newacct23

Im sorry for overreacting, it seemed like it was deleted because the comment wasn't appearing even with the "awaiting for moderation" tag so it seemed like it was removed. Things relating to Cuba are personal to me.

edit: I'm in the wrong. Cloudflare allowed me to post the comment it just seemed like it was removed because of some delay.

Since it seems Cloudflare doesn't like criticisms of the cuban government on their blog I'll repost what I posted here

The paquete is censored and only contains harmless information with respect to the government. that is why they don't allow people to implement their own mesh network to create their own ad hoc internet.

false equivalency

This line of thinking is wrong. You can't just short a company because you have a reasonable belief it is overvalued when the vast majority of investors think otherwise. There needs to be some event that forces the public to reevaluate their valuation of the company for the short to work.

A Chinese or Russian millionaire looking to buy property in Vancouver is going to buy whether it's $5 million or $5.75 million

I don't know why you believe this to be true but it isnt

It's not encryption vs. safety. It's functioning software systems vs safety and there is actually no conflict because functioning systems are necessary for safety.

So really the FBI director should have phrased it as "lack of encryption vs. safety".

He pointed out the parallels between the US and Free software. You have done nothing to refute any of the parallels other than some snarky comment about potatoes which wasn't worth reading.

And most importantly there are many governments that are absolutely nothing like the free software ecosystem which gives the analogy worth.

Hard? Where did I say hard? Reading for challenge is understandable, reading a bad book multiple times is just retarded. And Atlas Shrugged isn't a hard book.

Same, any hour long competitive game is too much for me. It feels like a complete waste of time. I only have fun playing games like battlefield now for 20 minutes while listening to music.

Education shrank the results to single digits for each occupation, gender and work experience, so I decided to remove it from the final dataset.

First of all you could have used buckets. Secondly, it doesn't seem like you have enough data judging from your charts.

Dice did a study and found that

when you control for education, level of experience and parallel job titles, says Dice, men and women earn the same amounts.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/03/20/women-are-...

At that point I made a decision to change this by enforcing a new hiring rule. Next couple of new employees are going to be women up until we balance our team

I hope you get sued

You clearly misunderstood moron, I said I don't believe you because reading that book once is a painful exercise why the hell would someone that didn't like it read it multiple times? Keep your lies in check and maybe you will be convincing.

I've read it several times.

I don't believe you.

100% you haven't even read the book and you are aping an opinion you read somewhere on the internet by someone who also hasn't read it.

Jesuit education manages to be good.

and worth more than them now

You cannot trust any valuation that comes out of China.

They are so much more clean and bouncy feeling than western software. It using websites and apps more fun.

Are we using the same ad ridden websites?

In no democratic nation except America is having voter ids required when you vote a controversial subject.

At the risk of veering off topic, would you mind explaining what this meant for you?

Well first of all you need to understand I will never vote for Hillary Clinton so I needed to rationalize voting for the Republican candidate.

Secondly it seemed Trump was addressing concerns people actually cared about. Money, security, and the bullshit fed to them by politicians in that order. Up until the Curiel scandal you could have argued the statements made by Trump were not racist. This actually mattered to me since one of the things I love about America is that anybody of any ethnicity could emigrate here and call themselves American. Also some of his positions seemed somewhat rational when you make them somewhat less extreme. For example, some sort of barrier or technology that assisted border patrol in their mandate could significantly curb the problem of illegal immigrants coming into the country and also curb the amount of drugs coming into the country. I also think there are certain countries in the middle east that terrorists almost always originate from, so while I think a complete Muslim ban is unnecessary and unenforceable I don't think we should be accepting anybody from war torn nations with signs of extremism.

Him being against the Trans Pacific Partnership and H1B visas and also being for lowering the corporate tax rate (three things which would affect my family and I significantly). He got my vote over Hillary.

(also Hillary's anti gun stances are another negative for her)

His "almost reasonable" positions led me to take him as my candidate of choice after everybody else I wanted was eliminated. I also believed his "almost reasonable" positions could resonate with voters if he did not make them more extreme. After Curiel he has been doubling down on his extremist rhetoric rather than toning it down which has removed any possibility of me voting for him.

