The fact that she's a known racist will already stop her from becoming president. That's probably why she's so carefree about making ridiculous, destructive proposals like this. She doesn't care about the presidency; she just wants a platform to spew her vitriol.
Google's thing wasn't a weapon either. These people don't actually care about violence though; they care about weakening and destabilizing the United States.
> HIP Investor regression we’ve used every year that computes excess CEO pay assuming such pay is related to total shareholder return (TSR). The second ranking identified the companies where the most shares were voted against the CEO pay package. These two rankings were weighted 2:1, with the regression analysis being the majority. We then excluded those CEOs whose total disclosed compensation (TDC) was in the lowest third of all the S&P 500 CEO pay packages. The full list of the 100 most overpaid CEOs using this methodology is found in Appendix A. The regression analysis of predicted and excess pay performed by HIP Investor is found in Appendix C, and its methodology is more fully explained there.
This doesn't make any sense. Hell, the first sentence isn't even a sentence.
I suspect the reason this doesn't make any sense is because they don't actually have a coherent methodology. They just want to complain about CEOs making too much money, so they'll create any arbitrary measure to attach numbers to their complaint. Notice how they never once mention who the most underpaid CEOs are. They surely have that data and it would be just as interesting as the most overpaid. They don't release it because they care more about their agenda than about giving you unbiased information.
Their actions and output were subpar. That's why they're losing market share and losing their jobs. I would expect making a joke of your job title is endemic of people who don't take their work seriously.
> Any guaranteed return above bank interest rate is appealing for investors. Guaranteed return of 50%/year is an amazing investment opportunity.
Illiterate startup founder:
> You would think so, but no. ... Knowing that many of those investments will be worthless, they want to maximize the number of shots they get towards a billion dollar company.
If the 50%/year return is guaranteed as the commenter plainly states, then they know for a fact it won't be worthless. VCs would love a truly guaranteed 50% return. Anybody would. The problem is nothing is guaranteed.
It's well-received because it's not actually UBI. It's just a job. The government already employs millions of people. You're pitching something that is already implemented, but pretending like you just invented it.
Wendy's charging me $1.89 for a junior bacon cheeseburger goes against my desire; I'd rather get it for free. That doesn't mean it's unscrupulous for them to charge me $1.89 for a cheeseburger.
The privacy people care about and the privacy Facebook violates are two mostly distinct things. The average person does not care that Facebook tracked them to espn.com or wherever else they went on the web, but they would be outraged if Facebook installed cameras in their bathroom.
I suspect that if it came out that Facebook knew what porn sites you were visiting, outrage over Facebook's privacy practices would become much more real. Currently, the Facebook outrage is mostly just manufactured by the media.
Seems like there are three points of failure here:
1. Dumbfuck kids who don't realize they're spending money.
2. Scummy games that deliberately obfuscate the fact that you're spending real money.
3. Facebook not requiring any sort of verification to spend money via a game.
Remove any one of these three and the problem doesn't exist. Facebook certainly seems to be at greatest fault here, but it's amazing how much the game developers have managed to escape scrutiny.
Please read the article. Google ceased the practice three years ago, so no it will not perpetuate.