Question to the advertisers: Where are you going to run your advertisements that has at least as many eyeballs as youtube? Let that sink in for a moment.
You have the choice between not advertising or advertising. You can be lucky Google cares enough to cater to you needs.
This. I mean, you should be able to invest that in the stock market and average at least $8 million per year, permanently, allowing enough extra money to compensate for inflation. That's enough for a team of at least 20 engineers plus renting space for them to work, equipment costs, health insurance, etc. So barring the website being insanely complex, you should literally be able to run it on that without even touching the principal, even without bringing in a penny of revenue. What the heck are these people doing with all that money?
True, though there are thresholds below which expansion makes no sense. Say I have a bookstore. I have ten employees and overlap them to keep the store open during reasonable business hours.
In big businesses, the interesting thresholds tend to be even bigger and more dependent on things other than available capital. You have a lot of opportunities for bringing in a new person in various parts of the company as workload increases over time, of course, but the really interesting, rapid growth happens when the company decides that they want to go after a new market segment, which means they have to ramp up their staff fairly dramatically. That requires more than just capital; it requires big ideas and a reasonable probability of making enough money to make it worth the effort.
That's why even though Apple's U.S. profits alone could cover the cost of hiring on the order of 700,000 full-time software engineers, they have on the order of one percent of that number. So probably only about one or two percent of their revenue goes into staffing (ignoring C*O and VP bonuses). Even if you double or triple that number to cover the cost of renting or building office spaces, assuming you ignore the occasional massively over-budget project like the spaceship, total employee costs still probably fall down in the single-digit range percentage-wise. In other words, if they needed more people, they would easily be able to afford many more people, so bringing more money into the U.S. won't change their hiring at all. This tends to be true for all sufficiently large businesses. In other words, there's a threshold of capitalization beyond which adding more money won't result in more jobs.
The bottom line is that if you want to increase the number of available jobs, the best way is to raise taxes on big businesses and use that to offset a reduction in taxes on smaller businesses. Those smaller businesses still have room to grow, and every dollar that they pay in taxes is a dollar that they can't pay their employees; for bigger businesses, every dollar they pay in taxes is just a dollar that they can't pay their shareholders, which although certainly beneficial, does not create jobs.
Of course, a big part of the problem is that in the 1970s, California enacted a property tax scheme that is perfectly designed to limit homeowners' ability to move. By making property taxes be based solely on the purchase price instead of on the actual value of the home, people would pay dramatically more in property taxes every year if they sell one house and buy a second one even if they break even on the deal.
Prop 13 drastically skews the proportion of renters to owners by forcing people to rent out their old place so they can afford the rent on a new place instead of selling and buying. It also discourages new people from entering the market by making them pay the bulk of the cost of goods and services while folks who have been there for a few years pay proportionally less. The result is one of the most screwed up real estate markets anywhere in the world.
(BTW, Sunnyvale mobile home parks are only ~$1k per month and only maybe $50–75k to buy an old house and move it out of the way, plus the cost of whatever you move in. That extra $1,500 per month + $75k is the Google tax you pay for living five minutes closer to work.)
Another part of the problem is that the Bay Area lacks a proper region-wide planning commission with authority to regulate zoning across the various cities. So you have places like Menlo Park, where the only housing is private estates for the rich C*Os, with lots of businesses out near the shore where land is cheap (because it smells of rotting fish), and you have Gilroy and Morgan Hill that are almost entirely housing, with few businesses.
IMO, what we really need is to have some government entity that slowly converts business-use land in the South Bay to residential use and says "No" whenever big companies say that they want to expand their presence in the South Bay, encouraging them to build satellite offices farther south instead. And offer tax incentives to locate new businesses outside the SF/Peninsula/South Bay area. Adding more businesses farther south would increase the reverse commute traffic and reduce the primary commute proportionally, and opening up more farmland to development would go a long way towards reducing the cost of housing as well.
Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen unless there's a single management agency that has some authority across all the different administrative districts. Right now, each city wants to get its share of the tax revenue from new businesses, and they mostly don't care about the clustering problems that result from it. Nobody is taking a bird's eye view of the problem, or if they are, they don't have the authority to do anything about it.
Greece, as best I understand it, is screwed up because the government paid for it without actually having the revenue to pay for it. That makes them far more like the modern borrow-and-spend Republicans than the tax-and-spend progressives. When, over a five-year period, a country's tax revenue increases by 31% and government spending increases by 87%, you're going to have a serious increase in your national debt. The United states solves this by devaluing its currency. Unfortunately, the Greeks are part of the Eurozone, and thus are limited in how much currency they can print each year, which means they can't just print more money to avoid becoming crippled by their national debt.
Of course, to make matters worse, their national debt is so huge relative to their GDP that it probably wouldn't help even if they could print money. Even in relatively good times, Greece was borrowing over 8% of their GDP every year. That's simply unsustainable. As a result, while U.S. states have debts that are on the order of a third to half their GDP, Greece has debt that is on the order of double their GDP. Imagine if the state of California took on a third of the national debt by itself, and you're in the ballpark. Nobody in the U.S. government—even the most socialist progressives who advocate a base income—are crazy enough to borrow that kind of money, I don't think.