Also it's interesting to note that until Curiel, Trump hadn't made any significant gaffs. Since then he has only made gaffs such as patting himself on the back like a buffoon after the Orlando massacre and he only doubles down. It just serves to make him seem unhinged and not capable of managing a mcdonalds let alone a country.

As an idiot that fell for the Trump secret political savant narrative I upvoted every single article without even reading the title on the first 3 pages of the rising section (very quickly because of keyboard shortcuts) because I believed I was helping the cause. Many others did this.

Don't tell me how much of an idiot I am, I've already judged myself. Luckily I can say I voted against Trump when I had the chance. Now I'm praying Romney runs third party.

The 2008 bubble was caused by fraud, what is the current bubble caused by? Most people are saying we are in a bubble because all of these companies that are making 0 dollars are worth extremely large amounts of money. Everybody is aware that these companies aren't making money however and still believe the company is worth an insane amount of money.

If everyone is willfully deluding themselves and see nothing wrong with it, for what reason do we believe that it will change in the future and that the bubble will pop? And the current situation is different from the 2008 crash in that people know what they are buying into, companies that don't make money, and they don't care.

Question: in Silicon Valley, considering the fault line, is it even safe to build up?

$325 million, paid in Tesla stock.

Musk wrote in a June 21, 2014 letter to Simbol CEO John Burba

Jesus. I probably wouldn't have taken this deal either because it's all in stock but damn they must be kicking themselves right now.

In Atlanta a taxi to the airport can be 40 dollars. An uber is less than 30.

and now they are screwed. I think you are onto something btw with the Uber and Lyft wanted to lose thing. Now they can point to Austin and say, this is what happens when you don't comply.

a lot of taxi companies also have similar apps

First of all that's not the reason Uber and lyft are popular. Secondly, most taxi company apps suck.

I don't know about iOS but I have never had a forced upgrade with a mac laptop.

I modified my main post with some more evidence in support of my theory which I'm posting here so you can see it as a response.

Professors in humanities that identify as Republican range from 6 to 11 percent.

Social Sciences 7 and 9 percent

2% of English professors are Republican.

Meanwhile 18% of social scientists are Marxists.

This evidence leads me to believe that Academics self select to be liberal and that people with a conservative mindset do not find academia appealing for whatever reason. The reason I rule it has little to do with intelligence of the groups is the prevalence of Marxism amongst academics. Intelligent people that use evidence to reason about their beliefs wouldn't be Marxist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessio...

The article defines highly educated as people with advanced degrees. They are not academics

Definition from article:

But the most highly educated Americans — those who have attended graduate or professional school — are starting to come together as a political bloc.

Doctors make up 1/3 of a percent of the US population (they don't necessarily have Phds)

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-percent-of-the-us-population-do...

Doctors chose Romney over Obama 55% to 36%.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/survey-doctors-choose-romn...

1.68% of Americans have a Phd (actually significantly more than I expected and significantly more than I think deserve to be handed out). I really wonder how many of these people do practical work. I can't find statistics to prove my bias so we will have to leave it as is unless someone can find some.

51% of college graduates voted for Romney in 2012 while only 48% for Obama

Romney actually lost with highschool educated only and he lost significantly with postgraduate studies only getting 42% of the vote with Obama getting 55%.

So really the trend is that academics are liberal, not the highly educated.

(That 3% gap in college grads likely accounts for a larger percentage of the population than the massive 13% gap among grad degree holders)

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups...

edit: another source that adds evidence to my argument

Professors in humanities that identify as Republican range from 6 to 11 percent.

Social Sciences 7 and 9 percent

2% of English professors are Republican.

Meanwhile 18% of social scientists are Marxists.

This evidence leads me to believe that Academics self select to be liberal and that people with a conservative mindset do not find academia appealing for whatever reason. The reason I rule it has little to do with intelligence of the groups is the prevalence of Marxism amongst academics. Intelligent people that use evidence to reason about their beliefs wouldn't be Marxist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confessio...

Are you saying that people commit crimes because they have too much time on their hands?

Partially, yes. Why do you think after school programs are so good at keeping kids out of crime?