Neither is employable off the bat, and it takes time for someone with zero experience to be valuable.
That makes question who is more employable: a student with 48 months of University, or someone with 6 months of Lambda and 2.5 years of real world experience? Note, I assumed the Lambda grad had a year unemployed.
How many people do you hire from other places? I'm never hiring anyone again if I can help it, so I'm not the target either, and this sort of post seems to imply this is a huge loss for Lambda but I'm not sure it is.
The pie slices represent the spend as a percentage of total spend, and the percentages are of GDP. I'd hope government spending is not 100% of spending!
There is significant evidence that long term unemployment REALLY hurts someone's hiring chances when applying for a job (see https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/co... from 2013 with linked papers). As a stepping stone to a living wage, driving rideshare likely helps people looking for better paid work, especially given you can clock off for two hours to take an interview, then clock back on. Try that working any other job.
The rideshare side of the ledger has better mental health & life satisfaction, more money and better job prospects, vs the welfare side with more free time.
I'd prefer to frame the "living wage" question as of all the people who drive Uber/Lyft, not Uber/Lyft drivers which puts their job above their humanity and implies it is a permanent state of affairs, anyway of all the people who drive Uber/Lyft at some point in their lives, will they be better off with the option of driving Uber/Lyft, or better off in a world where Uber/Lyft is not an option?
The argument X "does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on true" may be true for many definitions of "live on", how is no job better? Does Uber pay more than an alternate world with no job? Surely that is the question.
The idea that there is a gap in the market is something that people are looking for, on Hacker News most especially, and if this is a legitimate gap that Uber and Lyft are ignoring for silly reasons, then there should be a bunch of startups to take their place pretty quickly.
I'm not American, so forgive my ignorance, but what are the budget responsibilities by level of Government? In Australia, there are really clear divides.
Country -> defence, welfare.
State -> Education, roads, public transport
County (council) -> parks, local infrastructure, approvals (for building).
Same with taxes, where the federal government is the only body allowed to apply most taxes (like income tax), which they then pass through to the states. In Australia, the Federal government raises the money, and the states spend it.
Without having any idea how the US system works, what are the budgetary responsibilities of the City of Orlando vs the state of Florida vs the federal government of the USA? It seems weird to an Australian that the police are funded at such a low level. Is that in addition to state spending? Is there no state spending on police?
Without knowing what the budgetary responsibilities are, I have no idea how to contextualise "31.6% of its budget", and I wonder if many Americans could either, as knowledge of this level of government funding arcana would be, well I'd think pretty rare.
Do you know how that broke down by room? Is there data on that? I wanted to make a map by room of infections, because that data point should be useful, e.g. was the rate higher or lower in rooms with outside access? Crew versus passengers? I just don't know of it already exists, or how to source the data.
There are no rules to life - you get to decide what you do with your own life. Assuming you make a comfortable living out of what you do, the Craigslist approach - they make a LOT of money but leave 90%+ of what is possible on the table - is a perfectly valid plan.
If you want to make more - and the reasons for that can vary from pure greed to absolute need - experimenting with pricing can have the best effect, as every extra dollar MRR compounds over time, and it is often easier to get 10% out of customers than 10% more customers. The patio11 "charge more" advice is an easy place to start, and if you grandfather in all old accounts, there is minimal risk in doing so.
But it is your business, so do what you think is best.
> Mathematicians report 1+1=2. We investigated, and found no credible dissenting voices
That's reporting. Which leads to this:
> WHO and CDC say masks ineffective. We investigated and found the one study they relied on was flawed, as these credible experts who disagree explain.
You report things that happen, e.g. crash happened on X road. You can report that "CDC says mask don't work" but if you write it as truth, which Vox stated in January, you are either a parrot or inept.
If journalism is just reporting what others say, and not questioning what they say and the underlying assumptions, then it is at best just a weak form of Wikipedia, and at worst a propaganda mechanism.
Journalists need to get some teeth back and challenge authorities rather than relying on what is said as gospel. Jounalists should have led the charge on all of this, starting with questioning Chinese numbers through to Masks and the assumptions of the modelling, rather than playing, to be kind, catch up and to be mean interference on people doing their job for them.
What is the role of journalists? The defence that "basically the mainstream view in the US at the time" seems to me the antithesis of why we need journalists at all.
Far too much journalism is either weakly factual, where ideas like masks are taken prima facie and without much thought, or opinion pieces with an ideological bent.
What happened to investigating ideas, to see where they lead? To questioning everyone, no matter their credentials?
The role I would hope journalists would play is to hold people accountable, to question deeply the assumptions that "the mainstream view" entails. This Eric Weinstein tweet hit this home for me: https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/124298155901717299..., which ends with:
> Bring us the heads of the incompetent for removal.