patejam

But I still don't know why - if this is the case - why people who are still employed/working full time, getting their regular paycheck, just working from home, would feel the need to stop whatever domestic services they had in place.

Because there's a pandemic going on and they don't want outside people in their house? Also, some of these services are now illegal in many cities including SF (Child/adult/senior care is still allowed. I'm assuming cleaners aren't.)

I've had 9 in 4.5 years. 3 were from me choosing to switch teams. All others were moves within 500ft to adjust for growing teams.

Why do you think it's a big deal to switch desks every 6 months or so? My company does the move for me, so all I have to do is put my few things in a box and label it (and my computer stuff). Takes 30 minutes tops.

And yet that argument is never made to justify paying line-workers more.

This isn't an argument to "justify paying the leadership more". That's backwards. This is an argument to say that when you're a board member trying to fill a leadership role, it might be worth it to spend a good amount of money to bring in people who would otherwise never take the role.

If you want a line-worker argument, it's similar to when people start trying to outsource software work to cheap firms and are then surprised when the results aren't satisfactory. Bring in line workers (software workers in this case) who cost more but are better and you might have better end results.

You shouldn't just pay the outsourcing firm more money and expect better results. In the same way you shouldn't "justify paying the leadership more", you should find leadership who are worth more money.

In both cases, it's possible you find the holy grail of someone wiling to work for the cause for little money and are also talented, but it's much more difficult.

What if you prefer to get the most money you can to the cause that you care about?

That's assuming the five CEOs aren't going to go after the same $1million each. A more talented CEO might be able to bring in new streams of money.

Y'all are bringing up a ton of hypotheticals that don't matter to my main point: Talent costs money. The optimal end result may end up spending a lot of money on that talent to bring in the most amount of money.

This includes hiring an agency to run a fun run (the original scenario) when having it be run by amateurs might end up with it failing for a million reasons (low turnout, insufficient staffing, etc).

A very pessimistic view of everything!

I can't say anything about your fraud or conning comments. Obviously that's bad, and I worry that you're arguing in bad faith by bringing that up.

My main point is that being the leader of a large organization that brings in lots of money is a skill that is highly sought after. If you want to attract that kind of person then you'll have to pay for it, or find the 1 in [some large number of people] that has both the skills needed and the willingness to work for much lower than the rest of the market would pay them.

I see big problems with this type of arrangement - you raise ten dollars while spending five thousand on the event itself. Yet you will call this a charity event?

This reminds me of when people complain about charities paying their CEO well.

Would you rather pay a CEO $100k to bring in $1million in charity funds, or pay a CEO $1million to bring in $5million in charity funds?

Same here. Would you rather run a successful event that brings in $5k in charity funds, or an event run by amateurs who end up bringing in $1k in charity funds?

There's an argument to be made about transparency, and organizations that take all this too far (90+% is clearly too much), but end results matter.

Are they over priced? They're cheaper than Sennheiser or Bose at $159. They have a value-prop of having their own, better, wireless protocol that works flawlessly with iOS. And people seem to like the form factor.

One screw up isn't going to keep me away, as I've had mostly good experiences with Airbnb.

Is it worth a one time screw up of $200 for my years of positive experiences? For me, yes.

If the ratio of positive to negative experiences starts going down, I'll be finding other ways to vacation.

Likewise, if a grocer messes up once, but I've been going to them for years without issue, I'm going to let it go. If it starts happening more often? I'll look for other ways to get my groceries.

(Side note: I've been booking more hotels recently. But that has to do with cost and convenience mostly, not false listings or false cleaning fees or anything else like that).

Not always.

Sometimes you have to sling a tree or rock in order to rappel. Sometimes gear gets stuck and you have to move on. Sometimes you drop gear by accident.

I agree with you as far as startup costs go.

But your example is only if you only boulder indoors. Costs add up quickly if you want to move outdoors and want the flexibility to do a variety of climbs.

You can easily have a couple thousand dollars in gear.

Harness $70 Belay device $20-150 Rope $150+ (possibly multiple) Quickdraws $10-14 each, you probably want a dozen or so. Some slings Some carabiners

That'll get you outside and working on bolted routes.

Then you get into climbs that don't have man made bolts that you can clip into (trad climbing).

