Hopefully you aren't in charge of people at whatever job you work at, as it would be liable for sexual harassment lawsuits. A spurned love interest deleting your work in the way he did is - alone - serious. A non employee trying to exercise power over employees and intimidating one when it doesn't go as planned is serious. If I worked at a company and the spouse of a higher up pulled that on me, that would feel like a hostile work environment.

If you have a group of female programmers exercising at work, and a bunch of male co-workers lined up to watch them, it reinforces the idea that "you are here to be pretty objects for the men to look at". In combination with everything else, I can see why that would be the straw that broke the camels back.

A spurned colleague taking revenge for being spurned is textbook sexual harassment, actually.

Not true. If they are upfront and transparent and in the right they can easily win back the day. The question is are they in the right. Did a single creepy and jilted co-worker (who aggressively professed his love) remove her code? Is there a data trail to prove this one way or the other? Does the founder's wife act like an employee? If so, I bet other employees have similar stories. When someone acts that unhinged at a company it generates a lot of eye witnesses.

If I was a C-level guy at github, I'd come right out with as much info as I could to counter the claims, or to address them seriously and productively, as soon as possible.

The article details some serious allegations, and is worth reading in it's entirety. I'm eager to read github's side of the story as well. Some of the claims ought to give users pause about trusting their private data with github. That's hugely problematic. Other claims show an unprofessional and hostile environment, and a company whose HR department (if they have one) is screwing up very badly. I hope they are able to resolve all of this, as I am a very big fan of git, and of github. But at the moment the claims sound plausible and distressing.

If the prices of the products remained the same, yes, it would be a value. That might not always be the case however, as they have been accused of raising the price on individual products for prime customers, so the "free shipping" is not free, and the shipping charge is buried in the product price.

Yes there are ways around this for tech savvy users. That's not the point. The point is Comcast pulling something like this at all - and the way they have gone about it - all say "we can't be trusted with the power we already have". What's to stop them from mandating customers use their equipment? Especially if they are the only show in town.

I hope this provides further fuel for efforts to stop Comcast's merger with Time Warner.

Depends on your definition of convenience. For some customers, ordering an item online knowing you'll get it the next day delivered to your door is easier than heading to a store to pick something up.

It's hard for a brick and mortar store to compete on price and convenience, and those are both pretty important to potential customers. Adding in a human element of expertise is a hard sell when more and more people can turn to google to get the answers they want.

That being said - stocking last minute items could provide a niche. Sometimes you need a new keyboard, battery, or PSU stat, and even next day shipping isn't an option. The question is - is that a frequent enough occurrence to sustain a store?

This. Be brutally honest with yourself. Especially if a new company is trying to get you for less than you are worth. This raises important questions:

1. Why can't they afford you? Lack of revenue, or is it a decision to try and muscle in people at lower rates? Both come with their own set of problems.
2. If they can't afford to pay you what you are worth - what will the rest of the team look like? How will that impact the success of the company (and your own success in the job?)
3. High expectations in combination with a pay cut suggests a mindset geared towards exploitation and manipulation. That's a giant red flag - others are a company that touts a culture that has high demands of it's employees. Some companies use stress and challenge as a way to keep employees (and their salaries) in check. Avoid like the plague.
4. Check working hours. Some smaller companies (especially those that either can't afford to pay or choose not to) tend to attract more junior/less competent people. Chances are they are planning on you working more than 40 hours a week (which reduces your effective wages even more).

It would be interesting to see a study looking at how people construe economic issues depending on their personal-finance literacy. As far as I know, there isn't a connection.

I cannot think of anything that we teach that is more relevant

Of course you can. The ability to communicate, math, the ability to think for yourself... All relevant to students in general - and in many cases pre-requisites for a lot of the personal finance curriculum. That being said, glad to see this is being taught - it's a great addition!

Bingo. He's talking about mobile. Even more egregious - would you have accepted "but you CAN swap out the version of IE you use, so it's all good" as an argument that MS wasn't forcing their browser on users? No? Then why use it to defend Apple?

This shouldn't be rated informative. There is a difference between posting tests scores for a single test, and having a daily reminder of absences and discipline problems. Coming in the day after a test and seeing a 60 next to your name is one thing. Then the test was removed. Contrast that with coming in every day and seeing that you have been sent to the office, and missed 4 days of school from when you got really sick, and no achievements next to your name. Every day.

In other words, it's not the same thing, and pretending it is misses the point.

Also there's no need to poke fun at the critics by trivializing it with language like "crime against humanity".

The point is - humiliation (especially long term daily humiliation) is not an effective motivator. Quite the opposite - it reinforces negative attitudes towards school and low self esteem.

There is no reason to support a system that makes teachers feel effective when that system is hurting rather than helping students. That's the only thing that matters - are we actually helping kids.

Maybe I meant exactly. Maybe I meant excatly. Maybe you can really only understand business decisions when you've been a cat.

You will never win. If you are working 60 hour weeks and want to stop doing so, just stop. Take a day and do some interviews, find another job. Cause the second you stop giving 150%, they are going to fire you anyways.

Excatly. The only way to escape is to find another job. In the meantime any lack of enthusiasm or effort could get you fired, and you are working for effectively less if you are a salaried employee without overtime.