For me it just didn't print the ticket, so I couldn't prove I purchased it, fortunately I had my online banking app with me that showed the transaction.
I guess he/she is arguing that the competition pressure from Amazon contributes in forcing sub-par offerings to get their act together or closing. Whether its level of competition is sustainable is the other side of the medal though.
From my experience so far (cs/ee, software developer):
work experience is more important than grades, current tech stack, interested/knowledgeable in what you're doing, networking (xing/linkedin helped quite a lot), bigger company for the first role also helped with salary. started out with about 58k (~13.8 salaries + bonus + >40 vacation days), quickly went up to around 80k (2yrs)
Nope actually just being on there (with a current profile) helped a lot. Currently at least here in Germany there are a _lot_ of open positions in my field. At the moment I (as well as other colleagues I talk to) get multiple requests a week. There are a lot of uninteresting ones, but still..
I agree. If being mistaken as the wrong gender causes someone significant enough distress to make them commit suicide, they need (and likely are getting) serious mental health attention.
It is not the burden of anyone to cater to a stranger's mental illness. If you look vaguely male, I will say "excuse me sir, could I get past you?" (and "madam" for a vaguely female looking person). And there is no place where that should be illegal or morally wrong.
Deliberate misgendering is definitely a separate discussion from a genuine mistake.
I get misgendered all the time, and I'm just some guy who never recovered from the 80's and 90's and still sports a ponytail. Once in South Carolina, I got, "Uh, sir, uh, ma'am, uh,..." -- That checkout guy never made up his mind!
I thought it would be clear I was being sarcastic but apparently not. This was really the point I was trying to make — that these speech laws really aren’t doing anything to address the problem.
Additionally, the idea that the incredibly high suicide rate is because of oppression doesn’t match up with other data at all. If this is true, why do whites commit suicide at 3 times the rate of blacks?
That's like saying Bezos or Gates aren't really worth ~60B dollars, like the news are repeatedly saying though. Isn't that right? Considering most of their wealth is in stocks.
It is technically right. However, even in a 100% firesale, they could make - say - $10bn to $20bn, because the fundamentals of their companies' earnings and dividends would entice sufficiently many new investors to step into the market.
Cryptocoins have no such fundamental value backstop - someone desperately trying to sell a large fraction of the market cap would drive the price to basically zero in short order.
While they started ahead of most, I think it's silly to dismiss their returns. They made significant money. Being early in Bitcoin with a significant investment even considering their wealth is very forward thinking.
Compared to whom? The other rich people, or all the poor who are the vast majority of this world who cannot even try this? If you compare it to other rich people you're going to need to provide some kind of in depth analysis.
Ah right, the complaining about moderation card plus the projecting card. You mistake jealousy for seeing something in its relevant context & circumstances.
A tennis player who reaches exactly the same goal as another one (e.g. winning a grand slam) yet without rich parents is more impressive. Their circumstances gave them a harder time in life within the sport, and outside of it. Think of material, training costs, quality of life (that goes far!), etc etc. There's some sports which are simply elitist while others are more free for all due to lower barrier of entry.
Speculating with Bitcoin, including starting a business around such speculation in order to stimulate your speculation (huh-huh, sounds less brilliant than it is now) requires savings. If you got 100M USD and you spend 100k (0,1%) on speculation there's virtually nothing you will lose. Because even if that 100k evaporates, you're still a multi-millionaire. Compare that to a poor, hard working woman from Bangladesh who's making our Nike shoes so Bob can win his grand slams. She can only speculate with say a dollar, and that's a huge cut in her budget which she'll feel for time to come. Oh wait, she doesn't even have a computer to start with. Even if she did, 0,1% of her entire savings is still essentially nothing cause like the vast majority of people on earth she either cannot afford to spend that 0,1% or it isn't much so doesn't yield much. Like, she can't even afford fee costs with that. So much for this world-wide cryptocurrency called Bitcoin.
The fact is that the vast majority of people on earth, and even the vast majority of people in rich countries such as the United States cannot afford to speculate with large sums of money. And if they did, they'd be belly up if their speculating would go wrong.
These factors make their achievements a lot less impressive. Note that I'm not saying "unimpressive"; (and I'll repeat once more): I am saying a lot less impressive. Subtle difference.
And fuck being reliant on luck. That is a silly excuse from losers which I heard in gaming all the time (the other one is "not having their day"). Skill is what matters. Good players work around bad luck turning the odds in their favor. They end up with a good long-term ratio or track record. Provided the playing field is equal. The playing field in life is not equal. Some people are born rich, and that gives them an ample amount of chances to score in life. The Winklevoss Twins are a perfect example of that, and that makes them a boring example. The life stories of personae who became rich and famous via hard work and who wasn't rich to start with, like J.K. Rowling, are much more inspiring for the general population.
People are trying their luck all the time in the lottery. They're losing, but false hope keeps that "game" alive. By ignoring the circumstances of the Winklevoss brothers whilst articulating their successes, you're doing the same. Please stop it.
(And that's a post written without going much into the problem of speculation regarding Bitcoin, ignoring issues like Mt. Gox and Tether.)
Anybody with a computer/graphics card and an interest in technology could have money on Bitcoin and countless other cryptocurrencies. Neets from /g made money on it without spending a dime. Where were you?
It isn't about me, it is about the average world citizen.
You assume one wanted to be part of this specific pyramid scheme. I already experimented with another in the '00s and figured that I'm not fit for MLM (it involved sales though), or pyramid schemes for that matter. I'm a terrible salesman because I am too honest and extensive. I didn't expect the world would fall for this pyramid scheme either. Cause frankly, I found it sucked, cause the various times I checked I couldn't use it as currency anywhere (still pretty much true). Which would mean I'm locked, sitting on gold nobody wants to have. What good is a currency you cannot use? You never know beforehand for which ones they're gonna fall for and which ones they won't. Furthermore, it isn't anonymous either, so you can't use it to avoid taxes. At this point, its still difficult to execute transactions due to latency and cost. Its also difficult to find a shop which accepts it as currency.
The only thing Bitcoin has going for it, is that its the first cryptocurrency. The flaws it has cannot be solved easily without a full reset, or consensus of a majority. Plus, the question is if people are responsible enough to own a hardware wallet.
So yeah, what I was doing with my savings is I was investing and I had it on the bank. Which are both luxuries a lot of people in this world cannot afford. And yet, we're talking pennies compared to what Winklevoss owned the moment they were born. All cause of mom 'n pop. You cannot just take that out of the equation.
Honestly I'm pretty appalled by Musk's statements. There's no indication from recent research that we're close to the "dreadful super intelligence". I think he has an a very naive and scifi-ish understanding of the state of AI and his fear mongering is irresponsible at best. Or maybe he's right and private companies are so technologically advanced that they surpass academia by a wide margin. Somehow I highly doubt that.
Oh, c'mon. There's plenty of difference between having border control and an insular totalitarian regime. You don't see any difference in the comparison?