Each piece of protection at this level costs $60-80 new, and you'll probably want like 10 of them at least.

And it goes on and on.

I guess I just have completely different use cases. Why would I want to read Facebook messages from complete strangers?

If I don't want them to be Facebook friends, then I'll give them my email.

This is what friend requests are for.

I don't want unsolicited messages from people. It's bad enough for me on LinkedIn, where that's the whole point.

I think it's an important distinction to say that is isn't a space issue, it's a money issue.

I can usually find Twinings anywhere where I am in the US. How would you rate them?

I'm not sure what app it is, but I really really like the feature where you can see exactly how many groups (and their sizes) are in front of you in line. Makes it easy to decide when to start heading back to the restaurant or when to order another drink at the bar you're hanging out at.

Maybe not Yelp, but I thought most had a basic texting option as well? If not, that's lame.

You specifically said that the "US outright ban[s]" it, which is incorrect. Private companies can change whatever they want to sell more of their product. That's not censorship, that's just knowing your target audience.

So a couple things (From the US perspective):

1. Copyright, trademarks, and patents are a pretty weak argument for "censorship" IMO. But I guess I see where you're coming from. There are also many "fair-use" exceptions for these that make it less "censorship" and more "preventing profit on other people's ideas".

2. "US outright ban any casual religious reference because it offend some believers, resulting modifying some manga/anime/game" -- Can you give an example? This seems to go directly against first amendment rights.

3. "national security" -- There have been many cases where the government will work with press to attempt to stop them from releasing information that would damage national security. There have also been many cases where the press has not listened, and they're allowed to do that. What specifically are you talking about here? Direct theft of government property/information is illegal, but I would hardly call that censorship. NDAs I guess are censorship, but they are an agreement between two parties, not the government deciding arbitrarily what to censor.

4. "ex-political party symbol" -- absolutely not banned in the US.

5. Okay the last one is a fair example of censorship. I'm not familiar with the US laws on that one and frankly I don't want to find out...

Hypothetically would you rather have:

1. Someone making $100k who is able to bring in and distribute $3m in donations per year

2. Someone making $300k who is able to bring in and distribute $5m in donations per year

There's real value to having someone who knows what they're doing in the top position, and that won't always be the person willing to take a pay cut.

Accessibility is a good reason to not like it, that's very fair. That alone puts it from my original neutral position to it being a negative overall.

I'm legitimately curious. Please help me understand.

Again, I don't see how its worth all the hassle and surely extra cost for Apple to push it, but really don't see how it's any worse than the previous bar.

What utility did the previous bar have?

Volume changing? Screen brightness? Those are better with the touchbar.

Escape key for vim or whatever? Switch your caps lock with escape! You should have been doing that the whole time!

The actual function keys? I don't use them enough to need them showing up all the time. And an extra key to get them up again is no big deal.

I agree that the touch bar doesn't add a whole lot of utility, but I can't see the argument of it removing any utility.

I feel like this type of job self selects for people who would totally do that.

Also, disobeying orders in space has happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_controversy

To be clear, I wasn't arguing either way. I was just saying that a single poster on this site is not a way to get a feel for how common an opinion was back then. Your link is a much better start.

And for some reason having that opinion got my original post flagged and collapsed by default, even though I have a positive score...

Ok. Why does that make their singular beliefs relevant? I'd expect the poster I was responding to to link news articles, politicians, political pundits, etc. to show it was a not a commonly held belief that he'd face such charges. Not some prolific poster on a niche tech forum.

Yeah using a single "celebrity" on a niche online forum to prove it was not "commonly held he would face such charges" is very strange.

Who is tptacek and why should we care what they have to say?

https://twitter.com/p_millerd/status/1118071182534660096

Response #1 and #3 equal ~80%. I'd count those as being able to cover it.

Many people use credit cards and pay it off in full on time (including me).

My point was that the 3-4x stat is also not fair. My point was that there are very few fair comparisons, and gave some examples that I think are fair statements.

I never liked comparing air travel to car travel. It's just not a fair comparison.

Per mile danger is the most favorable towards airlines, but you could use per-journey and then airline travel is 3-4x more dangerous than cars.

The best you can do is either say "airline travel is plenty safe enough" or make direct comparisons like "traveling from NYC to LA via airline is safer than driving the same distance".