Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | dalke's comments login

Nice! The landowners tried to arrange a Community Improvement District so there are no voters in it. Under local law, if here are no voters then the land owners get to decide. (What I can't tell is if there's a difference between the views of the land owners and the business owners on that land. Are the land owners trying to avoid increased property taxes by shifting the expenses to sales taxes?)

That district includes the Ernest and Eugenia Wyatt Guest House, which is "available for EFCC patients experiencing long-term outpatient care, such as chemotherapy." One of the employees of facility also lives there, and has done so for over a year, and is a registered voter.

Hence the plan of having no registered voter didn't succeed.


Why do you say there's "no particular solution" when the NLRB did offer a particular solution, in the decision linked to by this WaPo article?

Moreover, that solution concerns many issues besides wages, including "employment qualifications, work hours, breaks, productivity standards, staffing levels, work rules and performance, the speed of the lines, [and] dismissal."

As I suggested elsewhere, it seems like the questions you have can easily be answered by the many articles on this topic, including the WaPo article and the primary references. You instead ask other commenters for answers to your questions, which is unlikely to get you far as most HN readers are 1) not here to educate you and 2) not knowledgeable about labor law and practices.

As an example of one of the things which often come up in this discussion, McDonald's in Denmark pays $20/hour. See http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/15/fight-for-1... or http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/15/global-mcdonalds-pr... or http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/sep/03/... as some of the many articles on the topic. And there are no minimum wage laws in Denmark.

Can explain why it is that McDonald's can make a profit in Denmark while paying $20/hour, but (according to you) can't do so in the US?


Sorry to disagree, but legislating a right-to-strike relationship with a company that is once-removed is not a solution; it's just a concession to a union demand that temp/contract workers be paid more money. The net result will undoubtedly be much higher prices for goods and services, and a number of start-ups will either fail, or be forced to downsize.

Regarding McDonald's in Denmark: do they operate on a franchise basis there as in the U.S., or are the stores directly owned and operated by corporate McDonald's? What kind of prices are there on the foods they sell?

I didn't say it was impossible to make a profit at $20/hour; I DID say I'd love to see it, and I'd like an explanation of how it would be competitive in the U.S. economy. In Denmark, $20/hour is not the same as $20/hour in the U.S., because Danish income tax is 55.6%. Also, they have a VAT of 25% on most goods and services (not sure if it applies to fast food). Thus, that $20 is really closer to $10 or $15 in U.S. purchasing power parity terms.


While the news article didn't describe the percentage of people "harmed" by using a temp company, it did give examples including the Teamsters / Leadpoint / Browning-Ferris case, it described that it was a non-trivial fraction of people affected, and it explained the rule change for to do things differently. It also linked to the actual decision, at https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-d... , so you can read the full details. That in turn says (emphasis mine):

> Consistent with earlier Board decisions, as well as the common law, we will examine how control is manifested in a particular employment relationship. We reject those limiting requirements that the Board has imposed— without foundation in the statute or common law—after Browning-Ferris. We will no longer require that a joint employer not only possess the authority to control employees’ terms and conditions of employment, but also exercise that authority.

What more information do you want on the topic, rather than shawnee_'s opinions? I ask because your questions here look like they are meant more to put shawnee_ on the spot than anything else, when shawnee_'s opinions are consistent with that of:

> labor advocates and academics who have described an increasingly “fissured” economy, in which whole industries have been built on business models that offer workers few of the protections of a traditional employer relationship.

Is it not more useful to look at the broader arguments already presented in the WaPo article?


While the nomination of George Tsunis as ambassador to Norway shows how little the US administration cares about its representation in Norway, the justification for appointing fundraisers like Tsunis as ambassadors is that there are senior diplomats in the diplomatic corps who actually run the embassy.

If you want to say this is "junior diplomats" doing their job, then what's the point of having an embassy with no senior diplomats in the loop?


In the not so far past, there were people employed to operate an elevator. (Elevator operators still exist, but then again, so do steam trains - neither are in widespread use.)

As a kid, this was hard for me to grasp. "Why did they hire someone to push a button?"


