qmanjamz · HackerTrans

What a boneheaded policy. It's all the bad parts of drug prohibition and none of the good ones. All the crime and violence associated with drug trafficking will still exist, but now there's no disincentive for people to do drugs so more people will become addicts. Asinine.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

So they're doubling down on the policies that have earned them an anti-trust investigation? This is alarmingly stupid.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

Is there a country with an economic system other than capitalism that is even remotely competitive with the US?

Saying there's a crisis in capitalism because some people are poor is like saying the Warriors are in crisis because their bench players aren't getting much playing time.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

I agree. Amazon has been hiring mediocre talent for the last two decades and it hasn't slowed their growth at all.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

The fact that Bloomberg employs people who think minimum wages are a good idea is all I need to know that they are not a credible source for economic policy recommendations.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

If you have to name more than one company, the companies you've named do not have a monopoly. They can at worst be a duopoly. However, with the existence of Amazon, Microsoft, Twitter, Snapchat, and others, Google/FB are not even really a duopoly.

But you're right that HN is immensely biased against Google and Facebook. That's why you frequently see commenters like yourself make the patently ridiculous claim that they are a monopoly.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

Corporations are owned by citizens, so it's not necessarily a mistake either way you slice it.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

Most other industries are allowed to sell products that are contrary to their clients' interests. I don't see why wealth management should be any different. If my mechanic can try to sell me a bunch of services I don't really need every time I go in for an oil change, I have no problem with the financial industry doing the same.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

Bizarre comment. Being able to quickly refuel is one of the key advantages internal combustion engines have over electrics.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

> what's the point?

This is an utterly asinine question. The point is that most current fuel is not carbon neutral so this is an improvement over the status quo.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

I agree this news is pretty sad. The Guardian has no objectivity any more. I wish it were possible for newspapers to survive as non-partisan entities, but it's looking less and less likely that'll ever be true.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

A $10 billion fine for the Cambridge Analytica "scandal" would be so far beyond reasonable as to merit criminal charges against Joseph Simons. $3 billion is already insanely ridiculously high.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

There's no way this is actually a genuine question. It's the same reason anybody wants a job anywhere: because they'll eventually become homeless if they don't find a job.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

The title allows the reader to infer a causation that hasn't been proven or investigated. Given that the people making the allegation are bitter ex-employees who have a financial incentive for it to be true, it's an allegation that should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.

You probably don't see the bias in the article because you support unionization. If the article was instead titled "Sexual harassment complaints double after NPM staff unionize," you'd probably be complaining about bias the same as I am.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

It's pretty shoddy journalism for the title of the article to assert this as fact even though it's just an allegation that hasn't even been investigated yet.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

> Google confirmed it found fake ad clicking on all 6 apps, and said ad fraud was against Play store policy. So why aren't you removing the apps, I asked. They said they banned them from ad products and were still investigating. Really? Finally, not long ago, Google removed them.

What's wrong with this guy? Does he not understand what investigating means? God forbid Google actually investigates claims of malfeasance.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

Corporate taxes shouldn't exist in the first place. They're just a sneaky way of double-taxing people.

Corporations are really just groups of people. Those people already have to pay taxes on the income they receive from the corporation. They shouldn't have to pay taxes on it again when the corporation reports it as income.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

It's not a vulnerability. It actually shows their revenue is pretty geographically diverse.

You can't trust financial news from propaganda outlets like Slate because they only care about their agenda.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

If you stack your council with people of entirely one viewpoint, there's little point in having a council at all. Create a board entirely of Muslims and it's going to say we should fast during Ramadan. If Google tries to cite that board as an ethical authority to justify a policy of mandatory fasting, they're not going to convince many people.

With a diverse board, the answers to some questions are going to be inconclusive. But that doesn't mean the board shouldn't exist at all. And it certainly doesn't mean we should eliminate all diversity in the board.

qmanjamz

7 anni fadiscuss

It seems to me that if they limited their recommendations to only things the entire board could agree on, they could still be productive.

For example, they may not agree on how bathrooms should be organized, but they probably all agree that bathrooms should exist.

The fact that the board had wildly varying opinions is a feature, not a bug. The outputs of this board should be widely agreed upon. If they make declarations that half the country disagrees with, they're going to lose credibility fast. Having an ideologically diverse board helps to secure their credibility.

comments