There is no KKK. There are several dozen. They generally aren't very organized and don't really Burn buildings and flip over cars like Antifa and BLM. You of course know that they aren't classified as a terrorist organization. Some call them that, yet these same people often won't say the same about left wing groups we see doing 95% of the violence and destruction.
Why would any paying customer use ReactOS over windows? There is no support (security patches automatically supplied ETC). Windows 10 is evergreen and new feature appear quite often. Microsoft loses exactly zero dollars a year because of ReactOS. People who don't want to pay for windows just pirate it. Those who do pay, get it buldled with a computer or laptop that they purchase, or are corporations who need support. ReactOS will always be a tinkerers hobby... Did they steal code? Did they reverse engineer so good that it looks like they stole code? Who cares really... Not Microsoft. Why would they?
> Why would any paying customer use ReactOS over windows? [...] Windows 10 is evergreen and new feature appear quite often.
Yes, exactly. Windows likes to update. Some of us want a simple system to run Windows programs/drivers that just works and doesn't demand you upgrade constantly to the latest version with all-new features that you don't have any use for. Granted, *nix+WINE is usually better for this, but there may be times when ReactOS is the better option.
What does this mean exactly? It is easy to say an electric car is more fuel efficient, the energy is expended somewhere else. Same with hydrogen fuel cells. I think the most likely thing that will happen is increased usage of the stored energy methods mentioned above, and smaller gasoline engines. It's not easy to just make an engine more fuel efficient. You think people haven't been trying to do this since the combustion engine was invented? Never mind that electric vehicles having smaller carbon footprints over their lifetime heavily depends on the electric power source (in some cases they produce more carbon). BTW, Japan has a great mass transit system that most people use so the actual carbon difference in the next 30 years from this law is highly suspect. I get it - we have to do something right? This is not the answer. We need something better.
FTA:
"The new rules also begin considering the carbon dioxide emitted when generating the power to run electric vehicles. These emissions will be converted into a fuel economy figure and included in the average, giving carmakers an incentive to improve the performance and range of their electric offerings."
Why do comments here suggesting that there are compelling arguments concluding that adjusted wages are nearly identical get flagged and down-voted? There is certainly a debate to be had, silencing the other side suggests weakness of one's own position. I have never seen a good rebuttal against the adjusted wages are very nearly equal position. Things always get shut down, shouted down or otherwise silenced in some way. I would love to see direct claim-rebuttal positions taken with opposing reasoning and data.
As far as I can see, the comments did not (just) assert that adjusted wages were nearly identical. They asserted:
1) That this is not a serious issue and 0 economists study it.
2) That at no point in history was the adjusted wage different between men and women. (This was asserted and not argued for.)
Comments which just asserted that adjusted wages might be nearly identical can still be seen. I agree that this might be debated. The other two opinions appear more extrem and much less plausible, as far as I am concerned.
I still feel that silencing someone is unhelpful. Why not let their claim stand? if outrageous - let it be handily refuted with logic and data and them made to look foolish. This is far more effective then silencing someone who then becomes a martyr. I also find it interesting that people on the far opposing side, those who come in with raw pay gap numbers whilst shouting "discrimination", they seem to always get a pass? Pay inequality has been well known since WW1, but all except a tiny portion of actual discrimination has been repeatedly dis-proven since the 1980s. Still huge numbers of people still parade the societal discrimination mantra proudly. People and parties run elections on it. Classes in prominent universities are taught preaching it (based on a few personal accounts, court cases and raw un-ajusted statistics). It is almost a religions justice objective for many to fix the unprovable wrongs of a system. Those are the people I often see shouting down the logical thinkers and data analysts.
Wait, so you're simply declaring that my comments aren't true despite the fact I'm merely arguing the null hypothesis due to insufficient evidence of any alternative? Why is the burden of proof on me? Because you say so?
Can you please just keep snark and flamebait off this site? If you really don't understand what flamebait is, start with this: don't post provocations on divisive topics. More explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19348774.
If only they could develop some kind of machine learning AI tech that could make highly suspicious comments require approval.
I guess they just aren't sophisticated enough to do that... But I guess they must have AI that can identify kids in videos accurately (even 17 1/2 year olds).
Are they going to require an ID system so the age of everyone in the entire video can be verified? I guess 2/3 of YT vids will have comments disabled? What about all those super popular channels featuring family vacations? Not even documentaries can have comments?
I honestly don't believe that this headline is true, but if it is... Good opportunity for a YT competitor to spring up.
You all are being duped into contrived outrage. The example given in the OP link is very misleading and it is quite obviously cherry picking (to spark emotion) and is actually an outright lie. The truth is that Insticart actually pays a $10 minimum per delivery (this isn't even mentioned in the OP link) So how did this person make 80 cents an hour? The delivery was 0.7 miles and took 69 minutes. Ironically, under Insticart's previous policy, this delivery person would have made essentially the same amount. People making deliveries in dense urban areas (especially during traffic hours) can actually make far more than they used to.
