That is absolutely the end goal of all these network-effect companies. Uber wants to be a monopoly on transportation, Google a monopoly on search, Spotify a monopoly on music consumption, etc.
Monopoly is if one corporation owns an entire market. This is about multiple corporations. The proper word is cartel or "corpocracy" which dislike as corporations are just a legal fiction. Someone still owns the corporation. The article isn't really about americans not owning stuff. It is about average americans not owning stuff. Poor, or at least not-rich, people are today less likely to own things like houses and cars. But the rich still own plenty. They are owning a greater percentage of everything. So perhaps the best word is plutocracy.
> Monopoly is if one corporation owns an entire market.
This isn't quite right. Traditionally for a company to be a monopoly it isn't even required it control a majority of the market. It has more to do with the company being in a privileged circumstance in a market and explicitly using that privilege to bolster themselves or suppress competition in the same or related markets.
An example is Microsoft with Netscape. Microsoft was sued with anti-trust laws not because IE or Windows owned the entire market, but because Windows gave Microsoft a privileged place in the web-browser market that they abused.
It does, partially. While it's no replacement for democracy or other forms of cooperative stakeholding, the one avenue we have for influencing companies we grow to depend on is through our business. Monopolies remove that sole piece of leverage.
It can be inexpensive in terms of rent but you will need to pay for transportation (i.e. car and gas) to live in the US.
I lived in Budapest and Chiang Mai, Thailand before and the advantage of these cities is that you can pretty much walk anywhere or pay little for private/public transportation. Food is everywhere and you're not stuck in the middle of nowhere.
The cost of owning a car is part of the living expense... so it's not just rent.
And FYI, I had a nice studio in Chiang Mai for less than $250 a month. It was professionally cleaned every week and the place was just steps away from cafes and grocery stores. No cars required.
This is free market working correctly. Transparency is important. You should have information about the price AND outcome. It is not mutually exclusive.
If you need a heart transplant, and I know you need a heart transplant, you're in kind of a lousy position to negotiate, aren't you?
I don't buy some Defense tokens or insurance on some market. I pay taxes for National Defense.
Don't get me wrong, capitalism is awesome. And I worked in healthcare software for about 13 years. But applying capitalism to basic, necessary healthcare is no good.
Imagine saying, do you want a $300 used iPhone or a $600 used iPhone? Pick one. You don't have enough information to make the decision but at least you know the price difference.
Sorry, was reading multiple articles on this topic at once. Yes this is a newsroom post, however they plan to let individual users know via their newsfeeds: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-04/facebook-... "Facebook says it will tell people, in a notice at the top of their news feeds starting April 9, if their information may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica."
> App Controls: Finally, starting on Monday, April 9, we’ll show people a link at the top of their News Feed so they can see what apps they use — and the information they have shared with those apps. People will also be able to remove apps that they no longer want. As part of this process we will also tell people if their information may have been improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica.
Did you read the full article? Or are you cherry-picking to tailor your criticism?
> Studies have shown that that women are less likely to respond to an ad that has overly masculine or aggressive language (despite being qualified), whereas men will apply regardless.
Having a job description more gender friendly encourages more women to apply and men will apply regardless.
And this is what is considered "masculine". Not only that sounds incredibly sexist and stereotypical, it is demeaning for women who would consider themselves possessing one or more of the above traits.
For more women to be confident to have these traits, society need to start encouraging girls to be leaders, competitors, driven and independent individuals.
For reference, I am a woman but I am often discouraged to show leadership skills or be competitive with others, especially with guys at work. I can feel the air change when I exhibit these traits. People start to distant themselves from me because I don't fit the culture norm. I feel I can do a much better job if I showed more feminine traits like listening more and being empathetic and showing I'm a team player.
So yeah, it is easy for a guy to be critical because he has no experience in the matter!
> I am often discouraged to show leadership skills or be competitive with others, especially with guys at work.
Men are not immune to this either. I have been successful in many work endeavors in the past and drew praise from management, to discover soon after that half the team would subtly dislike me because I'd make their work look bad.
Also, competitive people with leadership skills are an asset to any company. I'd advise you and anyone else move on if you are not fairly valued, regardless of gender.
What's wrong with having more applications from less qualified candidates? The point of the interview process is to filter them out. The goal of having inclusive language is to encourage qualified candidates, who otherwise wouldn't have, to apply.
As cited in the study, a common reason to not apply if under-qualified is 'to avoid wasting the time of the interviewer', and I think this is a likely reason.
The trade-off of less aggressive language resulting in both more applicants but also a higher percentage of under-qualified applicants will eventually reach some inflection point where it becomes unproductive, as you're almost certain to already have a well-qualified fit in the batch of interviewees.
Men apply if they are 60% qualified and most women apply if they feel they are 100% qualified. Making the application description more female-friendly does not bring more under-qualified candidates. It brings those who doesn't feel as confident in their own ability but ARE qualified.
What you miss here is that men are often overconfident and women are under-confident. It has nothing to do with qualification. It has everything to do with confidence.
And yes, women are often less confident because tech is an industry often marketed for men.
Thank you for having a conscience and not doing these dirty work.
Reading how these technology affected election outcomes make me want to work on the 'light' side. I'd love to help out in 2020 in some capacity for the right candidate.
Why? Because Russia is an international bully/mob. They are going after people on their hit list because they don't have to fear the U.S. intervention. Clearly, Trump is not going to do a thing. So now is the time for assassinations in the U.K. The country and NATO are at a weak position because the U.S. probably won't help sanction and retaliate Russia.
What is it that makes this fishy to you? Why do you think Russia is not responsible? Who else would've done this? Did someone just magically have a rare nerve agent made in Russia, brought it to UK and sprayed it on an ex-Russian spy? Gosh, what a freak accident! Or if someone did it on purpose then what is his intention? Why would someone go out of his way to frame Russia? What is the goal? Purpose? Or maybe... just maybe... it is just Russia being Russia and doing shady Soviet style operations.
> Did someone just magically have a rare nerve agent made in Russia
One of the main points of Novichok is that its made from non toxic precursors, that are easier to smuggle, which you don't mix until you are about to deploy them.
So you're saying the U.K. lied and Russia is telling the truth? Lol, how do I know Russia is being truthful? I would believe this only if confirmed by a truly independent Russian insider. Oh wait, there aren't any because Putin assassinated them all!
I don't believe any government. I simply don't know whom gto believe.
I vividly remember the US presenting "evidence" in the UN to start the war in Iraq. None of the allegations held water.
How about holding these affairs to the same standard as crminal trials? Means, having a verifiable chain of custody, presenting the evidence to public scrutiny and having each side challenging the evidence.
No, but apparently you can order it from a chemist. A russian banker and his secretary were killed in 1995 by the banker's business partner.
With that said, blaming Mossad for this makes zero sense.
"It's the Russians... unless it's anybody else who got the formula from my book (Kindle edition is only $8 on Amazon), Novichok whistle-blower Mirzayanov tells AFP"
"The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book to make such a weapon."
(I personally find it a bit difficult to believe they would actually put the formula for dangerous nerve agent in a book but that's what's reported)
> I personally find it a bit difficult to believe they would actually put the formula for dangerous nerve agent in a book
As the author explained, knowing what the chemical is doesn't help you much with making it, and such information was already available for Sarin and others. Producing these chemicals is a difficult engineering challenge, and incredibly dangerous. Even in the professional labs, people died trying to produce them.
Pai was appointed by Obama at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell.
And this is because only 3 FCC commissioners may be members of the same political party. So once Obama appointed 3 Democrats, he HAS to appoint 2 Republicans. McConnell essentially appointed the other 2 for Obama.
