How do you measure opportunity ?
How do you measure opportunity ?
The thing is, with most of these 'gig' jobs like Instacart and Uber and Lyft, these should be obviously perceived as jobs that are purely for EXTRA money on the side, and not a career choice.
Uber knows it, and doesn't like it. In my country - the real payments only start coming once you have spent 8 hours driving. They call it incentives - e.g. complete 12 trips a day and get an "extra" $50.
Nah. If it were just a matter of a part of the purchase price of a product, it mostly wouldn't be a problem. But what do you get for that part of the price of products ? Anti customer laws and corporate law-writers who don't care about helping you.
Wars are great for profits of many companies, BTW.
That's the problem with UBI. It pays people to do nothing.
Yes - but also to do something. The same amount, though the "do something" part might also pay something over and above what is paid on the basis of UBI.
It assumes that anyone who is doing nothing is doing nothing because they can't find a job or have no skills.
They need to get a living wage just because they exist.
UBI doesn't assume anything - it is not even a living , sentient thing. Some people who advocate it, though, think that it is a net positive for the society. Some even think that it is the only way to humanely deal with a situation where a vast majority of "work" is done by machines.
But no, UBI doesn't assume anything.
What if the someone doesn't ask but directly cuts it off ?
Not that the non-askers would care even if I didn't have a fingerprint security on my phone - they might cut off 21 members from my body - just in case.
Google only did essentially the only thing they could do.
Damore didn't publish his article for the general public, so Google could have denied it exists. I don't see how firing him for no fault of his is the only thing to be done.
Note that being wrong is definitely not a fault in knowledge work - the smartest people I know in the software industry are wrong at least once a day.
my principle objection to the memo is it is completely missing a "so what" component
Aren't you missing the same component ? Even if he was wrong, so what ?
Let's assume the everything Damore says is objectively false (I don't agree with this, obviously). How does that mean he should be fired? Do you know someone who has never been wrong? I bet that person was one who rarely had an opinion.
And yet you didn't answer the question?
Is it an assumption that a person willing to work more hours or take on more stressful tasks will get ahead?
If yes, how ?
I am a slashdotter. It is not enough to not have proof that people's data is abused - it is necessary to have proof that people's data is not abused.
Ha, government is precisely the entity in whose hands Google's data is most dangerous. Government agencies disarming themselves/each other is quite a stupid expectation.
Which is why anything other than server access and data access, without being NDA'ed so that experts can be consulted, is merely "weasel words".
If there actually is evidence to support such assertions
Which are the ways by which Google allows collecting such "evidence" ?
How do you see the tabs? I can't see more than 10 tabs properly until I use one of the plugins for vertical tab bar - either Tab Mix Plus, and Tree Style Tab have been working for last few mutilations by Firefox team - but they don't seem to have made it to 57.
It is easily possible you lived in a much more consumeristic social circle than him. Nobody need be off.
1. Many disease risks have increased. Hundreds of years ago, people rarely travelled 250 miles, let alone intercontinentally. The microbes their village maggots had were already familiar to their immune system. Maggots themselves are quite benign - the French, even city folk, like to eat maggots with butter.
These days, you are constantly fighting diseases of next county, next city, next state, next country and next continent ; much much more than your ancestors did.
2. Squeaky clean food is also required because of the nature of pollutants has changed. You can do with a good amount of *coccus, but the electronic waste, industrial waste, that is being dumped at various places is not something the immune system evolved to deal with. Heavy metals would live in your body, be even more concentrated in the wolf that eats you - causing assorted diseases to both of you during your respective lifetimes. Antibiotic resistance means some mistakes even with *coccus could be fatal - this is no different from 17th century, but for different reasons.
Regulation has fixed some of these problems, but the intercontinental food chains have made it difficult to be sure.
3. We do it because we can. If it increases the chances of our living better lives 10^-8 percent per year, we do it. Hundreds of years ago, and even today in third world country villages, people couldn't/can't afford to worry about the "squeaky cleanliness" of their foods - and the corresponding disease rates bear witness to it - subject to other factors I (and others here) have mentioned.
4. There is some evidence of some allergies being nullified due to increased company of microbial friends, but I can find hardly enough of it to support your sweeping claims.
A motion to adjourn is always in order.