Curiously, the breakdown of degrees by demographic doesn't include employment. The article seems to make the case that people should seek institutional education. Broadly, that makes sense, there are pretty traditional(ancient) precedents for apprenticeships and there are newer alternatives in the education system. Vocational schools were mentioned, and are also a good way to learn a skill.
The weird thing about the article, or at least, with a title like It's a Tough Job Market for the Young Without Degrees is it seems to imply that the job market is tough for people without degrees, but is otherwise healthy. That doesn't seem correct, and there does not seem to be any information in the article indicating that Vynny Brown's (interviewed in the article) 20 year old peers are faring much better than he is. So, the article isn't incorrect in some points it makes like retraining the workforce is important, university education isn't the only type of education, ect, however it doesn't really explain the meta-problem.
The job market is tough because there is increased outsourcing in physical/human-centric work and simultaneously(even in manufacturing) improved technology, step-changes in process engineering and the electronic automation of simple tasks have removed a lot of jobs from the economy and for some that do exists, significantly limited the perceived value society has for them, limiting earning potetnial.
Maybe you are right, but what are we blaming silicon valley for? Being wrong on a venture investment? I don't really understand any of this. A well funded company was unsuccessful in a spectacular fashion, and the people who thought it would be and are to "blame" lost money. Sounds like the system working.
Clinkle also lost a ton of money for a lot of pretty smart people. I blame silicon valley because it was their fault they made a bad investment (as much as SV can be a collective group). I mean, I bet like 1/10 companies they fund fail. Some comitted fraud, some had shitty biz plans, some failed for no reason.
ah, gotcha, I guess my point above was that titles are abitrary as fuck. For example:
Patrick Collison dropped out of MIT to be the founder and lead developer of 2 technology companies. So I guess I just have trouble figuring out what to call someone who performs all of the same tasks and functions as a label, has much of the knowledge associated with someone who has such a label, and actively studied the for a degree in that label as an autodidact, at a top-tier university(uncompleted), and as an apprentice.
Is he not an engineer? If not, would he be if he finished the few semesters he was shy of graduating at university of phoenix online?
> The course content of the Chemical Engineering courses at Stanford are almost certainly identical to the Chemical Engineering courses at San Jose State.
Even if we accept that Stanford's teaching staff, resources, and student peer-groups are complete non-factors, it is extremely unlikely the content is the same. Both because schools differ on how they supplement that content (adding more & where they provide additional attention) and general quality of laboratories ect.
So even if they use the exact same books depending on how granular you define "content", I think we can say San Jose (or many universities) are difficult to compare directly. While I wouldn't put it as rudely as parent, Stanford has a reputation for putting out high quality engineers, although that is irrelevent to the point, which is that you certainly can't say general content guidelines map to "certainly identical" experience...
Definitely true. I would suspect slightly less people would see it this way, but feasibly $12.00 a year would be solid, you could have access for a full-year and not think about it and at Stripes prices it would net 11.35
I understand where you're coming from but is there a qualification for "scientist". Is Mark Zuckerberg or Patrick Collison considered computer scientists? Is Richard Branson considered a business man? Is Elizabeth Holmes a business woman? She runs a business which (arguably I guess) is doing science.
I don't really think a scientist is a term that demands credentials. Obviously, specializations and distinctions in the field do, but you can certainly be an engineer without a degree and conduct science without one.
I think the descriptor is fairly accurate these are Dark, but not really outright dishonest. They do a lot to funnel you in, which I think is understandable but it was tougher to get past the huge red price that did say billed today, but not what the increased price would be. That and the cancellation.
When I was in my first year Econ 101 class I remember the professor telling a story which IIRC was about SF Bus Companies. We were talking about price elasticity and general market pricing mechanisms and doing price curves. The story was essentially that the bus company brought in consultants who evaluated why the company was losing money after it had raised rates. It was a no-brainer of course, that if you sell 5,000 rides a day (made up number) that if you raised prices from 1.00 to 1.10 you would make 10% more.
It turned out, that the company was doing rather poorly after raising rates but critically, they were even priced too high at 1.00. 20,000 people would ride the bus for $0.75 and have less impact on the marginal price as the busses were heavily underused.
The point is that it is possible, I would say likely but I have no data, that a subscription for the Boston Globe might attract 5,000 people at current price(made up number), but like above if they charged $0.99 a month, they could feasibly have 20000-200,000 customers in a biz with virtually 0 marginal cost, and profit tied directly to subscriber size(ads which I assume they show to even paying subscribers after reading the article).
Newspapers are super elastic, and that price curve probably falls steeply after $1.00 a month.
Finally. It's refreshing to see US try to drive a stake between the corporate interests and a big monolithic government. This is a country that is spying on economic allies all over the world and callaborates by horse trading secrets to corporate interests. I understand that they can't talk about the length of the list, who is on it or the crimes they comitted, but just knowing they they have a list feels like justice to me, and these hackers will face retribution.
