I see three things that are properly called "press releases" in the headlines of Slashdot this morning. It's a typical beginner mistake. Please stop.
Playing with percentages can get easily confused which is what I suspect happened to you because your math is way off.
Percentages are handy for comparison, but can be easily confused or used to conflate facts.
... a white man is several times more likely to be shot by a black man, than the other way around
Thus, 1/1,046,032 whites was an interracial murderer. A black person statistically has to meet over 1M whites to run into an interracial murderer (whitey is pretty safe these days, apparently).
You are simply reading the GPs text differently. It hinges on the meaning of the phrase "likely to be shot by a black man", where one can read that as either "likely, in the course of daily life, to be shot by a black man" (my interpretation) or "likely, upon seeing a young black man, to be shot by him" (your interpretation, and possibly the GPs).
The solution is not higher taxes, it's closing these gaps that companies exploit.
Doesn't this just end up boiling down to higher effective taxes?
You total up your revenue or profits and divide by what you actually paid in taxes and that's your effective tax rate? I don't think at the scale and complexity of a corporation the size of Apple the notion of a nominal tax rate makes much sense.
So if you close loopholes to increase the absolute amount of tax paid, you're raising the effective tax rate even if the nominal one stays the same. In fact I'd be surprised that its not a rhetorical argument used in lobbying and negotiation -- don't raise our tax rate, close loophole X and we'll pay a higher effective rate (meanwhile, their tax wonks have figured out how to use loophole Y instead).
My general sense is that the larger problem isn't paying or not paying taxes, its the cash hoarding these semi-monopoly companies do. A lot of the money just ends up in short-term treasuries or other semi-liquid investment vehicles and doesn't circulate in the economy. In some ways, taxes can be seen as the economic investment of last resort -- a way to bring hoarded capital into the market.
A better policy would seem to be incentives to spend and not hoard capital so it gets put into motion in the economy.
My assumption is that a repeated, long-term pattern of harassing behavior wouldn't be tolerated unless the guy really was the goose that laid the golden egg.
On the other hand, what kind of claim does she have, really? Monetary damages are probably limited to 2x her salary because of how short her tenure was. Let's say that's $300k and it costs Uber another $50k to hire and train her replacement.
I don't know what this guy's job is, but replacing *him* may be something that has a direct cost of $100k (recruiting, signing bonus, etc) and indirect costs due to workflow disruption while he's being replaced. It's not impossible those could add up to another $200k or more -- business disruption is expensive.
I think the engineering improvement curve for stuff like this is really steep. What's practically impossible today, is practical but outrageously expensive in 9 months and commodity priced in 18 months.
IMHO, all of the VR stuff is so bleeding edge that it's going to make the smartphone cycle look slow and methodical in 5 years. Meanwhile, do you rush out products that are expensive, quickly obsolete and don't grab many buyers in the name of "getting to market first"? Or do you iterate it internally and among select developers until your actual concept is practical and at prices that will gain a high volume of sales?
I don't think they're out of line here, the technology in this stuff is advancing faster than they can integrate it into a coherent product and get it to manufacturing.
Uber is a rapidly growing company capable of making many employees extremely wealthy.
The rational choice for Uber may be to be forgiving of a high performing employee with a demonstrated track record when his accuser is a new and unproven hire who has made no contributions.
It may even be that management's cost-benefit analysis is that it's even worth paying off a few people if they get to retain highly productive employees whose short-run value exceeds their long-term liability.
This seems like a case where there's special math involved due to Uber's growth status. At an established, nominal growth company, you're less concerned with high performers and their shorter-term harassment costs exceed their long-term value and they can probably be more easily replaced.
By the way, a white man is several times more likely to be shot by a black man, than the other way around. It's not some 20-30% difference. It's several hundred percent more likely.
This is getting really off-topic, but that statement is ridiculously far off. Murder is quite well traced by the FBI, so let's take it as a proxy for shootings. The FBI has this nice table of 2013 statistics (other years would be broadly similar).
From the table we can see that there were 409 murders of whites by blacks. With a white population of roughly 200 million, that makes about 2 parts per million. We also see 189 murders of blacks by whites. With a black population of about 40 million, that makes just under 5 parts per million.
From this we see that a black person is about 2.5x more likely to be murdered by a white person than the other way around. That's the opposite of what you said.
Now, it is true that if you restrict to the cohort of actual crime victims, things look different. For example, given that a white person is one of the 3,000 murder victims , chances are about 14% that the murderer was black. In comparison, given that a black person was one of the 2,500 victims, chances are about 7.5% that the murderer was white.
Even viewing the statistics this way, we do not reach "several hundred percent", but rather 80%.
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature. -- Rich Kulawiec