I am not sure why delivering 6 bags of groceries took over an hour in this case. It is entirely possible however that they made several other deliveries in between Wegmans and this location (making a $10 minimum for each). It is possible that this person actually made $50+ during this 69 minutes.
So is not a typical scenario. I could put together an article just as misleading showing that Insticart pays a mint...
I don't like when people try to mislead me. Perhaps the fact that the tip is not going directly to the delivery person is offending some of your sensibilities. This is quite legal. Many states have done this for the past 80 years. I don't know how residents of states that practice this are surprised. All restaurants and other service industry locations you frequent do the same.
Being a food delivery person, a restaurant server or for that matter a McDonald's employee is not a skilled labor position and has never been a job someone should aspire to feed a family off of. We have people busting their butts, putting themselves through college, working their way up the ladder. We have 50k skilled labor jobs vacant in this country that pay a good wage and even offer training. People used to move across the country for these jobs. They used to leave their grandma's basement and go make something of themselves. Now we just have them making a bunch of noise over McDonald's not paying a Living Wage. Grow up. This world should not reward the lazy, it results in ever increasing mediocrity.
What the hell does that have to do with my comment and my own experiences?
I worked these jobs while trying to support and educate myself so that I could get a better-paying job.
At the same time, if 6-8 hours a day of Instacart deliveries isn't enough to provide you with an apartment, tuition money and food & entertainment for a wife and two children, then it's a service that shouldn't exist and it is only propped up by investor cash.
Because that is what minimum wage was originally meant to provide for an individual in America, before nearly a century of propaganda and misdirection convinced people like you that someone on minimum wage is lazy and doesn't deserve enough money to eat healthily, rent a decent apartment and have enough cash for some entertainment, and generally live better than someone in a third-world country, much less afford something like an annual vacation or car payments.
>"I worked these jobs while trying to support and educate myself so that I could get a better-paying job."
So did many of us. People are not supposed to have to support a family as a primary earner on minimum wage and they never were. According to the 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics, full time minimum wage earners earn over the poverty line by more than $3,000 per year. Two minimum wage earners can support a family of four and live above the poverty line. Avoiding poverty is all about choices.
>"At the same time, if 6-8 hours a day of Instacart deliveries isn't enough to provide you with an apartment, tuition money and food & entertainment for a wife and two children, then it's a service that shouldn't exist and it is only propped up by investor cash."
>"Because that is what minimum wage was originally meant to provide for an individual in America, before nearly a century of propaganda and misdirection convinced people like you that someone on minimum wage is lazy and doesn't deserve enough money to eat healthily, rent a decent apartment and have enough cash for some entertainment, and generally live better than someone in a third-world country, much less afford something like an annual vacation or car payments."
You have your facts quite wrong about the minimum wage and what it was originally meant to provide. The minimum wage was first enacted in 1938 by FDR. It paid a meager 25 cents per hour (this is $4 today when adjusted for inflation). So it has become substantially more generous as time has gone on. This is the opposite of your claim.
People in third-world countries earn less than a dollar a day. I'm sure they would love to earn even the 25 cents per hour that the original minimum wage paid.
Everyone I know that has been stuck in minimum wage jobs have definitely been lazy or made very poor choices (like stealing from their employer ETC.) in fact, only 3% of people above age 25 in the US make only the minimum wage.
Get the actual facts before making biased and factually incorrect claims (and cite sources when doing so). It really hurts your credibility to just make things up and try to sound like an expert so maybe no one will call you on it and you will appear to make a valid point.
If the facts that I stated are incorrect, cite your sources. If you wish to debate something I said... I welcome it.
You place yourself in a weak position philosophically and argumentatively simply going for the old dumb bully method of personal attacks, character assassination, shouting someone down, insults ETC.
Is that really the best you can do? I pointed out inaccurate information and information gaps in this story. This claim reeks heavily and obviously of major bias. I wouldn't be surprised in an Instacart competitor actually is behind this. It's sad that others in this thread didn't already do the same. The group think and blind social justice here is really sad. There are many people here far smarter than I, yet they cannot see when such a weak and slanderous smear attempt is made?
If you want to change the labor laws to make tips and wage separate then go ahead. But just know that every restaurant and service company in states that allow this do it. If a certain business doesn't, they will have a hard time competing against the company across the street who does.
This 80 cents an hour case is so factually incorrect and lacking specifics that you and others should frankly be embarrassed to be making judgments based on it.
Yet other personal computers were being built in the U.S. at that time and it was somehow not a mess... Jobs was a great idea man for technology and UX, but not so good at many other areas (such as we see here with manufacturing). I know that this article is trying to make a case that the problem was the US culture ETC (pro globalism), but if that was the case... why were so many other so successful where Apple failed?
