ElComradio

As a data point there has been at least one proposal to reduce on/off ramps on I-95 in Connecticut to help with traffic congestion.

That in practice it does not work as intended means it is bad law and needs tweaked. One way would be to say that all behavior "off the clock" and all attributes of a person not related to the job are protected. Another way would be to say nothing is protected. Right now we have a middle ground that plays favorites.

The problem is that the current system in practice legally protects certain opinions. E.g. If Eich was pro gay marriage and vocally so, firing him on that basis would have been very risky legally. Especially if he was gay, it would probably be impossible to fire him without losing an expensive lawsuit afterwards.

A way to address this might be to add "political opinions" to the list of protected classes. It is undeniably bad for a democracy (I know I know, we aren't technically a democracy) where people aren't free in practice to discuss contentious issues.

As currently stands, you can stand in the town square and promote affirmative action it would be very risky legally to fire you. But if you get up and argue for the repeal of some affirmative action legislation you can be safely fired with no objection from legal.

Good idea. While you are at it-

Don't bias based on weight.

Don't bias on college/university.

Don't bias on motivation to change the world.

Don't bias on environmental/gender/racial activism or lack thereof.

Don't bias based on the presence of a lumbersexual-style beard.

Don't bias based on sense of humor.

Don't bias based on political opinions.

Don't bias based on social anxiety and bombing an interview because of freezing.

Don't bias based on age.

Don't bias against dressing well or wearing a suit.

It is true that the vast majority of companies engage in spin and carefully consider what is said from a PR perspective.

Examples of this are so obvious and ubiquitous, it would be insulting to most HN readers to point them out. So, why should we not be equally skeptical when it's YC? Do we consider them above brand management and putting a positive spin on a mistake by an exec?

I have always been a champ at the dentist probably because I was used to it growing up with all the orthodontic work. As an adult I had a wisdom tooth removed. At one point he said he had to crack it, brought out an awl-type device and leaned on it with all his weight. A tremendous crack; I saw blood squirt out of my mouth like a jet, and thought it was hilarious.

However, I can't put things into my eye at all. Karmic.

Titles are much cheaper to pay with.

Because it's fun. It's usually that simple.

Sometimes people like doing it because it lowers inhibitions and allows them to be more of their real selves. In that case they are bandaiding their own repression.

But mostly, it's because it's fun.

You are correct; Quark goes on a few rants about this in DS9. Also since the Ferengi are so terrible with fighting, considering it a waste of resources (excluding the marauders in TNG but those are later implied to be a minority) that we can safely assume they never had any world wars of their own.

Insurrection is underrated. It's by far the best TNG movie as far as pacing goes. First Contact feels like it is stuttering and I think people like it mostly because the Borg are always a hot topic for Trekkies.

You are also less likely to hide in the bushes to ambush someone who annoyed you, more likely to get out of the middle of the street when the cop yells at you to do that, and to not be selling loose cigarettes in public.

If I want to spend a few bucks on the lottery every now and then where do you or the state get off telling me I'm not allowed to do that? It's a private transaction that has nothing to do with you.

I was mistaken. The way the paragraph read seemed to state that she told the judge she couldn't pay and was fined, then fined for a joint found in her purse; I did not see the joint was actually discovered during a previous instance.

Still, if you are already in trouble with the law, it seems incredibly foolish to continue to willfully break it by carrying around illegal substances with you.

What makes me skeptical of articles like this is the case studies seem to focus on people who appear to be behaving in the most ridiculous way possible. Taking a joint to court? Running stop signs on a suspended license?

If the situations profiled are commonplace, it should not be hard to find more sympathetic victims. That said, it is true that even if this is going on infrequently it is still an injustice and should be corrected... But the headline and article would seem to want to have us believe that we have whole prisons filled with debtors.

This is the thing, though. We are being told that it's just crappy for women in tech; we should be seeing female web devs, mobile devs, devops, product people, etc. banding together and doing things Their Way, and reading a bunch of glowing articles about how much better things are now, and how that creepy old boss who stared at their boobs a lot wishes he was nicer, and that kind of thing. I am unaware of an example of this actually happening, so it makes me very skeptical this is as big of a problem as we are being told.

*screws UP a lot.

Doesn't have to be either or. Currently Hollywood appears to be terrified of having a female character who screws a lot or has petty motivations.

The most egregious recent example I have seen is Dark Matter.

The women are all hyper-capable, responsible and determined. The men are all petty, flawed, impulsive and frequently fighting with each other. It's absurd if you realize what is happening.

It's important to realize that this pushback you are seeing is not because people think girls should not play with chemistry sets. It's because, in point of fact, there _is_ a cultural force out there that exists, that insists that boys and girls are blank slates and if not for antiquated belief systems, all jobs or interests would be split 50/50 across genders.

They are pushing back against the pressure to conform to this new dogma, not that they would deny any particular girl access to a "boy's things".

That's the right attitude. Of course, once their companies grows to a certain size they will be forced by law to diversify their workforce and then they are back in the same situation.

Not the case? Then this problem isn't as endemic as it's being portrayed.

I see this as an echo of the makers and takers debate.

"Give me a job." "MAKE me feel comfortable." "I am at your mercy." ... This the subtext I read. Other people want to create their own world; when someone tells them no or gets in their way, the attitude is "fuck you" not "change to accommodate me."

This reaction may be biologically ingrained as a difference in the sexes; I am not sure- But I rarely, if ever, come across articles about women who have been fed up with some job and formed their own companies with other fed up women and strove to put their former coworkers/employers out of business, whereas for hackers "I'll show you!" seems a very common motivator.

We should be trying to give women (and men) more confidence, integrity and fortitude, and quit with the shaming and guilt tactics.

That's probably the trick you are paying $5 for.

I bet they have studied and considered this angle extensively before announcing this decision.

Do you think that Billy being muscular or confident or saying stuff is gay has a lot to do with the business dealings?

Author is stuck in high school.

Bobby comes off as a child. Those guys who go the gym! Those entitled CEOs who are useless! And they call stuff gay! And I name things "anarchist"!

Seriously, it is impossible to separate the story from the source here. Nobody should trust this is an accurate conveyance of the tone of what happened.

It's because Bobby is an adult and is still fighting the battle against the jocks that everyone else gave up years ago, and can't deal with people who do not toe the party line on what he considers acceptable language with fortitude or maturity. This colors whatever good points he may have with an aura of something like entitled peevishness.

Just remember what truly matters in a successful business venture: language policing.

If somebody is going to get upset at some offensive language he's almost certainly the sort of person who will continually get walked on, since acceptance is the primary component of the worldview.

You seem to be taking contradictory positions, or I'm misunderstanding. You think that open relationships are the best way to go. But then you say that most people wouldn't go for them if religious strictures were lifted. Are you drawing a distinction based on religion specifically versus culture overall? One would presume that worldwide, if there was no "artificial oppression", people would naturally be mostly into open relationships if that's truly the natural state.