that out because it increases income disparities. She'd rather everyone be poor. But she'll have to get really creative for the next attempt.
Grocery stores are all low-margin businesses. Your view, that if a business can't afford to pay the tax, they shouldn't be in business, sounds like the petulant socialists here (Seattle.) You should WANT jobs and businesses, rather than making it harder for them or pushing them over into Bellevue, Renton and Lynnwood.
The proper stance to take here is one of mutual respect. The city and the company came to an (presumably) mutually beneficial agreement. The city doesn't need to grovel to Amazon, but treat them with respect, and expect the same in return.
The city and Amazon were at a mutually-acceptable position prior to this tax. The city unilaterally is changing the agreement. That doesn't really sound like "mutual respect" to me.
It's not "grovelling" for the city to stay with status quo. They're expecting AMAZON to grovel, by accepting the new tax without complaints or reactions.
Whenever Amazon (or any developer) builds a new building in Seattle, they must pay massive "impact fees" that cover, or are meant to cover, expanding the infrastructure to support the impact. This includes traffic, utilities, law enforcement and more, and are a significant chunk of the total development cost.
Except healthcare in Europe requires longer waits, government control and restrictions such that those who can often fly to the U.S. for private care. And except for that so many European grad students "finish up" in the U.S., at a far higher rate than vice-versa. But other than those two exceptions, your two examples are spot-on.
The vast majority of Amazon's Seattle employees are not from the Seattle or Washington educational systems. Well, the janitors and baristas perhaps.
Seattle's not "asking" Amazon to give a "tiny" bit back either; Seattle is changing the rules at the muzzle of a gun to extort millions of dollars, when Amazon has already provided a massive boost to the economy and tax base.
But as a liberal, you want more money. This is the kind of selfish short-term thinking that will destroy this country. (Gee, I've read that last sentence somewhere before!)
The trouble is, actually being in compliance isn't enough. You have to be able to afford the lawyers to defend against the accusations, even when they're completely invalid. All you've done is reduce your risk; you haven't eliminated it.
His resignation letter specifically referenced the "social injustice movement" and the Outreachy program... which is very specific and very discriminatory. Of course, an "Outreach" program by definition is trying to "reach out", but that doesn't make much sense in a faceless meritocracy such as an open source code base.
And that is part of his point... the code of conduct shouldn't require tolerance for any "political belief"; political beliefs shouldn't be part of the code discussion at all. (Hence his use of the word "permeated.")
What you're missing is that you're relying on the reporting rather than reading his letter and following the link in his footnote.
He isn't being asked to behave "reasonably well"; he's being asked to sanction discrimination. And you openly being happy to exclude people because they don't agree with you, when they BUILT the community, is pretty much his point of the problem... you haven't helped the community or committed code, but you come in and apply SJW (his term) values.
Of the two of you, one is behaving as an intolerant bigoted bully... and it isn't him.
Not constraining the language is the worst error you can make. New programmers and fledgling developers tend towards the newest bright shiny object... which often cannot really do the job.
Five years ago, many "developers" who had been at large companies but never a crucial part of an existentially-important project, such as at a smaller company where completing and shipping functional software matters, jumped onto the Node.JS bandwagon for micro-services. Node is single-threaded, doesn't have good type safety and, even with promises, very hard to inspect. It is very portable, but not the correct choice for services. Especially in a CI/CD world.
That is a case where constraining the language absolutely should have been done. C++, C#, Java, GoLang... many far better choices.
But why train them then? Why not just save the time and money by hiring at the higher level?
True but misses the main point. I won't invest $50K in training a junior to a useful level, and then have to pay them as a non-junior to keep them, when I could save that $50K and start with the skills.
A similar "study" in Washington State this past year reported similar findings, but actually included the questions. From memory, they had defined "driving" as being behind the wheel, en-route. Not necessarily moving. In Seattle's stop-and-slow traffic, you can spend five minutes stopped at a light; it's not "distracted driving" to check your email when there's no velocity and no where to go.
Let's get the questions (which are suspiciously missing, even as they trumpet "occasional distracted driving") before we attribute any credibility to this study.
Given that the FBI can't even track down messages sent between their own agents that they were required to "compliance" and archive, I'm not sure how encryption can add more difficulty. They've got a Keystone Cops vibe going there.
I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word "compelling". Or perhaps "legal". It may not seem ethical, but what they're doing is using another bit of data you are voluntarily (by virtue of your chosen browser settings) providing to "fingerprint" you. It is a bit worse than IP Address or cookie tracking, or way back when mobile phones included a device identifier in the header, but only barely.
So why is it compelling? Because their revenue is based on tracking and monetizing your interests.
Why is it legal? Because there's no law against it.
I just tried it with Chrome 63.0.3239.108; it retrieved the username immediately.
They weren't "railroaded". They wrapped themselves in dynamite, doused in gasoline, with lit candles all around them, and sat on the railroad track when they vocally violated not just the law but then the court orders.
They only looked at eight countries total, including the U.S. and Canada. No others as sparsely populated as Canada. It's a bit like breathlessly claiming that they're below average half the time!
I've taken a few jobs like that, temporary or "ramp us up" jobs. And they've usually turned into permanent positions. I've hired that way too. It's sort-of temp-to-hire, a way to do a more thorough interview without the risk of having to fire someone.
The "climate change" concern in the 60s and 70s was global cooling, not global warming. The only bit you got correct is that Carter got involved; he signed the National Climate Program Act to deal with "the global cooling crisis."
I worry for Slashdot when I see such revisionism as yours upmodded to +5.
I'm not seeing that as the real world; you can't force someone to keep giving you money unless you're the government.
The left seems to be against decriminalization more than the right, often citing:
No-one is taking a stand for decriminalization. But most of the outrage these days focuses on protecting women, immigrants and the downtrodden, rather than on the NIMBY morality of the right wing.