mfringel

Please explain how society is completely disjoint from government, such that a zero-sum assertion is possible.

I tried using Anki, but creating/formatting index cards was a total pain (especially for Mandarin), and I didn't feel like doing a graphic design project for every character I wanted to learn.

If there was an easier way to auto-generate flash cards, I could see Anki being more interesting.

How about this...

"If your executive team is mostly white guys [which indicates that you're mining from the same labor pool as everyone else, and shows you're not willing to do basic legwork,] I'm staying away too."

...and Uber is just a software company, and Mastercard/Visa just facilitate payments.

The specific classification of a company is irrelevant. If they've induced their own gravitational field, then they're responsible for the consequences.

The problem with the "We report, you decide." model is that the reporter chooses what to report.

The messenger and the message always have a relationship. It may be irrelevant, but it always exists.

You have posted a number of links, but what's your opinion on the topic?

Given the link-dump, I'm assuming it's "Technologically savvy people can solve this for themselves, and that's sufficient."

Can you clarify?

Alternately, they could build a tunnel across the Hudson that connects up to the New York City Subway (and possibly NJ Transit on the Jersey side), which would dramatically cut vehicle traffic... but Christie wanted the Tea Party votes, and he got them.

Today's discount is tomorrow's fee waiver.

The problem is that there's an implicit agreement that the amount the passenger is willing to pay is the gross amount the driver receives, of which fees are taken off the top.

The arbitrage between the shorter path and the longer path represents an undocumented fee given to Uber for no additional service rendered.

But that's not how services are priced... you can't guarantee that how/what a private entity will cross-subsidize. The whole point of a Universal Service Fund (for telephony) is that there was no motivation for this kind of monetization.

As for the gov't getting tax revenue from selling the information, that's just unpersuasive. First, it's an incredibly indirect way of getting the revenue, and second that could be used to justify any profit-making activity, which makes it meaningless.

In your example, "whipping", "imprisonment", and "[or] fine" are all examples of punishments for a crime.

Being poor is not a crime.

As someone who is not an Australian (i.e. born/raised in the USA), I will agree with you that Australian Rules Football is one of the greatest sports in the world. :)

You have found a pattern. Do you have a point you want to make?

I'll admit, I'm pretty amazed that AirBnB has succeeded.

I never thought that injecting even more uncertainty into travel was a winning proposition, but they've clearly found a willing market.

Perhaps a better way to look at it is "There was an underserved market that had a higher tolerance for uncertainty, and AirBnB seized the opportunity."

Your show of virtue has been noted by the Ministry of Statistics. Thank you for the data point.

A profit-making entity taking specific and documented measures to obstruct justice is bad.

Note that we're talking about a justice system that rehabilitates vs. one that punishes. Do you care which one happens to the perp, with the knowledge that they will be back in society at some point?

It might.... under what circumstances? some victims.... which ones? can be considered.... by who?

Will the perpetrator's suffering make the victim un-robbed?

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Uber has started a revolution. I do not require them to survive it.

Allow me to rephrase:

"So why is a hostile work environment somehow one of those things that are unjustified no matter what?"

Words matter.

It's true that money, connections, and influence will win against an unorganized electorate. The equation changes significantly if there's a coordinated effort by voters.

The state's exercise of force is typically considered distinct from any other entity's.

If that's all you get out of conferences, you're correct.

There appear to be enough people disagreeing with you to imply that that is not the full value prop.

One novel way to think about the First Amendment is that it constrains two specific actors.

1) It explicitly constrains the US Government. 2) It implicitly constrains anyone who approximates the coercive power of the US government.

#1 is self-explanatory.

#2 implies that, in the US, anyone who attempts to use overwhelming coercive power of any form to silence speech tends to get looked on poorly by the law.

If Fetlife has a fraud rate that approaches normal and the banks cut them off anyway, it would be an interesting court fight.

You have already started by saying you're a cloud solution architect with Microsoft.

Please continue.

Seconded. There's a fascinating amount of detail about how slot machine technology has evolved for greater engagement over time.

Can you elaborate on what you think the down-votes prove?

I'm unaware of any additional data that gets communicated to a poster when they get down-voted.

I don't hear any music. I click to start and it pops up a login page.

Have you tried answering that question yourself? If so, what answers have you found?