ohnomrbill

I would not be concerned about them having my workplace's information if they did not have my personal information. I'm fine with them having personal information, or workplace information, but not both. The only thing missing for Facebook then would be to watch me while I sleep.

Yes, because I use Duck Duck Go for browsing and my personal emails are generally not very revealing. Google certainly has a good deal of my personal information, but I purposefully keep it limited. For that reason, I'm okay with having them as my work email provider.

Nope, the concern of the parent post was that they would link my work and personal profiles behind the scenes. I don't want to see work-related content pop up, but it's a secondary concern. I don't want Facebook to know what I do both when I'm at work and when I'm on personal time, because I don't trust their company.

I try very hard to separate my work life and personal life. This would make me do one of two things:

- Stop using facebook for personal purposes and treat it like a more featureful LinkedIn

- Quit my job and find another which doesn't require me to give work information to a company which has a trove of my personal information

On the other hand, I've just been at a place where "invented here syndrome" masked crappy developers to the detriment of the business. One tester spent 3 days tracking down a simple python dependency bug - but in the meantime he was productive because Travis is so easy to set up, and his Ruby tests worked.

Travis is definitely more appealing to me than maintaining my own Jenkins instance. But I can't help but feel that we would have caught this guy's crappiness much earlier if he had to set up his own Jenkins job instead of a travis.yml file.

Anyone can cook. Will people pay me a living wage to cook? Will that wage cover lost income from being on government programs? Does cooking (given the relative difficulty of becoming wealthy doing so) provide an income ceiling higher than getting paid via welfare/Social Security?

There is plenty of work to be done. It's just not paid work. How do you propose to coerce people to pay for this work?

Thank you for the link. I suspect we agree more than we disagree. It's good to be reminded that we can only falsify theories, not prove them. It's also good to check assumptions from time to time - your example of slavery is very apt.

I am not, however, going to modify the way I speak and write to emphasize that I am speaking my own opinions, with my own assumptions. That should be obvious.

It's a form of culture jamming to disrupt the cognitive processes by which we accept things as "truth" or "reality".

Can you express this a bit more clearly? "Culture jamming" is not a broadly understood term. It's not clear why the words "truth" and "reality" are quoted. Additionally, it seems odd to combine a specific term like "cognitive processes" with a ultra-broad term like "things".

If there is an argument for postmodernism being something more than word salad, your comment does not make it well.

Depends on how you look at the game. The point of the game for users is to catch pokemon. The point of the game for Niantic is to have users wander around, so they can make money via sponsored locations.

A winning strategy must accommodate both.

There is a big difference between pain you can reasonably expect to go away and pain you cannot reasonably expect to go away.

Suicidal ideation is due to the latter, not the former.

I'm happy to admit it, and wish others were. But it seems there's a lot of convincing to do first.

2) I have some issues with (though I agree with the general direction).

I would still describe science, art, etc. as a job (or at least any successful system will have to). There is a big difference between saying, "let's give people money, and hope they spend their time painting or writing", and saying "let's give people money contingent on their painting, writing, etc. with some of their time". In both cases, we don't strictly need the work, but one carries the connotation of laziness. That has proven to be a large sticking point in the current discussion.

As others have mentioned, there is a big difference between living in a system where basic needs are met and getting to that system. In particular, it has never been clear to me why we assume that people in power decide to accommodate the number of people we currently have. If the number of jobs is a problem, a despot can do the hard work of finding a system that works with fewer jobs or they can engage in population control by other means, hoping to delay the onset of the problem.

(Disclaimer: I will vote for some candidate this election, but I would write in a name before voting for Trump.)

I see this conflation in almost all the election news I hear - people assume that Trump supporters are against any immigration. In fact, the white, blue collar workers making Trump's base are okay with most immigrants. They (quite understandably) dislike illegal South American immigrants, who compete with them for a shrinking pool of manufacturing and menial labor jobs. While immigration may benefit the country as a whole, illegal immigration from South America does not benefit them; instead, it contributes to ever-worsening employment prospects. To convince Trump supporters of the benefits of immigration, one must present a solution which simultaneously addresses the lack of jobs for workers at the low end. Until then, the tradeoff is clear - blue collar workers would rather ship illegal immigrants home than have increased local competition for employment, which I find understandable. Trump is also in favor of tariffs, etc. to keep American manufacturing jobs, and has spoken against NAFTA. For a blue collar worker, he may be the best candidate left in the race - and his protectionist position combined with a strong stance against illegal immigration may mean that he has been the best candidate in the race for a long time. (Again, seen from the perspective of a white, blue collar worker).

