So true. There is essentially no such thing as "true capitalism." Socialism, communism, capitalism, etc. all depend on a government to enforce them. The case of capitalism or "free market", is especially an antithesis. In other words, they only exist because of governmental framework creates environment: property, contracts, copyrights, central banking, roadways, educated workforce, etc.
Who's property is the cable residing on: power company poles, roadside easements, individual agreements with every house on the street?
Dye your hair to look younger, get some type of product to cover the crow's feet. But don't fake your resume or dodge when you went to school. That is pretty much a deal-breaker if it looks like you are being less than forthcoming with your past. Age on paper looks okay, maybe? Age in the visual sense will play into the interviewer's subconscious bias.
Depends on the industry. Latest flavor of the day apps or websites; sure, young and hip is great. The guy that maintains the code used in critical systems...
Exactly, I laughed (out loud) when I read the summary. Why bother wasting the typesetting on the word 'foreign'? Given the revelations to date, let's just assume that everything including recordings of domestic calls going back to 1956 exist someplace. If the feds want our trust back, they need to earn it through transparency.
I would take up the challenge to this economist's theory that 'contribution == pay' like this:
Economists rely on the idea that markets have perfect information. But it is sort of an asymptote/limit that the economists assume reality would converge upon in theory.
However, some people (or entire industries) make _alot_ more money than they are worth. Why? Because they have better information about the market, they were able to take advantage of information, timing, or ignorance of others, etc. With a doctor, or lawyer, their performance is transparent and measurable: education, state license, records of cases, patient outcomes, etc.
With a CEO, it is much more of a 'buyer beware' environment. You probably don't have access to private records that could verify their value (contribution to society.) Why do CEOs negotiate highly favorable terms of their departure (golden parachute) before they even begin work? Clearly there are factors at play that are likely to be some type of circular justification of their worth. Most other people state their qualifications when seeking employment, they are usually hired with the expectation of performing to that level indefinitely with no extraordinary terms of separation.
Unrelated to the perfect information argument is just good old fashioned control of supply. i.e. why does a union worker make more money than a non-union employee doing the same work? Nothing against union workers, I commend your initiative. Economic forces are at play that do _not_ correlate societal contribution to pay.
So I think the 'contribution to society' correlating to pay is a circular argument, it may be true in general but it can also be a justification for unapologetic greed when it fails to actually correlate.
But I'll bet the people who took the shortcuts (leaving you this mess) were recognized for 'efficiency' while you get looked down upon for 'taking inordinate time' or 'thinking too much.'
Agreed, see my other responses. Didn't mean to be so generalized. But the point is the same about the extremes in the debate.
The eminent domain issue is generally avoided so long as people can sell their gear out-of-state (assuming you are talking about a state law.) NY SAFE act is an example. The Democrat majority in NYS passed this, but they are not so holy for doing this. They didn't collect the banned items, they just encourage people to modify or sell to other places. It essentially _is_ eminent domain where just compensation is provided by selling out of state or to a dealer. Obviously that is not a solution once there are no other jurisdictions to sell stuff to. And that does not take into account transaction costs, flooding the market when the law takes effect, etc. So in reality, people are taking real losses when they are forced to sell banned hardware or pay for modifications. But there isn't enough that any one person can contest by legal means easily.
I totally agree on the authoritarian thing. If you hang your hat on tolerance, be ready to tolerate things you don't like. I'm generally very tolerant and bite my tongue often.
The problem with the changes you suggest is always a matter of enforcement: the costs, checking individuals for compliance within the confines of civil rights, could the police be spending their time catching dangerous people instead... I see the real problem as the street crimes that involve weapons trafficking and violation of existing gun laws on a _daily_ basis.
I agree it is tragic when a kid finds an unsecured and loaded gun, same goes for trampolines, swimming pools, boxes of matches. Adult people need to be aware of their responsibilities. I honestly don't know how you will really fix that.
You are correct. I meant to say "But [some] conversations among liberals or progressives [that I have personally witnessed] are 100% anti-gun..."
True enough; politics is all about telling half the truth, making strawman badguy arguments, etc. But I was paraphrasing actual people I know personally. i.e. co-workers, family, teachers I've had. Certainly not trying to generalize. The point is, moderate viewpoints become suspect when either side of the fence knows how extreme (some) of the other can be.
I agree, but I think 'gun nutjob' applies to both ends of the spectrum. A majority of Americans believe in the right to own _some_ guns. I assume you are pointing out the right-end of the spectrum. But among the left end, there is a double-speak that is equally counter-productive. Conservatives are aware of this, but most centrists don't realize it. i.e. News headlines and quotes from the left state things like "Common sense" gun laws. But conversations among liberals or progressives are decidedly 100% anti-gun. "Gather them all up and throw them away" This is part of the reason that seemingly reasonable people dig in their heels on any proposed gun laws.
I like to write my password on my active-id key fob (which, in turn, has it's pin number written on itself), and I hang the whole assemblage from my monitor. Screw the sysadmin's rules. Sysadmins just annoy me by pushing 'security updates' on my machine and reboot WHILE I'M WORKING at my computer.
But seriously, people have logins for about 2 dozen other websites, bank accounts, locker combinations, alarm system codes, birth-dates to remember, anniversaries... They aren't idiots, they just don't have much room left after trying to live their lives and still be good at their jobs.
I agree. If a job candidate doesn't like the questions, I would expect them to react in a way that I could tolerate if I had to work with them. It is actually a good thing to pull a Kobayashi Maru in most cases as long as it seems like something that would be feasible. It is okay in the real-world to have a critical opinion as long as it is polite and constructive in the long-run.
I've been on the asking side of these questions several times now. (Not questions quite as silly as the examples in the article, but nonetheless...) HR said "pick 4 questions from this book and score according to this answer key." Obviously, the whole thing is highly subjective and the scoring is more about how a person reacts. Some of the questions are way too vague to be useful, but usually they allow you to gauge the behavior of a person. You basically want to find out how a person handles typical adverse situations that arise in a work environment. i.e. professional disagreements, impossible goals, annoying customers, etc.
I've seen many different reactions. It's okay if a person declines to answer maybe 1 out of the 4, but in some cases, people have claimed they never had an adverse situation. Not a good answer. Most people just try to answer the questions in a bland way with the 'expected' answer. So I need to hear something that tells me a person really cares, either by re-engineering the question, or having a really specific answer that would be hard to fabricate on the spot.
So you can be critical of these questions, but consider being in the shoes of an employer. You try writing questions for an interview that are not too vague, and can cut through peoples' BS'ing.
That closed-source company may _want_ to stand on their reputation. But they can be ordered to backdoor the software against their will and in secrecy. This is no longer a hypothetical argument, and it _is_ harming the reputation of businesses.
This is a great time for competitors of US tech companies.