China has to realize that it is hurting the financial position of the entire country and it's own credibility, by funneling secrets to private companies. If the reverse were true in the US, companies funneling secrets to the governement, it would be treason. America has the advantage of complete isolation of the government and corporations, which just isn't possible in a communist nation, so only in the most extreme cases do the two share finances or data.
China approves state sanctioned hacking against their allies and citizens in private companies and it gives them an unfair advantage. If private companies had that sort of clout in the US, you would see laws structured favourably for corporations and they would yield a lot more political influence. China is the kind of country that would commit industrial espionage against private companies it is allied with economically and politically. If it were possible for them to configure Danish and Malaysian servers via network and physical intrusion, they would be able to tactically engineer a super virus that would affect >50% of a whole country, not to mention collatoral damage. It would hurt the companies reputation, jeopardize it's secrets and causing them millions in damages as well as the hundreds of thousands affectd.
The article says:
"Chinese prosecution would entail the United States sharing evidence linking the cyberintrusions to the individuals. And to do so could compromise sensitive information on how the U.S. government tracked the suspects."
THESE ARE HACKERS. We shouldn't be afraid to get a win once in a while. We have to do something and a good first step would be to go to China, and tell them how we caught them breaking into private companies in the US and abroad, and we were able to document these records. They need to know that if they hit a multinational, a data center, resedential citizens, etc. that we are there, we will catch you and we will bring you to justice.
Im glad the US is taking a stand against this. I look forward to watching these hackers face trial, but ultimately, their government and citizens should be ashamed of themselves. It's a shame the Cyber Security bill failed to pass the senate a few months ago, that way organizations would monitor for cyber threat indicators and they would be forced to protect us from these hackers. I think I echo the words of the unnamed source, when I say "Look, here’s these guys. Round them up".
While Rand isn't the most likeable of charachters and her argument is often persented as anti-povery, on a high level contributing to society through your work is an amazing privelege. Financial contributions to society may not need a large monolithic arbitrater to handle all of the granular details with limited oversite.
Twitter is undervalued, Jack Doresey can't run two stagnating companies in parrallel. Cut jobs, merge the companies (because Square's IPO isn't going to be successful and combine core competencies.
Square has been focusing on invoicing, cash advances, appointment scheduling, marketing features, and slicing and dicing business data, among others[0]
Strip these companies down to core competencies:
* Communications
* Real time information broadcasting
* Financial infrastructure
* Global penetration
* Advertisers/Brands/Companies
Not PG's What Microsoft is this the Altair Basic of?", but "What Apple is this the Ipod of?"* I don't know, but as someone who never got into twitter, I'm interested to see Jack take a shot with:
* both sides of the market in one place
* financial infrastructure
* customer tracking
* brand participation.
Likely result is a Merger of equals with no power struggle at the top levels. Everyone expecting this anyway so expect it to happen soon.
Thanks for getting back to me quickly yesterday and restoring my old hn name. I still seem to be unable to connect from my entire network, and I have gotten a few arbitrary upvotes, but no one has responded to any comment or submission since yesterday. Coupled with connectivity issues, would you mind double checking there is not a ri.ri.cox.net ip address that was banned at a software level, begins with 72 and ends with 48. Sorry to reply here, just trying to confirm if i am visible. Thanks for the reply yesterday, cheers.
======================
Edit
====•==================
i somehow am having traffic timeout to most cloudflare severs. Sorry to bother you again, you were super helpful. Going to try and figure this out or find a direct ip if it exists. Super fast, really pleasant response yesterday. Thanks again. I am def. visible.
100% agree. That is why it has been successful. The magnitude would certainly be less if the cost was more because demand is elastic, but head to head with cabs they would dominate at the same price. It is an efficient way to manage resources and just a great thing.
"Breaking Laws" is maybe a bit strong, as regulation is extremely bulky and a monolithic unequippted government isn't in the position to adapt. The laws vary on every level but what I think it comes down to, in a society that teies to be democratic, is whether people are comfortable with this existing. It seems they are.
I like ridesharing, great market offering for consumers and drivers. Using a rental agency like this is good because those cars are underutilized and that can help people without cars provide service. Initially, i was going to snarkily compare this to cab companies, and the point still stands the economics arent great but it is a decent trade in some scenarios.
I don't have a car, and I would be willing to drive lyft for limited funds AND access to the vehicle. Sure you couldn't take the car on vacation, but if you could make a bit of money and knock out some errands locally, I could see this catching on. The magnitude and evonomics might not be there for everyone, but the cars would just be at Hertz so it could be a positive thing for both parties.
The article just below it indicates users can opt-out but mobile tracking is such a big business I sm sure that if it actually is possible, it is not easy.
Anyone have good privacy resources for mobile/iOS. My phone security is nowhere near where it should be.
Initially I was turned off by this, but maybe it makes sense. They need to save advertising for their business and ads cost users a lot of money on mobile bandwith so hopefully that will change. Slow load times and much less content control than on a computer have made mobile painful. If they don't fix it, content blockers will just stop them, and if a site tries to override it, people will stop going to it.