I agree. It's certainly fine for google to see that statistic and do some due diligence to make sure their are not any issues in their hiring managers/process. But the answer is almost certainly in the available pool of people who apply. I'd definitely be interested to see the percentage of people who applied that are white vs black, male vs female. If those percentages are way different than their work force make-up, then maybe there's something more to look at. However you'd then have to investigate a large number of individual examples to see if qualifications and interview results show a valid reason for the difference. All-in-all the likelihood that it involves racist HR/hiring managers at google is extremely unlikely.

If they were 100% sure how to use quantum entanglement, then yes. But they're still trying to figure it out, including whether anything they try is ACTUALLY that or some other thing happening.

Having an hour plus commute each way is an excellent time for an audio book for the "sighted". Enjoying a book is meant to be done in a way that the person with the book can enjoy it. I've listened to quite a few audio books as part of my commute and I've enjoyed them immensely. I definitely have certain books that I would only read, especially horror genre. But for me, and for AC you responded to, as well as many others, the text to speech option would be of use. Certainly not as good as a professional read audio book, but better than having to listen to Froggy 91 FM ALL CRAZY ALL THE TIME every day.

California Registry of Motor Vehicles

...by injecting promicin? Or by being injected by whatever Dr Suresh Mohindar developed? Or ....

Well that sucks....

But then longevity isn't worth it!

I love you.

Yes, and removing ALL the amendments and core human rights from the constitution doesn't immediately ban the associated freedoms, it just lets state and federal legislatures create laws that do. These amendments exist to prevent government from encroaching on those rights, which they would, 100% guaranteed. They already try to when it's constitutionally prohibited, you think they'll back off when there's nothing legally preventing them?

He's arguing that spending any money on good marketing is a waste of company resources....because some benevolent group of expert app raters should take care of that for you...

Of course not, you're a boy!

Hey the fact is union contracts do prevent VERY bad teachers from being fired. And the net result can be very GOOD teachers get let go instead. Just because one teacher has worked for 20 years doesn't mean they should be automatically kept instead of the 2nd year teacher. Especially if the 20 year teacher is TERRIBLE.

Yes, because Rory is/was clearly just in the closet still.

Maybe I'll read this Rousseau social contract thing, maybe I won't. But just because I need to eat doesn't mean my food is given to me. It costs money. Sure, if the people who sold McDonalds their buns, burgers, ketchup etc... gave them to them for free, and if the contractors who built their facilities did the work for free and if the utilities were granted to the building for free and all the employees worked for free then I could drive up to McDs and get me a free big mac "whenever" I wanted (giant line of people also wanting free big macs not included).

People do donate enormous amounts of their own time and money to all sorts of causes including healthcare. I donate money to some healthcare related organizations (komen, MS). Yes, I donate to both of those because my close friends and family have been affected by them. So, in that way I am a bit selfish. However, my statement that if you can't afford it you can't have it is meant to say that you can't magically create free supply to meet demand. It just doesn't work that way unless the ENTIRE supply chain is made free. That sort of utopian "social contract" is as close to impossible as I think anything could be. What is described as greed or selfishness is what motivates most of society to go do whatever job they do. That's how they earn the money to pay for the stuff they want out of society. Whether that's dollars or a barter system, if you didn't have people who were driven to excel by the desire to acquire money, society would not be able to function. Would you want a doctor who was being paid $7.25 an hour and had just a highschool education? No you'd want one who was smart enough to make it through med school, residency etc... which is years of really expensive training. Would you want him to be so accessible to people that you had to schedule your appointments a year in advance?

Fire departments and police departments are a service that I'm happy to contribute to as a local service. It is annoying that people who don't provide any part of the funds to run those departments can end up using them freely and therefore make it cost me more in taxes to support. But my local community being protected overall by fire and police services has a direct, positive impact on me and my family, so at least for my current location, I've deemed that acceptable. I don't know that I could see a privatization of those services being successful in my lifetime. Same goes for roads. I don't think your average DoT does a GREAT job of maintaining public roads, but we're reliant on them now and to change it would be devastating. But every public service comes at a cost just like every private service. You can hope to rely on some people having the means to pay for all people to use them, but when the all is greater than the some can even afford, then it doesn't matter how mean it sounds, it's just a fact that eventually someone's going to lose out. The longer that is artificially sustained, the more someones are going to lose out. If you can't afford it, you can't have it. Whether that's an individual or an entire nation. If you can't afford it, you can't have it.

Also there are many way more complex options available for health care today compared to 30, 40, 50 years ago. You can have a machine/computer that cost billions or more to develop and costs a hospital or doctor's office millions to own and high on-going maintenance that just didn't exist. You can treat things today that were untreatable back then.

And behind the demand isn't just that more people are sick it's that people seem to think that expensive healthcare is a right rather than a privilege to be acquired via trade. Doctors spend ridiculous amounts of their own money just to get to the point of being able to take their first patient, and continue to spend ridiculous amounts of their own money to keep treating them. That is going to to cost you money to make use of their services. They have to feed their families too. If my car breaks down, I don't expect someone else to pay for it to be fixed. I know that I have to pay a mechanic to do the work that I can't possibly do on my own. Yet healthcare, an industry that requires significantly more investment by those who provide it is expected to just be given away? So you have cancer? Well if you can't afford treatment then I guess you're out of luck. If you're my friend or family member I will do what I can to help you out, but joe blow down the street shouldn't be forced to contribute. If you can find someone who will donate the care to you, great. But short of the world somehow generating everything that everyone needs out of thin air, things are going to cost money. If you can't afford them, you can't have them.