Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Wealth Inequality in America (Score 1) 1040

by poity (#47156253) Attached to: Seattle Approves $15 Per Hour Minimum Wage

This guy compares wealth in his argument, yet he seems to make a conclusion about income. Does he use the terms interchangeably to both mean income, or does he conflate the one with the other to obscure the differences between wealth and income? For instance, you can earn $35k/year and live frugally, not take out huge loans/mortgages and have 100000x more wealth than another person earning the same salary but made different choices.

Comment: Re:Who gives a shit? (Score 2) 593

by poity (#47137659) Attached to: HR Chief: Google Sexual, Racial Diversity "Not Where We Want to Be"

Does that happen because open-minded people will tend to form more inclusive groups AND perform better, or because switching up sexual orientation and skin color makes people perform better? That is, do inclusiveness and higher performance merely coincide together with the third variable of open-mindedness, or does inclusiveness itself trigger higher performance?

Comment: Re:I need electricity. I need it for my dreams. (Score 1) 214

It has been pointed out previously in the comments section of The Crimson that such an act of divestment would be only symbolic. The reason is that publicly traded shares only fund a company in its initial sale during the IPO (which, for oil companies, was decades ago at the very least). All subsequent trades of shares only impact valuation of the company. Harvard's divestment would take down the price of an oil company stock by a fraction of a fraction of a dollar* which means any purchases or sales of assets using shares in the near term subsequent to this divestment would require a fraction of a fraction more shares, which, in the grand scheme of things is meaningless.

*in all likelihood the investment managers would try to divest in portions to minimize losses, so the price movement might be even closer to zero.

Comment: Re:"Chinese hackers" (Score 2) 19

by poity (#46605645) Attached to: State-Sponsored Hacking Attacks Targeting Top News Organizations

Take the attack itself. What does it accomplish to deface an American's newspaper's website?

The article doesn't say anything about defacement, it actually says that journalists themselves were the targets. I assume being able to penetrate a journalist's work account is one of the first steps to either subsequently penetrating that journalist's personal accounts elsewhere, or to build a profile in order to create false identity elsewhere. The first could be used to reveal current sources, and the latter could be used to ensnare future sources.

Everyone is on high alert to stopping their own Snowden event, and I think that's a far simpler and more relevant explanation than "USA is trying to frame other countries by defacing its own news site"

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...