dontmindifido

That is a really poor argument and can be debunked with some simple thought modeling. Imagine a system where returns on capital are higher than labor, and there are a relatively small number of people with large amounts of capital and no 'socialist' policies in place to attempt to interrupt the capital flow. After a period of time, assuming everyone is working and investing if they have capital to spare, would the income be more or less evenly distributed? This result would occur outside of socialist policies so it's very doubtful they are the cause.

It seems strange to me that someone who doesn't have the risk appetite to start a business would think they are well suited to running one still in its early stages.

It's actually in larger companies best interests to pay patent trolls. Like internet fast lanes it creates barriers to entry that effect smaller competitors much more.

I think this could work well for people who are 'time rich' where talking is by far the better way to convey more information. For the rest of us drones though we have less choice about when / how long / how loud we can talk so texting or messaging is an attractive alternative.

We run 45 server instances and handle ~20 requests per second on AppEngine. Like many others we run Jenkins to handle our build and deployment. Appengine is not perfect but we spend the majority of our time focused on delivering business logic software rather than backend / infrastructure / scaling solutions. This allows us to keep our team small and increases our revenue per employee. Our experience has been that many of the idiosyncrasies you deal when first starting with AppEngine make scaling far simpler down the track.

I think the culture of blaming the poor for being that way shows a tremendous lack of understanding about the complex social issues around it. It's more than statistically likely you would not break the generational cycle of poverty if you started life in similar circumstances.

It is not practical to investigate every instance of someone doing something 'unusual' (even if you can define it well enough). Even if you could investigate every instance of it you still shouldn't because a police state where everything 'unusual' is questioned is a terrible place to live. If you know that you're going to have to answer questions every time you take a photo, you'll stop taking photos.

There is a disconnect between voting and policy that will need to be addressed before you are able to call it a democracy again.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think that is a private data leak.

I'd love to see them take an altruistic approach and shift the focus to countries like Africa where health projects would provide a lot more utility and have a lot less regulatory burden. Once a product is visibly working in one country it's more difficult to make cases against it elsewhere.

This is interesting from the context of a whistleblower. What if the contractor intentionally emailed the file to an external address because they had found out some kind of management impropriety.

As someone not from the US, it's always interesting to see the focus on US rights with the rest of the world almost an afterthought. In my mind it seems a lot less altruistic viewed under that lens.