Trundle

Slap that on to a website with some particles.js and I think you're set to retire.

There are already personal preferences in partners that are so common that they're basically norms. I don't see a world where people take longevity of a potential partners health in to consideration on top of height, face, class, etc; and the government decides to get involved, to be all that much worse than the one where people just take height, face, class, etc in to consideration and the government decides to get involved.

To me an appropriate analogy would be if burkas were the norm for everyone, some guy was all "I wish we could easily see peoples faces when trying to date. I have a really attractive face and I'd like a partner with the same", then someone was all "the government will get involved!"

How and why? Prevent uglies from dating hotties? The market already does a decent job of that.

There's no department for "dating profile height fraud".

No one cries "eugenics!" at being able to see how attractive your partner is.

What copyright? Maybe I'm missing a section but nothing on his site looks like it would fall under copyright protection.

Lists of ingredients aren't protected by copyright. Hell, neither are basic instructions and he doesn't even have those.

Photos are but this looks like it would fall under fair use. If you have a fashion blog you're allowed to use a photo of a dress from the makers website when you're writing about it. It's hard to comment on a product if you can't share a photo of the product. This guy is commenting on various foods by showing their nutritional value.

The poster hasn't said anything about people not being worth having access to reproduction, or being allowed to.

I can't help but think people are reading some form of government mandate argument from their preference when they haven't mentioned one.

I like swimming. I don't think anyone should be forced to swim nor that its the governments business to increase swimming.

That guy wants to filter partners by their long term health potential. I don't see any reason to believe he thinks people should be forced to do the same nor that he thinks it's the governments business.

Am I reading this correctly in that you're getting hired by large tech companies, presumably for large tech company salaries, and then getting fired because of your attire and that you haven't traveled?

Depends on what they are. Plenty of brick and mortar stores only compete with other providers within their city/area and don't really care what's going on in other cities. Offer them exclusivity in their region of business if you need to.

Even if that's not the case. If it's genuinely out of their price range to get built custom just for them, which it almost always will be, then they should be willing to collaborate just to get it at all.

Sorry, I guess you don't ever need to do any actual contracting at all if it's just exploratory. I was writing from experience as half of a "software development agency" so we did do custom work, I just noticed that a lot of what we were building could easily be turned in to a product.

I will say though that actually doing some work for them, basically getting carte blanche to poke around their workstations and getting rundowns from their staff on how to achieve their tasks, reveals a lot of opportunities. You come across things like them moving over to a different pc. "Oh we need to use this because it has our X on it, which we use to do Important Task. It's not made any more so we can't get a new version".

Didn't flesh this out in time for edit.

- Don't position yourself how you normally would if you were going for a new job and trying to maximise your income. No "senior developer with experience in python, node, etc"

- Do position yourself as just a general "software developer". I said contractor before but I wouldn't (didn't) even make it look like that. More like a small agency. If they're completely outside of the tech industry (what you want) then they're going to be wanting someone to just give money to in exchange for solving their problem, not someone they're going to have to manage. Instead of hiring Dave by the hour, they're hiring "[town name] Premier Development" on a fixed project basis.

- Be selective with who you take on. Again, you should be positioning yourself pretty cheap to the point where if this wasn't basically an exploratory exercise for you then their project wouldn't be worth your time, so you don't want to get stuck doing work that isn't a potential SAAS for you down the line.

- You want them coming to you trying to get something done for $15k that would normally cost $100k+ to build. Then you say "hey, if you're willing to be my test dummy/case study/first customer, I'll build it and give you a licence for $10k"

Do contracting at rates affordable to small businesses. They'll come to you with problems they're willing to pay to fix and can't find a decent premade solution for.

Indirectly help the under privileged by directly applying your skills to solve problems for those with the deepest pockets and then donating that money.

Not every job is about poorly documented legacy apps. "Green field project" + "quality, not a rushed MVP" might be rare, but hey, if you're a good programmer who aces interviews then you can afford to go for the rare ones. Be selective with what you pick.

Also, don't be afraid to try to make that position. If you're considering turning down this legacy app job for one that offers less money, first try pitching them on a rebuild. If you smashed their interview and they offered you a lot of money, then they think quite highly of you right now. Maybe they'll listen.

The fact that you're saying "the company is the one..." and that they should suffer draconian punishments after reading an anonymous internet comment is exactly why we shouldn't treat verbal contracts seriously.

You don't know if the company did anything.

Between all individuals? No, I don't see much of that. Between some groups though? Yes, there are many that are aiming for parity after you split people in to different bundles. I don't think they see themselves as being for equality of outcome though.

Some of those people don't see any reason for there to not be equality of outcome between groups other than discrimination. So to them, they aren't after equality of outcome, they're fighting discrimination. It just so happens that those things are one and the same for them.

