zadkey

"millions of animals [...] will be depopulated because of the closure of our processing facilities"

I saw that in the article and just shook my head. Those animals die whether the processing plant is opened or closed.

(Regarding the Headline) Surely you mean 35% of homeless who were tested. We can't say for certain that the sample is an exact representation of the general population of the homeless in Boston.

"Upon observing a cluster of COVID-19 cases from a single large homeless shelter in Boston, Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program conducted symptom assessments and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for SARS-CoV-2 among all guests residing at the shelter over a 2-day period. Of 408 participants, 147 (36.0%) were PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2"

The key thing here is they tested people from one single homeless shelter. Is this one homeless shelter in Boston representative of all homeless shelters in Boston? There is not enough info in this article to make that assumption. Nor is it enough information to make generalizations about the populations of the homeless who do not live in shelters.

They are not devoid of personal responsibility for following bad orders either.

Someone else on this thread already referenced "Superior Orders" which I was thinking about as well.

We as a society already determined in the 50's that doing bad things because a superior officer told me to does not negate responsibility for the actions taken.

This echos my feelings exactly.

I said in the post that there are a grand total of 10 remote work days for the entire year regardless of purpose.

I guess what I am getting at is that if infected, at a certain point I could run out of remote days and sick days and be left with the choice to choose between coming into the office when I am sick or getting fired.

The question becomes at what point does the CEO failing to learn from his mistake become a greater moral hazard than me coming into work while sick?

Working from home without taking a remote work day is considered absence or a sick day. I don't have any means to disguise the fact the I am working remotely.

I wish we had something like this in the US.

I am in the house building industry which Texas has deemed essential/critical and can continue to function as normal during shelter-in-place orders.

As a software engineer, my job can be done entirely from home. However, the CEO has a deep distrust of employees and will not allow us to work remotely during this time since he can get away with doing so.

Technically we have 10 work remote days per year, but to work remotely at this time we must use those. It's not being given to us, and this situation will last more than 10 business days.

Vereniging Van Vlaamse Vliegfissers aka Association of Flemish Fly Fishermen

I wasn't expecting that. ;)

But seriously, I was expecting some kind of explanation or corporate mission statement, but all I got was visual repetitions of VVVV showing up in various designs and architecture.

It's kind of cool.

Is it too sardonic to think that it's only a matter of time before Autodesk tries to buy this too?

For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodesk#Corporate_acquisition...

Additional Reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sardonic

Let's follow the financial incentives of each choice.

Option 1: They give away money, earn some good pr, but loose money, and open up to potential securities fraud lawsuit if the amount given gets high enough to impact stocks. Good pr only goes so far towards getting new customers if you are an established player in the market. Conversely, medium and large players are the only ones in a position to give. Medium risk, low reward.

Option 2: Give away their product for free. Depending on the nature of the product, it could anywhere from zero to low cost to do so. No risk of securities fraud lawsuit. More people trying your product means more potential customers. Plus also good pr. Little to no cost. Low risk, Medium Reward.

As a company who is in the business to make money, as per the fiduciary duties outlined in their corporate bylaws, which option seems more appealing?

The problem here is that the common good is not incentivized.

Change the incentives, change the world.

I've been trying to access this website for the last 2 days, it is either down or overwhelmed.

This only makes sense if there was an initial court ruling for a set amount of damages.

And then later another ruling for additional damages by a lower court, and then a higher court reduced the additional amount.

Some of the wording in this article is confusing.

"The Tokyo High Court on Tuesday ordered ¥1 million in additional damages be paid each to some 300 evacuees from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, down by two-thirds from the amount awarded by a lower court ruling."

"Additional damages" vs "down by two-thirds"

If it's down by two-thirds, it's not additional, its a reduction.

It looks like they fixed the issue.

Can we talk about why there are so many scrollbars on this page?

Could you share the link to the article?

Or even more specifically to the article's point is equal pay

Ultimately my question is how do you quantify equal pay when the leagues have entirely different pay structures?

Since these the leagues are on different contracts with different pay structures, we are effectively comparing apples to oranges.

"Men's team players do not receive a salary from US Soccer, and they are paid only when they are called up to play for the men's team, according to the filing."

"US Soccer is required to "pay a $100,000 annual salary to a minimum number of 'WNT Contracted Players' each year" even if they do not play for the national team."

It doesn't seem like it's possible to have equal pay with entirely different pay structures.

If what was being advocated for was equal pay structures then I would understand.

But if they are only advocating "equal pay" then we need to spend some time to define what "equal pay" even looks like for people on entirely different pay structures.

I don't think you can ever truly have equality with separate leagues.

Segregation is inherently unequal. We learned this in school with Brown v. Board of Education.

Something I didn't see in the QA section,

What happens when someone enters the store with a $20 prepaid visa card and then walks out with 200+ dollars of stuff?

I'm seeing an error when I try to view the site that looks like this:

"Trouble Encountered https://c2.com/wiki/remodel/pages/PairProgrammingEconomics can't fetch document

See github"

I'm guessing the site is overwhelmed with more traffic than it can handle.

I saw an earlier HN post last week where a sales person and a software engineer were looking for an idea guy.

I tried this about 1 month and half ago.

It was interesting, but there were some issues with the IDE that caused it to crash in certain scenarios.

It very much has an alpha feel.

I'm looking forward to seeing what a later version has in store.

There are Freelance websites where you can work on small coding projects for money.

Use those get some immediate money and start building up confidence and accomplishments that you can use on your resume/cv.

After doing that for a while apply for a full-time role with your updated resume showing multiple successful small projects from freelance roles.

Overly large companies wield disproportionately large amounts of influence in our lives and probably should be regulated more. But that disproportionate influence doesn't mean "tech" is the root cause.

There shouldn't be a backlash against tech companies specifically, but really companies that are overly large and use and abuse their power and position in ways that benefit shareholders in ways that are severely detrimental the common good. Such as limiting competition, influencing and manipulating legislation, ensuring people have no other options and then raising prices exponentially, selling your data to the highest bidder, etc.

I agree. It kind of feels like the media is pushing a "techlash" narrative where there is none.

Anyone have an outlined version of the article?

Private browsing isn't cutting it for some reason.

I can't agree more. Google has some of the crappiest support around. A few lawsuits and some really bad publicity might make them change their tune.

"Step 1 is getting a list of new products that are receiving a higher than expected number of 5-star reviews"

What is higher than the expected number of 5-star reviews?

Don't those numbers vary widely depending on product category, brand, and newness of the product?

How does that work for things that fit into more than 1 product category?

Agreed, this article could have gone into much greater depth on this point.

This article would be massively better if it cited some of the studies that the scientists were using in their argument.

Leaving out these important details can unfairly undermine their argument.