This first concert in my mind is that while programming core concepts have not changed much in 30 years, the stuff you put on your resume has. Laws don't change very often and only in small details ways. A lawyer can still reference a law passed hundreds of years ago and it's relevant in a real world in the job scenario. Programming on the other hand, is far less stable. Furthermore, employers are always looking for key words in the resume. Do you know this language and this framework? I don't think they care or evening look for core concepts (maybe a problem in it's in right).
"The polygraph, for example, which measures physiological changes such as blood pressure, respiration and skin conductivity, only achieves an accuracy level of around 50%..."
Where does that statistic come from? I've definitely read that polygraphs have over 90% success as long as you account for obvious "counter measures". Basically, the person administering the test can clearly see if you are pulling tricks to defeat it.
How many minimum wage workers are there? If you only look at the number of current minimum wage workers there may not be many, but we are talking about raising the minimum wage to $15. That means everyone under $15/hr is affected. So, I think the real question is how many people are making less than $15/hr. I skimmed this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S... and it seems that median personal income is somewhere around 30K in the US. Well, $15/hr of full time work is about 31K. Therefor the number of people who will see a rise in their wages is potentially very large. So, I think that the problems with price increases are a real issue.
Another issue I thought of is this. If min wage workers all suddenly have wage increases by law, then businesses like fast food chains might just replace many them with machines. I mean, you already know your McDonald's burger is disgusting, so probably wont mind if it gets pooped out of a dispenser like pudding. So, this policy may simply lead to layoffs.
How can they possibly know the accuracy of health predictions based on Facebook likes? I don't see any info about when data was collected, but I would think that you need at least a decade of data to make an accurate determination. That would be the entire history of Facebook.
I think startups usually want young employees because they usually don't have families. It's not really about age, it's about time commitment. All those startups with "epic snack rooms", beer coolers, ping pong tables, pool tables, etc. have all that crap because they expect you to live at the office. They want you to work 12 hours a day. Not all of them, but a lot of them. It can't really give that many hours if you have a spouse and kids to take care of. Most people can't, anyway.
It's not age discrimination, but it's still crappy.
I'm casting my vote for "Screen Size Too Big!" I can't imagine using a device larger than the Nexus 5. I'll test out similar size phones in stores, but it looks like the size is a deal breaker.
Great article. Isn't it obviously that Ebola or any other deadly virus is unlikely to become highly contagious via air simply because we don't see mass airbourn infections very often. (Do we ever see them?) If such mutations were likely, then we would see them. Massive plagues, wiping out something like %50 of the population would be common. There have been mass plagues in history of course, however, they are somewhat rare and often the result of poor sanitation. That's not as much of a problem in the modern world, although the third world still struggles with it. Worse yet, if airborn mutations were likely, then we would probably not see them at all, because evolution would not have brought about highly complex creatures. We would always get killed off by disease before making that far.
"Comcast doesn’t monitor our customer’s browser software, web surfing or online history."
That would imply that they don't even have a log of what requests are passing through their system. I find that extremely hard to believe.