For Thiel, I can see a few reasons why a protectionist, anti-illegal immigration stance makes sense. He may believe we really do have an overpopulation problem, and wishes to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into America on those grounds. A protectionist stance makes more sense - America's prosperity in the 70's and 80's and South Korea and China's relative prosperity today make the case for keeping a manufacturing base at home, coupled with a reasonably strong creative and technical sector.

Again, this is just speculation on the beliefs of others; my own beliefs are different. But I think it's important to consider that Trump supporters may have reasonably nuanced views on immigration too, even if they don't align with our own stance.

The important thing (which no fork can really change) is that the assumed likelihood of contracts having bugs went way, way up as a result of finding one critical bug so quickly in a large contract. You may not be able to steal a massive pot like theDAO again - but this shows that you can make a killing using exploits against smaller players. They either have to hard fork each time an individual gets their savings wiped out, or accept that there is risk of death by 1000 cuts when investing in ETH. Others may see things differently of course.

Agreed on the consensus; the nice thing about making decisions with a currency is that people can vote with their money. But I can buy other state-backed currencies today, some of which I trust to represent my interests. They have the benefit of an established legal system too, which Ethereum does not.

Yep - I don't see the draw for new investors now. We know they will rollback contracts that are financially damaging enough, except with ETH there is no legal recourse in the case of disputed transactions. From the outside looking in, it just seems like a generally worse traditional currency.

But it's a critically important minority - it's well researched that CEOs, bankers, and other highly successful types in business have sociopathic traits. (I attach no moral judgment to that - just stating it.) Full, diagnosable sociopathy and psychopathy are rare, as you point out. People with a decreased ability to feel empathy are a minority, but they have a disproportionate ability to shape society.

For that reason, I'm always somewhat annoyed when other atheists (I'm an atheist myself) rely on some shared sense of human empathy and argue from it - it's only convincing in a society where empathetic people wield power. We don't live in such a world. To convince people to act humanely even if they don't feel empathy, we need to appeal to a higher objective source of truth as the religious do, or find an argument for humane acts that doesn't rely on appealing to people's consciences.

"given that empathy is wired into our cerebrum" is not a universally true statement. What about sociopaths?

"I believe it is part of our human nature to care for other humans."

That only works for some people. Where do sociopaths fit into your worldview?

"I was horrified to see how a society so prosper can be so dehumanized."

In fairness, where should their morals come from? I'm not religious myself, but it seems that for all their faults religions provide a shared morality. Why should a society without a fixed set of morals be humane? There's no source of truth as to what humane even means. Why is helping an old woman humane? Why should I believe you, or feel shame when something like this happens?

I would fire them too, with these reasons:

1. The interns saw a dress code violation and escalated immediately, without informing the out-of-line employee.

From the original blog post [0]:

"I felt the dress code was overly strict but I wasn’t going to say anything, until I noticed one of the workers always wore flat shoes that were made from a fabric other than leather, or running shoes, even though both of these things were contrary to the dress code.

I spoke with my manager about being allowed some leeway under the dress code and was told this was not possible, despite the other person being allowed to do it."

I'm certain the interns did not ask this coworker why they came in wearing non-standard shoes, because management had to tell them about the disability after the fact. Going directly to management to censure a coworker without discussing the issue with the coworker is sometimes justified. Minor dress code violations are not an instance where that behavior is justified. If this isn't apparent to the interns, that raises questions about their judgment.

2. The interns persisted in making it an issue after the first rejection.

Again, there are some workplace situations where it is appropriate to keep raising an issue after your first proposal is rejected. Minor dress code violations are not one of those situations. Again, from the blog post:

"I spoke with my manager about being allowed some leeway under the dress code and was told this was not possible, despite the other person being allowed to do it. I soon found out that many of the other interns felt the same way, and the ones who asked their managers about it were told the same thing as me. We decided to write a proposal stating why we should be allowed someone leeway under the dress code."

The proposal which led to their termination was not the first discussion of the issue. They asked, management considered their request and came to a decision. They then took more time (presumably out of the workday, though this is not clear) to write a petition restating the request. Continuing to focus on a very minor issue at the expense of more important things is another strike against their judgment.

3. The interns asked for much more leeway than the original infraction.

The coworker who inspired their petition wore non-standard shoes, hardly a large violation of the dress code. In response, "[The interns] requested that we also be allowed to wear running shoes and non leather flats, as well as sandals (not flip-flops though) and other non-dress shoes that would fit under a more business casual dress code. It was mostly about the footwear, but we also incorporated a request that we not have to wear suits and/or blazers in favor of a more casual, but still professional dress code."

Seeing one employee wearing non-standard shoes is not an endorsement of a less-stringent dress code by management. It is odd that they take the dress code so seriously, yet take the example of one employee not wearing leather shoes as a sign that the dress code can be relaxed to exclude suits. That hypocrisy on the part of the interns is at least as bad as any perceived hypocrisy on the part of management.

All of these lapses in judgment are bad enough to warrant censure. If an employee did this, counseling would be in order. But interns are explicitly not full-time, salaried employees - it is a trial run. (I don't take Alison Green's view that they are guests, but they aren't full employees either.) If the company's goal in having internships is to evaluate potential employees, then a lapse in judgment like this might mean that the company's interest is to let them go before the official end date.

[0] http://www.askamanager.org/2016/06/i-was-fired-from-my-inter...

"Keeping everyone in shape to handle crises they're likely to never actually see is, arguably, an enormous waste of money."

This point, while true, depends heavily on the consequences of the crisis. If the cost of failure is too high, it's not a waste of money.

Why are their targets other AI fighter pilots? That's a very, very big assumption. Can we safely assume that the AI pilot won't target buildings/ships/etc.? Even if we assume a well-behaved AI, why should we assume that AI fighter pilots will target military targets? Can we say for certain that they won't be controlled by a malicious despot?

I imagine that a lot of leave voters hoped that this will make them richer in the short term (though reality seems to be sinking in). I think the more compelling argument is one that is certainly felt, but harder to put into words - the British want protectionism back.

If you're a factory worker, you might not care that the EU makes the UK richer through free trade. That the EU benefits you overall doesn't matter - you would prefer a system where the pound is weaker, and imports/exports are tough, if it means that the manufacturing needs of British workers are served by British citizens like you. Having a manufacturing job, even if it is less lucrative, is more appealing than having no job and watching the rest of the country enjoy a slightly higher quality of life. Open borders mean you let in foreign doctors and scientists; it also means that you let in cab drivers and factory workers, in greater numbers. The British are pushing back against this. Unskilled workers would rather have a dose of protectionism than the possibility of a vacation in Spain.

For what it's worth, I think that the leave vote will not bring the kind of protectionism the British want.

But it is wrong. And Theil got revenge by backing a lawsuit which stood on its own merit - which also isn't illegal.

I don't feel that celebrity dating life is ok to publish, actually. It's very seedy and not in the public interest in the average case. Celebrites are fairly open about their disgust for the constant filming of their private life. I would relish it if Brad Pitt or someone else got a similar judgement from the courts.

Out of curiosity, what do the acronyms "sdn" and "n/w" stand for?

"mortgage interest deductions have a similarly terrible effect on housing...

No.

Scarcity caused by NIMBY land use policy is driving up housing costs. The fix is aggressive upzoning.

Source: Help friends who work on affordable housing policy. This is common knowledge."

Genuine question - do you mean for this to apply to municipalities that are not San Fransisco? While downtowns are getting more dense across the U.S., not every city is quite so opposed to new construction. San Fransisco is a weird corner-case in terms of housing.

That's exactly my point. With people, assume they can change for the better; with companies, judge them primarily by their bad actions.

I like your approach sometimes. When dealing with people, I find it best to take positive changes in behavior at face value. I'm sure people could hang their past behavior over their head and treat them as though nothing has changed, but that seems sociopathic. Judging people more harshly based on past behavior is a pretty good way to keep yourself from harm, though. If it weren't unfair to others I would consider doing it.

With companies, I have no need to weigh their positive behavior more heavily. No one's feelings are at risk of being hurt; no friendships are on the line. If a company burns me with bad practices, it's safe and prudent to hold their mistakes against them. It should take a very long time for companies to build back goodwill, once lost.