ElComradio

I think you might be confusing cause and effect. Long term serial monogamy is the norm across cultures and religions. It does not mean any other arrangements are objectively "wrong" but this meme of "Everyone would do X if not for cultural oppression!" is wrong. It's the same delusion that goes on with people who claim everyone is bisexual; it's a wish fulfillment fantasy of people who are outside the norm.

The correct response to being chewed out this way is "If I suck so much you must have been a fucking idiot to hire me."

I had heard that alcoholics who drink coffee have a markedly decreased chance of developing cirrhosis, something like a 60% reduction. But only for regular caffeinated coffee- not tea, not decaf coffee. Do you have any insight into why or is this not true?

At a Sam's Club the door guy literally grabbed my cart on my way out when I did not show him my receipt. I cancelled my membership the next day.

I also wear glasses and drive a sports car. This last part is due to my small penis, which is also known to cause hunting and libertarianism.

Thinking caps come in a range of fashion colors.

I find it interesting that usually those who claim simple explanations for mating choice are those who are least likely to benefit from this knowledge.

It may have started out that way, but now is used to describe social progressives who tend towards shaming tactics and thought policing.

Which unfortunately is the most vocal type of social progressive.

Luck is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Any success story that does not acknowledge that some level of unforseeable fortune contributed to the success is someone deluding themselves, or trying to mislead you, possibly to sell you a book.

Not to mention a drag on business due to people not purchasing much coffee, being there for hours, _and_ appearing to be homeless.

What is amazing is that it's a mainstay in American entertainment that an underdog fights against oppression and proves the naysayers wrong and ascends to the top.

Yet so many Americans apparently believe that people are so fragile that a few offensive comments, or even statements meant to help (!) (albeit possibly in a clueless fashion) are ultra-damaging and a huge societal problem.

File under: "I'm not rich; I'm going to be superior to rich people in other ways."

Unfortunately we can't trust the intentions of this piece. She might not actually care about trolls at all, just brushes them off like I do. It's an image piece, designed to fulfill specific purposes, and I doubt the purpose is merely to spread the message of the positive potential of humanity on the Internet.

These exist, but the criteria most desired is apparently wealth. Date a millionaire dot com and such.

tl;dr summary: "We figured out that we will still need to hire in the future, so we crafted this post to get the message out that it's ok to still come work for us- should things not work out again, you can rest assured we will feel bad again."

PR that comes out of corporations cannot be trusted. We cannot trust Altman is being honest that he appreciated her efforts. We can't trust that her and her husband were in love. All of this that comes out of spokesmen is carefully crafted as a result of a numbers game.

When do we hear "so and so CEO did a horrible job and was forced out by the board."? Never. So are we to believe there is no such thing as a terrible CEO? Will we hear Sam saying "We made a terrible decision putting her in charge."? Never. Even if it was the actual truth.

Pao does not get a pass on this dynamic for being a woman.

I worked in another state for a well known and generally hated company based in SF who wanted me to transfer there, offering a 20k cost of living adjustment. But the actual standard of living increase that would be required amounted to a raise of at least 50%. The response was that a lot of people want to live in SF and would take the hit. No thanks.

Taxes and rent costs blow away these piddly adjustments. Moving into SF from elsewhere requires _massive_ income adjustments.

That's not right either, but at least it's less wrong, as Ford had a far greater chance of repayment.

Government just should not be making loans like this to private entities at all.

Any tax revenue increase would remain if Uncle Sam had equity as well.

Look at this way: It's your money. Literally. Would you, as a VC, or as a kickstarter-type group, give $500M to a company, with no equity stake, but Elon telling you, "Hey, it's risky I know, but it's a great investment because it will kick off all this other economic activity that will benefit you in the long run, so you don't really need equity; you will reap the benefits indirectly in greater magnitude." Of course not. It's only acceptable because it's a cause many HNers believe in, and the money does not seem "real" since it's abstracted out through tax collection and distribution.

How much of a pay cut would you accept being forced on you to pursue these dreams? Might be the next dream, you don't agree with (like a trillion dollar war).

Please describe how it is inflammatory.

Please describe how I implied Tesla was the only company who benefits from government largess.

We should have insisted on owning a stake, given the risky nature of the loan, and the size, at the very least.

A high-risk $500M loan from Uncle Sam (read: You and me, against our knowledge or direct choice) has created a $35B company, in which we the investor have no stake.

Oh right. The whole everyone is a little bit gay thing.

From my experience the majority view is what I stated- now that their rights are blessed, few are interested in standing up on principle for the rights of others. It's no different from me claiming your talking about libertarians is "those people" talk.

It's not "meaningless" to want equal treatment (or even special treatment, technically). But like I said, it reinforces government as the giver of rights and that's the wrong direction.

Who is working to correct the misunderstanding? The majority of gays and their allies have the opinion that now government has blessed them, other groups can fight their own battles. Or worse and hypocritally throw up their own objections about how it's bad for society.

I'm disinclined to celebrate an expansion of rights of a group that mostly relies on a "gotta get mine" mindset than one of true principles of liberty.

The perfect being the enemy of the good is one thing. It's something else when the compromise actually reinforces the root problem. We now have reinforced the idea that government gets to decide who can get married. Wrong direction.

We should have, because what we ended up with is the concept of protected classes, which plays favorites with a specific set of personal attributes and is generally a massive injustice and is now normalized.

There are always exceptions so I don't fee the need to explicitly call that out. But I do submit that it's more like most than many.

Can you clarify how your second paragraph is connected to the first?

All of these things are failures only of bureaucracy to keep up. I should be able to notify the government of who my default estate recipient should be. Maybe it's my best friend or some stranger. No marriage required. Tax treatments for married couples need to disappear and flatten out in general. Insurance should be an individual matter or if it's going to be provided by the government (read: all of us are forced to pay for each other), healthcare issues disappear. The only thing basically left is an adoption issue which is more or less an edge case in all this.

Interesting concept, that sexual orientation is something we believe is ingrained, but things we find sexually repulsive are fluid and subject to change.

Any straight guy will, if given the choice, avoid scenes of man on man sex as much as possible. They might say it's "just not my thing" out of politeness or tact but watch what they do. When Chapelle said it it was funny because everyone watching can relate and it's a tension reliever to hear what you've been bottling up is actually true. Much comedy works this way.