Why? From the company's perspective it makes sense to ask if an applicant has a criminal record. Statistically someone with a prior conviction is much more likely to commit a future crime
What's sad is that in each of the cases I have encountered, the convictions that were concealed would not have been issues. It was the lying about them that did it.
I mostly agree and would argue it's due to the slow erosion of the middle / consumer class. Advertising-based businesses slowing down might be a leading indicator of a bigger macro trend: the reversion back to pre-WW2 levels of inequality :-/
The person did say "unlikely" (which is more a statement of opinion than of a definitive claim), and given the cultural climate of 2018 we can draw reasonable conclusions about what the response to such an article, if first published in 2018, would be, and thus the likelihood that a publication like Time would publish it for the first time now.
No, but more folks in the middle class might be able to remain in the middle class if their modest portfolios had access to high-growth companies, ideally through index funds rather than individually-picked stocks
only in hindsight. but if they were part of an index the stocks would be even more expensive to buy into reducing gains overall. and remember that unicorns do not pay dividends.
Chatting up a stranger is not 'borderline harassment'. Harassment is harassment. There's a correct way to approach someone in a non-threatening manner, and more men should take the time to learn how to respectfully strike up conversation with strangers (in both romantic and non-romantic contexts)
Given the cultural norms around dating require men to initiate the conversation 95%+ of the time, there's a real risk of demonizing men's efforts to initiate conversation. If nobody approaches, then a lot of great connections never get formed.
Sadly I believe this term has a misogynist undertone. I learned about talking to women like that and while it had enormous benefits, they also didn't really teach what was appropriate and had to learn them as well as un-learn a few bad habits.
“Game” is not misogynistic. If you think that then I don’t think you quite understand it. It is about a reduction in ego via self acceptance. Self confidence and self worth through emotional intelligence. Basically if you understand the teachings on Daniel Goleman, you will end up with “Game”. I think you think I mean a “player” which I totally agree with you on.
Someone said this in the congratulations thread, but I think the salient point is that BrandonM's comment was upvoted highly, not that it was particularly offensive.
Hacker News has a strong negativity bias. Most of the time the top voted comment is a snarky takedown of the post. Especially in the earliest days of startups, its far better to be a cheerleader on the outside than a cynic (unless the startup is unethical). It's just so hard to build successful companies, and so easy to dismiss things at that early stage.
And yes, I know this very comment is deeply ironic in a way
In my experience it's more of a pushback or contrarian dynamic. The first wave of comments tends to be negative as people object to the article (unless it's particularly interesting, which is the case we hope for), and the second wave tends to be positive as people object to the objections.
You're right about the upvoting though. Bad upvotes are a bigger problem than bad comments. ('Bad' here means 'not helping with intellectual curiosity and civility'). If you put that together with the pushback thing, it explains a curious phenomenon: why at the top of so many active threads sits a comment saying "I can't believe how negative the comments are here". It sounds self-contradictory but it's not, because there are multiple generations of comments. That's a pushback comment attracting a lot of pushback upvotes.
I don't have the ability to downvote. What is more, I upvoted it, and with the account I always use, as opposed to a throwaway account, which you decided to use for some reason. That is the ironic part of your post.
Correct. There are many stats relevant to the national discussion that a patriotic Facebook employee might leak. One is the effective CPM (eCPM) rate between the Trump and Clinton campaigns. My hunch is there was a massive disparity there, in favor of Trump. Facebook has only released the "paid CPM" rates, which is suspicious. Most Facebook advertisers look at eCPM, which combines paid + "organic" reach, in other words: the net reach per dollar spent.
