This is very encouraging if true. The difference between a 17 year old applying to "a top-10 institution" and a 17 year old applying to "Tumbleweed State" is almost exclusively what their parents income is (both directly for ability to pay, and indirectly through living in a desirable school district throughout their K-12 education).
I did my undergrad at a "tumbleweed state" school and grad school at a top-10. The difference in the average student at each school was privilege, not ability.
Turns out, best and brightest from Idaho to Ohio and Minnesota to Mississippi are just as smart and just as hardworking as the best and brightest from California and Massachusetts.
I remember a time when people protested their local governments to enact laws and policies which they thought were best. Which is exactly what's happening here.
I haven't followed the situation with Uber closely, I don't know what laws they're supposedly breaking, but my general citizen layman opinion is that the service should be allowed, so if my local taxi mafia has gotten laws passed that prevent Uber, then those laws should be changed or repealed.
Your characterization just seems really weird to me. This isn't some company dumping chemicals in our backyards. It's a service that many people like, of course those people are going to petition their government to let them use it.
I'd say it's too much to ask at the application stage. If you want to give a code test after a phone screen, that seems more reasonable. Both parties have more confidence that the position is a good fit, which makes the time required a fair request.
"I'm the tech lead", "I was a developer for X years before moving into management", "Fully technical - I wrote/designed this blah", "I have a degree in X", etc.
I ask people how technical they are all the time - recruiters, project managers, designers, marketing people, product managers. It helps me communicate effectively. I won't describe a problem in the same way to a senior engineer as I would to a non-technical marketing person.
Depending on the parent commenter's job title, people may not have known whether she was a technical leader or a people manager upon first meeting, and asked the question without ever even giving a thought to gender.
Or stated differently, make everyone pay their fair share. The current system is "I got mine, screw you" for those fortunate enough to have bought property years ago.
It's surprising to me that people can look at the millionaire SF property owners as being deserving of public subsidy in perpetuity.
Where I live tax assessments are done regularly, tempered by a maximum 10% annual increase to prevent excessive shocks to the market. It seems like a reasonable compromise that puts all people on equal terms.
Assuming you're in the US, that's not how healthcare works.
You'd still be covered by your current plan as part of the provisions of COBRA. You have 60 days to elect coverage, if you had a medical need at any point during that time, you could seek care immediately and then deal with the paperwork later.
If you get laid off today in the US, you have two full months to either 1) sign up via COBRA to stay on your old plan 2) sign up for a new individual plan or 3) start a new job and move to your new employers plan.
> If guns had been outlawed, I wouldn't have been shot.
Murder is also illegal. In your hypothetical scenario, you're assuming the shooter was willing to break the law to murder you, but would not have been willing to use an unlicensed gun to do so?
Which actually highlights the unstated cultural elements of class aside from income.
Is an Ivy educated woman working at an NGO for 30k the same class as a shift manager at Walmart making 30k? Is a postdoc at Stanford lower class than a factory worker whose income is triple a postdoc stipend?
I'll try to help you understand the parent's point. The current environment of VC-backed companies is such that almost all companies in the tech startup ecosystem are following high-risk, high-reward paths.
Barber shops and restaurants tend not to do this - they follow low-risk, low-reward paths. One reason for this is how they are funded - a bank giving a business loan for a restaurant might want to see a conservative plan to make one restaurant profitable within a few months of opening, to maximize the likelihood that their loan is repaid.
If there was a VC backed restaurant with equity financing, they might instead try to grow rapidly to a thousand locations to try to displace/disrupt McDonalds, all while losing money for several years, in the hope that they end up a multi-billion dollar chain. Obviously this is much more likely to fail and be worth nothing.
By adding a new form of funding that sits between a business loan and a VC equity deal, the hope is that you also create a new space of business plans that are more aggressive than the single-restaurant with debt plan but less aggressive than the "try to take on McDonalds" plan.
I did my undergrad at a "tumbleweed state" school and grad school at a top-10. The difference in the average student at each school was privilege, not ability.
Turns out, best and brightest from Idaho to Ohio and Minnesota to Mississippi are just as smart and just as hardworking as the best and brightest from California and Massachusetts.