But a bigger problem is not the amount of spending, but rather the types of spending that the Greek government has done. Instead of building infrastructure that would actually benefit them financially (e.g. factories), they spent frivolously on things like a giant sports venue for the 2004 Olympics that didn't cover its costs and that they couldn't afford to actually maintain afterwards. Their social security system is or was broken, with such fascinating flaws as paying out pensions to single female children of dead retirees. The state airline was a giant money pit for many years. And their military spending at the start of the crisis bordered on insanity (sound Republican enough for you?) at something like 7% of their GDP—proportionally more than the U.S. spent while fighting two wars.
No, the Greek government is a prime example of what happens when Reagan-Republican-style borrow-and-spend budgets get out of control and are not tempered by true fiscal conservatives insisting on balanced budgets and rainy day funds and so on. It is the polar opposite of progressive ways of handling budgeting (which, if they got out of control, would result in a tax rate that's so high that the people themselves would demand cuts in spending).
... the law was a standout of overreaching jurisdiction, roundly criticised, and should have been the responsibility of a different department.
What department in the government, precisely, should regulate internet communication other than the Federal Communications Commission?
Im brushing up on my 6502 over my lunchbreaks, maybe working up to a c64 game or demo, but i dont do that during any other part of day. Given I work in games , i recognise theyd have first dibs on anything valuable. in reality I have a long way to go before that would likely happen .
If an employee is working on a non-approved side project while they should be doing more boring work thats not cool. I would say if you have downtime at work check with your employer first and find out how they would feel about you making better use of it. Nowt wrong with asking ?
Depends on the business case for one or the other. In this case, the bank may well have decided 'the less than, literally, 600-in-7.5-billion chance of having somebody exceed this age range is less important to us than stopping incorrect payments going out to people with ages that are far FAR beyond 'wildly improbable.''
In other cases, it would be far better to have multiple incorrect accounts than to miss one valid but wildly outlier account.
Here's what happened in about 150 years under "conservative" US government policies:
Grew from small, isolated, breakaway country to the richest, most powerful country on the planet, with the highest standard of living.
Here's what happened under "liberal" government policies:
You have the right to be on Slashdot and argue about which ideology is better because of liberal policies.
Along the way, freed slaves and saw life expectancy become the highest in the world.
Lincoln was most assuredly not conservative. Republican, yes. Conservative, no. His policies resembled those of modern progressives more than modern conservatives, though even that is something of a stretch, because unlike 99% of modern politicians, Lincoln was actually a respectable statesman.
Contrast to what happened in "progressive"/socialist/liberal nations such as Venezuela, Greece, and the Soviet Union.
Progressive != socialist != liberal.
Additionally, Greece's problems stemmed from government overspending without enough taxation to cover the expenses. That's more similar to what Republicans do today than Democrats. And both Venezuela and Russia had problems where a few people at the top of the party essentially lived in luxury while the poor starved, which makes it more like a caste system than true socialism.
Besides, essentially zero modern progressives view socialism as the be-all and end-all of public policy, but rather as a useful tool to use in limited ways for the public good. That's radically different from a country that attempts to use pure socialism as its sole policy (which is exactly as foolish as using pure capitalism as the sole public policy).
Legally, it's a grey area. If your employment contract has morality clauses, for example, you can be punished for things done outside of work. However, usually that is limited to situations where your contract explicitly states it, which usually happens when working for religious institutions (or, occasionally, schools). You can also be fired for actions that reflect badly on your company, but that assumes that A. people know the author works for that company, and B. they have reason to somehow connect the two. And of course, in at-will states, your employment can be potentially terminated for any reason, though in many, the implied covenant of good faith might give the author grounds to argue that this was without cause, done out of malice arising out of personal embarrassment on the part of the management team.
The bottom line would be that the author should contact a lawyer who regularly deals with employment law in that part of the country, because whether he has a case or not is highly dependent on where the author is located, and I'm pretty sure it won't be open-and-shut no matter where the author lives. However, the fact that the author has not revealed where he works does open the opportunity for the lawyer to point out that bringing this to court will cast their company in a very bad light publicly, whereas an out-of-court settlement for... say ten years' salary will not. Depending on how terrified the company is, such (entirely legal) blackmail might actually be more effective than bringing a suit.
With that said, there's a magic point beyond which developers start to leave the platform and less software gets developed for the platform. So they still have to care about developers enough to stay on the right side of that tipping point.
A quick google search shows that there are, by the most wild estimate, 600 people on the planet, at most, who are over the age of 110. More like 150 to 300.
Raising the age to 130 just means there's an extra 20 years of potential pension fraud or incorrect payments.
Yeah, all that scripting is what makes reality TV so unauthentic and boring. That's why I stick to entertainment where nobody knows what's going to happen. It all comes down to one wrestler's strength and skill vs another.
There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?