50% of your revenue goes towards taxes, office space, and buying products and services to support your business.
Healthcare is still by far the biggest cost difference most people will face but even if you add all these things up, they don’t represent anything even remotely close to 50%.
I beg to differ. For a family of four in Texas, we paid nearly $15,000 per year for insurance and that's deemed a "good policy" (not great) meaning that it has a good PPO, most docs are in network, and most medications are $10-$50. Insurance premiums don't scale with income and that's not accounted for if I read your arguments correctly. If we compare two families of four led by "a freelancer" (as we're talking about here) in Dallas and one freelancer makes $100k but another makes $200k, both have to pay the same $15,000 per year in health insurance premiums. For the $100k freelancer, his health insurance takes up 15% of his gross revenue - that's absolutely going to get him close to or above @ollerac's 50% figure. Maybe not so for the $200k freelancer who only has health insurance account for 7.5% of gross revenue.
I have the same "cold" allergy. I can walk into a room that is 10 degrees F cooler than, say, "normal indoor temperature" and if my quads/thighs are uncovered (shorts, for ex.), I will immediately start sneezing.
If "programming/etc" stories (that OP is saying used to be more prevalent here) are on the "best" list, that means they are very popular here. It does not, though, mean that there are more/fewer of the other stories. Correlation != causation and all that. The best list has nothing to do with distribution of stories. We could have fewer programming-related stories, for example, but find that the ones that are submitted have a disproportionally higher upvote rate because the community likes those so much more.
100% agree. I kept scrolling looking for an explanation of "When/how would I use this?" but found nothing. I then went to the top menu looking for something - anything, really - but was similarly disappointed.
I then looked at the videos - which is a fail if I have resorted to that. I'm 8 minutes into the first video and I'm still not sure when/why.
Perhaps my biggest frustration came on my 2nd scroll when I encountered this:
"Simple Cloud Programming
MBrace.Core is a cloud programming model simple enough to be explained on a single slide."
Surely I am not the only person who clicked the header expecting to see that slide? No slide...
In the context of the water jars experiment, "attitude" is not the explanation though; instead it refers more to the "installation" of the previous solution in the subjects' minds (i.e. the subjects who were "trained" with the 5 pre-test examples effectively had those solutions installed/set in their minds).
You see this in game development a lot- users are trained in the first 1-2 levels "Here's a puzzle - look around for clues". When they later encounter a puzzle in levels 3-n, they often apply the same methodology despite the obviousness that another approach is called for.
You see it in chess development - an app teaches users, "Given a board with these positions, the best option is x". Later during growth, the same board positions may have different solutions yet the student continually applies the original.
Attitude isn't at play here; it's simply expectation.
The service is "best provided by people who have experience doing that thing", be they employees or contractors. There's no value to any one of the three parties (Homejoy, customer, contractor) in the cleaner being an "employee". It's not bad/good; it's just not a factor in this situation. Do I care, as a homeowner, that the person coming from Homejoy is an employee or a contractor? It's likely that I prefer them to be an employee but, if the price is right, I could care less...
I love that saying. However, don't forget that a lot of really, really smart people put money into Homejoy because they felt Homejoy had solved the market (i.e. there was a market in the gap). It's not enough to just say, in retrospect, "... they may not have spent time thinking about the second (or didn't research..."). That's just clearly not the case here - they spent plenty of time on that as did their investors. Sometimes it comes down to the fact that they left out key components, the founders weren't capable, the market didn't react as anticipated, etc.
I tried reading this on a Samsung Note 4 - the one with the really large screen. I bet I scrolled ten times to get to what I would consider the 3rd paragraph due to all of the ads. Hell, bring back blogspam if they can condense this down to something readable. Forbes is as bad if not worse than buzzfeed these days in terms of obnoxious ads.
Tests at two midsized Wisconsin roasteries that agreed to let the news organization analyze the air in their production areas found diacetyl levels from unflavored roasted coffee that exceeded safety standards proposed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Why, why would these commercial roasters allow a "news organization" to analyze the air? Maybe you allow - maybe - a scientific-based organization to do the testing but a news organization has an agenda. Full stop.
"Boss, can I go analyze the air down at Big Coffee Roaster's facility?"
"What for?"
"I read this comment on reddit about diactyl - it's supposedly really bad and most people don't know about it. I bet it's all over that facility and they don't know it."
"This could be huge - make sure you bring back something good..."
That doesn't seem like that big of a difference to me. In fact, I'd say the actual headline is more hyperbolic. The inside story of how $1 billion is specifically written to cause people to click the link.