Is your analogy useful? It's been several decades since the first driverless cars, so if the "Wright Brothers to St. Petersburg-Tampa Airboat Line" comparison were predictive, we should have had plenty of those cars on the road by now.

There are also many other analogies you could have made with different timelines. Virgin Galactic, which bills itself as the first commercial spaceline, is already half-a-decade behind its original launch date. Even Tito's 2001 flight was four decades after Gagarin.

Why look to commercial flight and not commercial space travel as the relevant comparison?


Or alma mater songs, many of which are based on 'Annie Lisle' because of Cornell's "Far Above Cayuga's Waters".

The ability of principals to estimate the demand for computer science [1] is not the main issue. As the report concludes:

> ... amid pressure to focus on testing requirements and the limitations they face regarding qualified teachers, most school and district leaders have yet to make computer science a top priority. Inequitable access to computer technology and computer science learning opportunities prevents some students from building a computer science foundation needed for the future.

Even if the principals were perfectly aligned with the parents, and with the corporate interests of Google, it would have only a secondary or perhaps even tertiary effect on what goes on in schools.

Take away this pointless high-stakes testing, increase teacher funding, and provide more resources, and things may change. It will certainly change more than pointing out that there's a difference of opinion between the principals and the parents.

[1] And now for a detail-oriented complaint. The Google report says the BLS "estimates that jobs in computer and mathematical occupations will increase by 18% in the 10 years leading up to 2022, creating more than 1.3 million job openings by 2022." This essay at vice.com says "computer science related occupations will grow 18 percent by 2020" and links to an entry for 'computer programmers'. (The vice.com article has a typo by using '2020' instead of 2022'.)

But "computer and mathematical occupations" is different than "computer science related", so these aren't talking about the same occupations. Plus, if you follow the vice.com link to the BLS page at http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/c... you'll see that the BLS expects that the expected growth of 'computer programmers' is actually less than "total, all occupations."

The BLS estimates that the broader area of 'Computer occupations' which will have the 18% growth. And looking at the breakdown by job category, they expect 20% growth in "Computer user support specialists" with 111K new jobs; 25% growth in "Computer Systems Analysts" with 127K new jobs; 37% growth in "Information Security Analysts" with 27K new jobs; and 22% growth in "Software Developers", with 222,600 jobs.

(Note that 'Although writing code is not their first priority, developers must have a strong background in computer programming'. Instead, software developers 'Create a variety of models and diagrams (such as flowcharts) that instruct programmers how to write the software code'. Not my definition of a Software Developer. Nor Ballmer's, I believe.)

The BLS also says that user support specialists often don't need a CS degree, and that Computer Systems Analysts often come via a Business/MIS degree, so at least 10% of the growth in computer occupations is not due to a demand for people with specifically computer science training.

Anyway, I point this out because the essay title says "Demand for Computer Science" when the BLS numbers aren't all about 'Computer Science' but are more generically "computer occupations", and include jobs which don't require knowing how to program.


Some of the answers are wrong, or reveal only a shallow understanding of Python. For example:

> What is pickling and unpickling?

> Pickle module accepts any Python object and converts it into a string representation and dumps it into a file by using dump function, this process is called pickling. While the process of retrieving original Python objects from the stored string representation is called unpickling.

The first sentence is wrong. File objects, for example, cannot be pickled. Also, in Python3, which makes a stronger distinction between a 'string' and 'bytes', a pickle returns bytes, not a string. Also, the pickle module can pickle to/from bytes without touching a file.

For another example:

> How will you compare two lists?

> cmp(list1, list2) − Compares elements of both lists.

The answer is "list1 == list2", for most uses of 'compare'. The 'cmp' function is no longer part of Python, and its use was a bit tricky.

For a third:

> What are the rules for local and global variables in Python?

> If a variable is defined outside function then it is implicitly global. If variable is assigned new value inside the function means it is local.

This is not correct. Consider:

    class Spam:
        x = 5
The variable x is neither defined in a function nor is a global variable.

Looking through the answers, I would discourage people from using this site. It is better to read the Python documentation and FAQ.


(And posted on HN 1 month ago and 4 years ago. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Tsunami%20stone&sort=byPopular... )
More

Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: