froggertoaster

Echoing the comment about this being an indictment of election structure - my wife used to work on political campaigns as a high level operative and she says this is par for the course.

Note: am not a Yang supporter, just offering a different perspective.

I feel like your comparison is unfair to HOAs.

I feel like this service came several years too late. The overclocking community seemed much bigger 10-15 years ago.

Lots of the push against nuclear is non-scientific. Worth pointing out that all humans reject science, not just conservatives - liberals do exactly the same thing.

This is salient to the nuclear discussion because, regardless of the science, liberals STILL push against nuclear science - even though it's the best hope for getting away from using fossil fuels that we have today.

https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1322308774351138816

So, in order to use GraphQL effectively, you have to learn GraphQL deeply. Got it.

What a way to add nothing to a conversation horse that's been beaten to death as is.

> - GraphQL makes tasks more complex > because GraphQL APIs generally have much higher quality than REST-like HTTP APIs.

How on earth do you say, with a straight face, that the reason a task becomes more complex is because the API is "higher quality"? Higher quality in my mind coincides with ease of use, which is exactly where GQL falls down big.

The problem with articles like this (and advocacy groups like Avaaz) is that their definition of "hateful" and "inaccurate" content casts a rather large net of which their definition is rather nebulous.

Their claims are dubious at best.

To move up, you often have to move out.

I'd cut my losses and move onto a different company, especially after your comment:

> although I could probably get 50% more without much effort at other places.

Unless you're perfectly happy with your job and your pay (it doesn't sound like you are) I'd start looking. If you can find more intellectually stimulating work elsewhere at better pay, that seems like a win-win.

> Data repeatedly shows that there isn't a consistent effect from increases to the minimum wage

Care to share that data?

> Change the policy. Labor is a commodity because we as a society have decided to make it so. If we want to change it, there are lots of options available: More stringent labor laws. Higher minimum wage. Stronger unions. UBI.

What about the other side of some of these things, UBI in particular? How do you account for inflation and higher costs for goods?

Example (and I know it's overly simplified): minimum wage goes up to $20/hour. People have more buying power, so they buy more (demand increases). Costs of goods go up. Buying power is reduced. Another call to increase minimum wage is issued. Cycle repeats.

How do you reconcile these very real consequences? Can we really say that the benefits outweigh them?

Answer is: they may very well have more benefits, but we can't know without doing them - and the consequences of getting it wrong could be permanently damaging.