To those who have a problem with Harvard's alleged discrimination. Do you think female-only schools should exist? In addition, would you agree with an admission policy that only uses SAT and AP scores? Grades inherently are subjective and can unfairly be given on the basis of race on the K-12 level, so that's helpful.
Harvard should just model China and make the SAT the only criterion. If there are too many people with a perfect school, use randomization accordingly. Of course, the typical Harvard admit won't like this since it'll mean their private school boost won't mean anything, nor will the fact that they come from a feeder school.
There are many other companies that offer free email without relying on a "massive" ad business. Without knowing what you mean by a lot, but Dropbox, twosigma, most "unicorns" have an order of magnitude or more less headcount and offer similar pay.
If said companies are broken up how would that change what you've stated? There are plenty of small companies that pay a lot and offer free products that are not monopolies (if you believe they are, anyway).
Oh please. It wasn't an attack. It's literally in the person's profile. For those just tuning in, I pasted a snippet of the person's public profile in my comment and said "Employees at big corps defending big corps. What a shocker.".
"RESEARCH MANAGER, ORACLE" (per your profile and resume). Employees at big corps defending big corps. What a shocker. Also, a difference of opinion wouldn't explain a unilateral defending of corporations.
Is there a word for the strange behavior many have around defending large corporations? I know there's Stockholm syndrome but this appears to be more nuanced.
Sure, but people who have stake, e.g. ownership, will be more active politically and they're the majority of Californians. Renters will not win. Again, make more money, leave or endure.
Yes, exactly. No one is entitled to live anywhere. Don't be ridiculous. If they were willing to move they would accordingly become scarce and therefore more valuable and an equilibrium would met. By staying they are simply harming themselves -- to what end? Plenty of people move away from the Bay Area for cost reasons.
This is the same dilemma that has inhibited them from gaining leverage politically that would resolve the zoning issues.
I disagree that there's a crisis. There are many tech workers who can afford to pay the prices. I agree that there are also many dysfunctional zoning practices as well as laws (Proposition 13).
People have 3 options in general:
1. Make more money.
2. Leave.
3. Endure.
Option 1 is what a large fraction of the Bay Area has done. Whether or not it's a bubble is another conversation. It's pretty much clear that Bay Area tech jobs pay more than anywhere else on the planet. Even when taking into account the cost of living, you will save more money in absolute terms living in the Bay Area than anywhere else.
Option 2 is already happening [1].
Option 3 is the strange thing. If people hate the prices and general cost of living that much, why won't they leave? Temperate weather, job opportunities and family are many reasons among the many. Regardless, these factors are already factored into the price. By staying one simply reinforces the positive qualities while having no stake (home ownership).
The conclusion is there is no crisis. As far as the backward laws and zoning policies. Don't hold your breath -- for Prop 13 in particular that's state wide and the majority of Californians own [2]. As for zoning -- let's just say there's zero incentive for it to be relaxed.
Summary: make more money or leave. Sorry. The irony is that the logic of the people who insist people should be able to live in their own community for reasons is the same that resulted in Prop 13 and in making zoning laws strict to prevent newcomers -- who would change the community from what the original migrants had when they arrived. The preservationist entitled attitude is the problem. If people just left the problem would resolve itself. Teachers would be paid more to prevent mass leaving, etc. etc.
It does have enormous value, but it was going to happen regardless. Snapchat does not provide much additional utility beyond the alternatives in which people would already be using (phones, computers). You should also disclose that you work for a company that does equally useless things, sharing screenshots with friends.
from a given level of hydration you can choose to drink more water or drink alcohol. i've covered one of the scenarios. at best both alcohol and water change your mood. of course as we all know what has a desirable mood change and the other doesn't at high consumption levels.
if blue apron IPOs it'll be sunk within 5 years. their product is useless[]. people who want to pay a premium on food and still cook it? sounds like the downsides of a restaurant, food delivery and grocery, all in one.
a really good food delivery service with options to click a receipe and all have the quantity(ies) of all of the necessary foods added into your cart will kill this whole microshopping silliness.
most who seriously want to cook probably want to choose their own ingredients.
[] actually, people who want ridiculously complex meals, but for some strange reason want to cook it instead of buying it already made might like this.