For others, I think they recognise that their initiatives are focused on equality of outcome, but the long term goal is to achieve equality of opportunity. The idea being that seeing people like yourself do something is important in considering it an option, and that making yourself a minority isn't very attractive even if the other aspects of the position might be. The equality of outcome in the short term approach is a way to address the chicken and egg style problem of for example, not wanting to be the only woman in a 15 person development team.

They might not directly claim to value diversity of thought, however accusations of "bigotry" seem to me to be the most common insult/label applied by progressives to non-progressives, possibly behind only "Nazi".

If someone is using "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself" as an insult, it only makes sense to assume they are claiming that they are different.

They did reference a source. Visa.

I attended a blockchain symposium this week. Two days of presentations by researchers, entrepreneurs, and representatives of companies looking at bitcoin in some way. As well as questions from an audience of people with enough interest to pay to be there.

I still have no better idea what the general point is than you.

I'm actually wishing that I had been asking "but why blockchain?" at the end of each talk, or more accurately, rephrasing it in to a less dodgeable question. However I'm pretty sure I knew the least about blockchain going in out of everyone there so I was always a little concerned that I was just missing something implicit/obvious.

Their skills wont be reapplied, that's not how it works. They'll be valued for something else.

If you're going to end up paying market rate anyway, why not just skip the training cost and hire them after someone else has put in the hard yards?

He's already answered but just in case we have any other Aussie's reading, we actually have a system that lets you do that called NEIS.

You have to do a short business course—From memory it was one hour a week for 10 weeks or something like that—and then you can collect unemployment while working on your startup for I think a year.

The bar to get in is pretty low. I'm sure that a lot of my class/group were intentionally unemployed and just looking for an easier alternative to pretending to look for work, and they didn't get kicked out. That said the metrics they were tracking to make sure you were progressing were more regular small business focused rather than trying to create the next Google focused. Revenue, customers, etc. That fit what I was doing but might not for you the reader.

Mfw Giving them the data yourself isn't consent.

Can you please explain how dowries tie in to this? I didn't see anything in the above post that would indicate that they have an opinion on them one way or the other

There are plenty of rides happening with Uber/Lyft now that just wouldn't have happened at all previously, not just gone to a taxi.

>Indeed, if everybody knows that a college education is empty signaling, then how is it possibly still effective?

Who said it's empty? It's effective at finding the employer what they want. Just not efficient on the part of the employee.

> why are we asking the laborers

Who is we? Certainly not the author of the article we're discussing. He specifically talks about recommending going in to higher education to the individual.

Inherently? No, but it does come with potential for negative externalities.

If you consider that work passion to be a moral virtue and this comes through in your discussions with others, that contributes to pushing society towards a culture of being overworked.

If you try to overtly filter for passion within hiring at a company then that encourages bullshitting and reduces the efficiency of managing employees. You'll be trying to give "passion" benefits to a bunch of secret mercenaries.

If you're non-business inclined and passionate then this can lead to capturing far less of the value that you generate than you otherwise could. This is effectively charity to the business owning class. If you're working for $80k when a few extra conversations—or even just sentences—over the years could have put you at $150k, then that's effectively a yearly donation of $70k to the people in the world who need it the least. Even if you don't care for that money for yourself because you're too busy having fun working to spend it, then that's an awful lot of good you could have done for others that you're failing to do.

What's more with this one is that it also hurts your colleagues by acting as a salary anchor which again, results in a greater share of the value being generated going to the owning class.

Can confirm the rule changes are a pain. Ex dota 2 player and I tried to watch some games recently after a few years break. I couldn't really follow what was happening. The map was different, new items, heroes. Existing items and heroes all different in assorted ways.

I felt like Grandpa Simpson: "I used to be with it but then they changed what it was."

Frequent tweaking might be great for active players but I think it will be a pretty big block to ever allowing esports to compete as a casual viewing event alongside regular sports.

4 weeks of annual leave is the minimum here in Australia.

Not including the 10 days of sick leave as well.

I know they earn a lot more from ads on google properties than on third party sites, you can see it in their financial docs. It's something like 80% of their revenue.

So we know embedded ads all around the internet aren't challenging it in any way.

That said I don't know what percentage of their "google property" ad revenue is youtube, gmail, etc. Maybe they're cash cows?

I'm inclined to think it's still mostly search though simply because it's the most valuable source of lead. One where the consumer has buying intent.

Searching for a new car Vs trying to watch a show and having a car shown to you before it.

One thing about beer that the article didn't touch on is that it's a fragile product which has its quality harmed by the standard supply chain. It's both temperature and light sensitive.

This makes many smaller producers compared to few large producers more attractive than in a more easily transported good eg. phones. One big factory with all of the quality standards and efficiency gains that allows works great for the iPhone, not so much beer.

I don't know enough about weed to be able to say where it falls on the fragility of product spectrum, but it's a factor worth considering and I'd be interested to hear from people who do know enough.

Search isn't an alternative to advertising. It's what generates the advertising.

It's not free though. You get access to the forum.

If it was free then you wouldn't be doing them!