Rookie founders are used for their ability to work insane hours and lack of business insight. Most are spit out the other side with little to show for it and the ones that actually make money are the investors.
The mitigation is a provision in place where if the VC sees fit, the founder will be replaced by a person that is more experienced. I've seen it time and time again.
This could work, but there are lots of food-related startups already. You will also have to deal with health codes and most likely have to have a good legal team in case someone gets sick/there is bad food.
"Experts suggest it would amount to 2,500 Swiss francs ($2,550) a month for adults and around $625 a month for kids. "
$625 for kids is a lot. This would give women an incentive to have as many kids as possible to get the free cash from the government. This has already happened with welfare in many parts of the US.
Why are we incentivizing complete dependence on the government, which will eventually collapse the entire economic system? We should be helping people earn a living, new skill, and/or get an education.
One reason is because it gives the people in power more control. They gain voters for life because who would vote against the hand that feeds them?
I'm glad it failed in Switzerland. I just wish people would stop trying to pass it in the US. It's an idea that is destined to fail, no matter how much you dress it up.
I'm really sick of articles trying to take things like this and associating them with Donald Trump, when he has nothing to do with it.
Terrible dictators support Obama. Does this mean that Obama is evil?
In reality, the truly violent people are the anti-trump supporters. Every single rally in the last 3 months has ended in violence....perpetrated by the people trampling on the rights of the Trump supporters.
This doesn't surprise me, though. It's been a progression from the suppression of free speech online in many forums to real life.
"nothing posted in HangBee, except for listings in Marketplaces, is ever permanently saved, no matter what. Keep reading to learn about everything HangBee has to offer; we hope you join us!"
If this gets big enough, you will eventually need to keep some sort of record to comply with various law enforcement agencies.
I honestly don't see anything different than any other social networking site. Social networking sites are expensive to run and difficult to monetize.
Eventually you will need more money to keep the site running and when you do, privacy will go out the door.
However, we now having more people making less money for essentially the same job. It's a win for consumers, because it's more convenient and in some cases, cheaper.
But it's a lose for the people that actually made a decent living driving who now are competing with college kids that are doing the same thing in their spare time without having any of the same startup costs.
Uber and Lyft removed the barrier to entry by breaking the law and the monopoly the Taxi unions had over the entire industry. But the result is lower wages and benefits.
"We do not allow individuals to negotiate their salary separately from their position. If you have the same position, you make the same salary."
This is great from a company perspective, but it essentially allows a company to get an employee at a much cheaper rate. Employees with more experience will get the same pay rate for the same job as someone with potentially much less.
Since all companies don't do this, I probably wouldn't ever work for your company knowing this is your policy. I bring much more value to a company with all of the experience and knowledge that I've gained.
At my last 9-5 job, I was able to get paid almost 20% more than many of my co-workers because of my negotiating skills and experience.
I just have to shake my head when I see so many people fighting for less power, rights, and inevitably less money and calling it a 'win'.
But, this doesn't really matter to me anymore. I've owned my own company for the last 5 years and don't need to negotiate my own salary.
While Red Hat does make a profit, it's not on the actual software. Because it's Open Source, Linux is now a commodity. You need to make money either on support (which requires way more manpower), books, or things like certifications.
It really makes it that much more difficult for a small company/startup to compete. You can easily scale software sales with only a few people. Support, on the other hand, quickly because unmanageable and requires a lot more time and money.
"This is exactly wrong. Profiling does not increase safety whatsoever. Bruce Schneier argues it much better than I would:"
You may say it doesn't 'increase safety', but Israel is a great example of it working. The attacks, hijacks, and deaths have nose dived to nearly 0. They have a hybrid system that involves both random checking and profiling.
I'm not saying we should lock up anyone that fits a specific racial profile. The problem is that when we use data and risk assessment to question specific people that may be suspicious, it's seen as racist if the person is anything but white.
The two articles you linked mention hijackers that happened pre-911. I don't think people are hijacking planes and diverting them to central america nor do we have IRA militants bombing planes.
We need a hybrid system between random checking and profiling. Random checks work so far, but will not help with long lines because everyone needs to be checked equally.
To reduce long lines, we either need to scale-back security (which is a bad idea) or use information and data to make the process more efficient (IE: profiling).
Some profiling is a good thing, but we can't completely rely on it.
Let's look at the terror watch list: I can bet 9/10 people on the list are from similar middle eastern countries, similar skin color and are from the same or similar religion.
Profiling based on this information isn't profiling based on any of these things, but based on risk factors and previous history.
The problem is that you can't even profile based on obvious history without also being accused of profiling based on religion or skin color.
This is what I'm talking about when I refer to 'political correctness'. Suspicious people can't be singled out without the PC police coming out in full force.
"ignore political correctness and do it based on something other than race, religion, or national origin."
I wish the terrorists bombing planes and killing innocent people were from different countries with different religions, but it's just not reality.
I think it was worse in the late 90s early 00s. There is this documentary called 'e-dreams' that came out in 2001. It documents a delivery startup that didn't charge anything to deliver products to customers.
They had virtually no business model (and lost money on every order) and got millions in startup capital. The whole company imploded within a year, but some of the interviews with the executives of the company are pretty telling: they never intended on making a profit. The intent was to either get bought out by a larger company or get an IPO and bank the proceeds.
E-dreams is a really good documentary for anyone interested in seeing a small sliver out of the early days of the first .com boom/bust.
I watch it once-a-year to remind me of the craziness.
We had virtually no airline security in the 1970s and there were hijack attempts every couple of months..including innocent people dying and a plane that was eventually blown up with no passengers on board.
I sure as hell wouldn't fly if this was going on now.
The real problem is that we aren't allowed to profile.
Because we can't focus on a specific subset of travelers that are suspicious (based on data or behavior), everyone is treated as a threat and we get long lines as a result.
They probably have more terrorist threats than anyone else in the world and have prevented nearly all attacks without the long lines. Mostly through a combination of profiling and hiring specially trained agents instead of $10/hour rent-a-cops to handle security. There's a reason why European Airports are targeted for attack, even though Israel is the main target.
At some point we need to make a choice: political correctness or safety.
It's because programming has evolved. More business owners are also already tech savvy because they grew up with a computer, Ipad, and phone.
In the beginning, programming was more fun. No oversight, bosses that don't really know what you are doing, programming at one point in time was treated like magic.
You glue together other pieces of code because in most cases, because the wheel has already been invented. This really was the dream of open source and with all of the free software and libraries out there, it's becoming a reality.
It's also going to drastically reduce the wage of a programmer over time. Most businesses don't need to hire an engineer to create a complicated library. They can hire someone with much less skill to use an already existing library to get what they need done.
Since the skills to get the job done will decrease, the supply of potential developers will increase and wages will decrease.
The mitigation is a provision in place where if the VC sees fit, the founder will be replaced by a person that is more experienced. I've seen it time and time again.