What bothers me about the ban is that anti-vaxxers - at least the ones I've read - are not Luddites.
I've never heard an anti-vaxxer say things such as "It's God's (or Gaia's) Will that Johnny died of measles."
They believe, wrongly in my opinion, that vaccines cause other medical problems serious enough to justify not using vaccines. To me, that's legitimate dissent.
Given the stakes, maybe GoFundMe did the right thing.
But what's an acceptable threshold of risk?
Because, for various reasons, anti-vaxxing has become a political problem as well as a health problem. Maybe more so.
The political aspect - i.e. GoFundMe being vulnerable to political charges of endangering the public - is probably what drove GoFundMe to institute the ban.
Which leaves other politically charged uses of GoFundMe vulnerable.
I appreciate Rick Steves and always enjoyed his shows.
But reading recent posts on HN about how tourists are ruining Europe (and other places) makes me wonder if his message has become obsolete.
After all, air travel contributes to climate change. And I for one do not relish jumping on the QM2 - which surely burns fossil fuels - to spend two weeks (one week each way) traversing the Atlantic.
As someone who has bought a couple of houses, a buyer's agent mostly provides convenience because they can access the property just as easily as the listing agent.
While agent fees usually run in the thousands of USD, probably the larger source of tacked-on fees is on the mortgage side, especially when the buyer does not have the 20% down.
So not sure if transferring more of the fee load to buyers will help move real estate. After all, except for strong seller's markets or when shopping for a specific type of home, the seller usually has more incentive to sell their home than a buyer has to buy it.
Regarding selling, I'm not sure this development is the realtor kill-shot - I would argue outfits such as Opendoor (convenience) or even Redfin (eliminate realtor fees) probably will inflict more damage to a realtor's income.
Because selling a house is a 100x greater PITA than buying.
I would argue that as a way to describe a selection process, "Meritocracy", warts and all, works great.
By warts, I mean that merit, as shorthand for "assessment of skill, talent, or capability", has other factors mixed in because flawed people decide who gets life's prizes.
The Gates example shows the missing ingredient - not luck, but recognition of luck's role in success, what some might call humility. The article referred to gratitude research, which probably means the same thing.
It's a missing ingredient because it doesn't seem too valuable anymore, especially when compared to other qualities, such as the ability to "talk smack."
And it's associated with sackcloth and ashes, or being a "loser." Moreover, it's often called false.
Coming back to meritocracy, what do we have as alternatives? Random selection? Suppression of individual differences (aka C.S. Lewis' "Parity of Esteem")? I don't know.
I'm a regular college grad, but always liked working on my own car (and didn't always trust professional mechanics.)
That lead me to consider becoming an auto mechanic at one time but after hearing some stories - and looking at the pay scales - I jumped back on my desk and rode off into the sunset.
The stories -
1) Constant complaints by mgmt about productivity.
2) Grueling work schedules
3) Pressure to upsell additional work
4) Customers blaming you for new problems
Sounds a lot like working in tech for 25% of the pay, doesn't it?
>Hand outs and taking people's money at the point of a gun is what the heirs do from those who work and create wealth. Larry Page talks about how the police encircled the auto plant his hammer-armed grandfather was [striking].
Would Larry appreciate a 75 - 90% tax on his earnings over ${rich_dude_income_threshold}? I'm not sure we can pass a law that taxes proletarian-grandkids-made-good at a lower rate than trust fund babies.
I will agree with your implicit point that if we tax income, we treat wages and capital gains equally.
>About 75 percent of Americans favor higher taxes for the ultrawealthy.
I would ask that if 75% of the population favor something, how many election cycles should it take to install a Congress willing to carry it out? Even in single-party districts, opponents can run in primaries.
So Mr. Wu's analysis has holes -- one I would mention is the role of political marketing -- by which I mean, sure the incumbent is in the lobbyists' back pockets, but they did ${something_heroic_way_back_when} and besides, the challenger did/said ${something_that_sounds_bad}.
And I think too that people believe too strongly in the "write a letter to your rep" fairy tale, which when balanced against the lobbyist USD, is found wanting.
Maybe incumbency is too strong an advantage.
>And when running for office, Mr. Trump did gesture at his support for popular policies, promising to control drug prices, build public infrastructure and change trade policy to favor dispossessed workers. Yet since coming to power, Mr. Trump, with a few exceptions, like trade, has seemed to lose interest in what the broader public wants, focusing instead on polarizing issues like immigration...
Mr. Wu seems to be wrong here. In the past weeks, I have heard news about Congress wanting to get a handle on drug prices; trade policy seems to be creeping slowly in the direction Mr. Wu would like; and around the time the last Congress was swearing itself in, Trump had mentioned something about infrastructure.
If Congress can find the time to pass an infrastructure bill, that is.
#/media/File:The_American_Soldier,_1836.jpg){kind=link}
>this minority group will give you a disease if you let them near you = talks about people.
HN, just fucking delete my account and ban my IP address, as you obviously have a huge fucking problem with my fair-mindedness.