I sort of thought that when I first read the headline but then when you actually see what's going on, I think the moves makes sense and is more a demonstration of a reasonable attack that ultimately didn't make sense vs calamitous failure.
"One group was asked to talk to the stranger who sat down next to them on the train that morning. Other people were told to follow standard commuter norms, keeping to themselves. By the end of the train ride, commuters who talked to a stranger reported having a more positive experience than those who had sat in solitude."
What about the passengers they accosted? The no talking norm on public transit isn't meant to protect the shy from having to initiate conversations, since that's easy not to do. It's to protect people from strangers who want to but in. I'm sure every loudmouth who tried to strike up a conversation seated next to me on an airplane thought it was a fine idea, but I would have been happier to be left alone.
Speaking to a stranger != accosting. Welcome to the internet, where you can be bold enough to bash well meaning strangers who spoke to you, yet not bold enough in real life to simply decline a conversation.
The difference is that, on the Internet, you can ignore people and not feel awkward about it. Ignoring some loudmouth next to you is much more difficult. Suggesting you want to be left alone is awkward but afterwards it's even worse because that person is still there. Worse still, suppose they react badly. Urgh. Better to just mind your own business.
I don't often get talked to on transit. However, I do often get ranted at. The drunk and the mentally ill ride the subway too--and, unlike in other places, you can't get away from them there.
The etiquette against talking to people on mass transit is a bit like the prohibition most religions have on murder: something you don't need to tell most people, because it's covered by their internal compass--but which is instead intended to suggest an orthogonal reason for holding back to the people for which that compass is broken.
"The benefits of connecting with others also turn out to be contagious. Dr. Epley and Ms. Schroeder found that when one person took the initiative to speak to another in a waiting room, both people reported having a more positive experience. Far from annoying people by violating their personal bubbles, reaching out to strangers may improve their day, too."
"If all that is alledged is true, that's pretty damning and this isn't just a general bitcoin crackdown."
This could easily be the open move in a general crackdown, a sympathetic test case to establish that operating a bitcoin exchange == money laundering, with broader applications of that precedent to follow.
> a sympathetic test case to establish that operating a bitcoin exchange == money laundering
If this was a test case of that principle, you'd think it would allege "operating a bitcoin exchange" as the basis of the money laundering prosecution, rather than a whole bunch of things that would be money laundering if you replaced bitcoins with anything else, including US dollars.
After all, if there is no unique principle asserted in the case, it can't establish precedent for any new principle. And all that is being alleged here is bog-standard money laundering by actively, intentionally structuring transactions to avoid $ limits and obscure account identities to avoid transactions being identified as violating anti-money-laundering policies, with knowledge that this was being done to further illegal transactions, particularly, narcotics purchases.
The only principle this stands for is "money laundering is still money laundering when bitcoins are used in the process."
I predicted how they would take down bitcoin a while ago. Anyone transmitting bitcoin to another party through anything but a KYC compliant licensed money transmitter will be considered a de-facto money launderer.
At my last gig we used Stypi or Google Docs plus a phone to do live code exercises, and CodePair likes like a step up from that.
But what we're running at my current gig is sending a trivial problem ahead (after an initial phone screen) and then asking for extensions over a Google Hangout with the candidate doing a screen share. This lets people work their way in their own environment with the language of their choice, and do any boilerplate or other overhead up front.
It's not perfect - I'd prefer not to require someone use or make a Google+ account, but it's the best I've seen so far.
In the long run, the price of food and housing should match the marginal cost of producing them. Since a relatively small portion of the (Swiss, at least) population is poor, we should expect that feeding and housing all of them won't move the price much, because the supply curve just isn't that steep. There's no reason to expect an objective material shortage in food or housing - it's relatively easy to make more of both if poor people have the money to pay for them.
The author appears to intend that latter meaning, where SV companies have more egalitarian ownership structures on their own, but that now that we've seen the results, the government should encourage those structures more broadly in the economy.
Actually, the government plays a small part already in how high-tech companies share equity with employees, through preferential tax treatment for Incentive Stock Options. You could imagine many such nudges that could be employed to expand capital ownership short of distributing equity to employees "by force".
Remember in general that the limited-liability corporation as an institutional type is itself a creation of government - the notion of a business as a separate entity with distributed owners such that the business can go bankrupt without allowing creditors to go after the non-business assets of the stockholders is an artificial and relatively modern invention with a large and complicated legal structure buttressing it. C Corporations, LLCs, LLPs, PCs and the like are all creations of government and the way they operate in practice is non-trivially shaped by the ways those laws are structured. Is it so outlandish to imagine an alternative form with a deliberately egalitarian bias (an "E Corp"?). It only takes one state experimenting to make it a reality!
Corporations can still distribute revenue and equity as they please. It's a legal structure for taxation and liability.
The state forcing corporations to distribute their earnings or equity a certain way is a massively more intrusive structure.
If that was done, it would likely be single handily the greatest manipulation of markets and private assets ever done by a government in modern history.
If an egalitarian equity structure legitimately benefits the companies, they will adopt that structure. If they don't then their competitors would do it as a competitive advantage. Unless it really doesn't benefit the companies and therefore requires the state to involuntary make them do it?
If an egalitarian equity structure legitimately benefits the companies, they will adopt that structure.
Interestingly wrong. The problem here is the definition of "benefits the company". The interest of the company is defined as the interest of its shareholders, with the interest of different shareholders counting in proportion to their ownership stake.
The equity structure is itself the terminal teleological value of the company, and consumer markets make zero evaluation of that structure except in very specialized sub-cases (like when I deliberately purchase King Arthur Flour for being a worker cooperative, for instance). This is one of those "companies do not evolve" things; state action is the only thing that will ever change company structures away from what the incumbent shareholders want, and even a fresh-founded start-up has incumbent owners in the form of its founders and seed investors.
Given how little the votes of the average shareholder actually mean today versus the singular, large bloc-votes of the large shareholders, I see no reason not to move the economy towards a form of worker cooperatives that issue non-voting stock, or in which stockholders vote for some portion of the Board of Directors and employees for the other one. The main actual issue will be splitting up dividends between proper Mondragon-style Employee Capital Accounts and stock-investors.
As far as I can tell from the article, EFF is asking for transparency into how ALPR records are used in the LA law enforcement. The only policy response even mentioned - and it's not even explicitly called for - is for the legislature to set retention limits. Both of those strike me as eminently reasonable requests, and neither of which claims a general "freedom not to have your license plate OCR'd."