Please don't post unsubstantive dismissals. If an article isn't good enough for HN you can always flag it, but contentless snark just lowers the signal/noise ratio for everyone.
It's a juvenile article Dan. Your censure is unjust in my opinion.
Readit Newsjqm commented on The Lingering Legacy of Psychedelia newyorker.com/books/page-... · Posted by u/samclemens
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
jqm commented on The Lingering Legacy of Psychedelia newyorker.com/books/page-... · Posted by u/samclemens
This article kind of reminds me of when a report was due in 7'th grade and I didn't really want to do it.
I'd just look up a bunch of stuff and reword it and jam it all together with no real thesis or point. It always passed.
jqm commented on Do startups have a drinking problem? backchannel.com/do-startu... · Posted by u/steven
We had someone who came to work for us that told the whole company he was a recovered alcoholic and everyone was real nice about it. The bosses and co-workers in this story just sound like colossal jerks.
I actually have an opposite problem, though. We stock the fridge with craft beer but since everyone is a health nut (I use it as a terms of endearment) no one wants beer at 6:00 so sometimes I end up being the only one and that feels awkward. But I've been at the office 11 hours, I want to treat myself.
Also, I find the thought of Beer Pong at the office to be very alarming. Foosball, sure, but Beer Pong? What are we, Freshmen in college?
But I'm in a East Coast office. We're annoyingly all business here. It is probably different elsewhere.
Who wants to drink a beer that had a ball in it that had been rolling around on the floor?
Beer pong is just dumb all the way around even as a freshman in college.
I have no idea myself, but I think we can guess based on the fact that democrats generally want more turnout and republicans generally want less turn out. That suggests that democrats and republicans generally agree that the 100% would benefit democrats.
I did notice the org has raised $650K from a variety of sources.
It might be interesting to see the ideological bent of the source of that funding. But I'm guessing it probably isn't oil drillers and Jesus in public school promoters.
who decides if someone is informed enough? will their be a test? if so, we're treading dangerously into the jim crow era of american voting, and i don't think either one of us would be comfortable with that.
Each potential voter decides if they are informed enough. Or at least interested enough. And the two probably go together.
> They're certainly going to have their own ideas on how to use the resources of the world and will almost certainly think they know what is best for the rest of us.
And nothing will stop them from pursuing political and business careers at equal terms with the rest of us. Of course, their superior genes will let them get ahead, but regardless, that's what already is happening - more genetically smart and charismatic people can get into positions of power easier than others, and we seem to be quite OK with it.
Much of the time the smartest people don't actually do the best. High IQ isn't a guarantee of high achievement.
jqm commented on Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News gizmodo.com/former-facebo... · Posted by u/uptown
The issue is that FB advertises itself as "conduit" or "network connection". You log in, communicate with people and the site tools, FB runs ads on your eyeballs, etc.
Similar to how I give my electricity provider money, and they give me electricity.
Now FB clearly sees themselves as (let's be honest) a "power broker" or "rain maker". Not the same as "utility" or "network connection" or "conduit".
And _that_ is the real value of media. Advertising always was a side business.
> the trio of prison telecom giants ratcheted up the prices until a single phone call could cost upward of $14 a minute
> If the FCC stops the telecoms from gouging families for phone fees, the next frontier is, well, any other service those companies provide. One of those lucrative new products is prison email, in which families are charged for digital "stamps."
> risk it on her own computer and pay $10 for 20 minutes. Paid video visits were, of course, unlimited. Sims said she racked up hundreds of dollars in fees a month
This is disgusting, and what is most disgusting is that the majority of the population probably thinks this is ok. Politicians don't win votes by being nice and soft on crime and making it "easy" for the inmates. Here on HN and in some areas people are aware and understand what is happening. But large swathes of people would not blink an eye at this.
Also the prison industrial complex is deeply interested in long sentences and repeat offenders. For them that is a guaranteed source of profit for years ahead. Keep the people there desperate, away from family, turn them into permanent criminals for life, to make sure as soon as they get out, they'll be right back in. On paper they can justify as "it is not a right" or "this is to mitigate risk", "keep costs down", "provide more options". But I can't imagine they are also not thinking about the big picture.
No matter the rhetoric about "oh we incarcerate so many people, or we should end war on drugs" as soon as incarcerating people becomes tied to someone making a profit this will never go away.
If you trace the root cause of why people are in prison I bet in most cases poverty is a large part.
When will we stop and realize keeping people indefinitely in poverty only makes life worse for everyone? The people behind these kind of schemes are morally more criminal than many of those who are incarcerated. Preying on defenseless or down and out members of society for financial gain is about as low as you can go.