Even Olympics officials have said the conduct of the Brazilian fans is unacceptable. If you're not just trolling you can search out some quotes yourself.
Olympics officials does not equal "international". But please do show me that international condemnation of Brazilian fans. Or is 2% of the world considered international and only right and righteous today? I already know the answer but do go ahead.
I find it quite disturbing accusing Brazilians of "booing" at sports event when you could and can see this in events such as US Open, Wimbledon and other "clean and gentlemany" sports when the opponent is from some other country than US or UK. Let's not get into more "dirtier" sports now where booing is de facto standard.
> Now, what happens if someone with an infant or developmentally challenged teenager signs up? Their needs present an entirely new set of problems, problems that could be solved by a startup but not necessarily by ours. Remember you don’t have to pivot your business because a customer needs something that you don’t offer.
Meanwhile on Tumblr:
"Startup says they don't want developmentally disabled people as customers."
> Startup says they don't want developmentally disabled people as customers
That's not exactly incorrect, is it? The title of the article is "Users You Don't Want" and the author gives a developmentally disabled person as an example.
This sounds like an urban legend designed to humiliate an enemy. Japanese records give a different reason for the attack:
>>"An ad hoc pow-wow is convened in officers' quarters to choose a suitable target, using a list of West Coast locations drafted prior to the aborted Christmas Eve shelling last year. The waterfront of San Francisco and the town of Castroville are among the rejected objectives. Lt Yamazaki Atsuo, engineering officer of I-17, finally suggests they bombard Ellwood's oilfields off Santa Barbara. His suggestion is approved, since it provides an easy access and escape route."<<
>>"Local legends, according to Hough, maintain that Nashino targeted Goleta because oil workers mocked him after he allegedly tripped and fell into a patch of cactuses in front of an off-duty working crew. After this humiliation and mockery, Nashino, an oil tanker captain at the time, swore revenge.
Hough said he disputes this legend entirely.
“He was a career naval officer and, thus, had never worked as a farmhand in Goleta,” Ken said. “The story of him being a captain of an oil tanker that stopped at Ellwood where he came ashore and fell into a cactus patch is not true. It’s a long told Santa Barbara legend, which may have happened to someone, but not to Captain Nishino.”"<<
Why would they want to shell Castroville? Something against artichokes? Was it a major place for Fort Ord troops in training to hit the bars? I can't find any WWII era military target there...
For all its coastline, there's relatively little of it that's of any strategic significance at all.
San Diego, Los Angeles - Long Beach. Malibu. Ventura. Santa Barbara. Pismo Beach. Big Sur. Carmel. Monterey. Castroville. Santa Cruz. Pacifica. San Francisco. Eureka-Arcata.
And that's along some 800 miles of coastline. Only the starred cities are of any particular size now, and most would have been far smaller during WWII. The Japanese may have chosen to avoid cities as they were more likely to be effectively defended.
Santa Barbara's oilfields would have been a modestly significant strategic target, though US oil facilities elsewhere, particularly in Texas, were vastly larger. California also had major inland fields near Bakersfield, Taft, and throughout the Los Angeles basin.
I have no idea. Castroville had a radio direction finder station during the war, but that didn't open until 1943. Maybe it was just a lightly defended place they could shell to cause panic?
The "flat structure" at Valve reminds me of the"unlimited vacation" policy at Netflix. It sounds liberating, but also offers the potential for employees to be judged by rules that are no longer clearly spelled out.
"Unlimited PTO" Is a hallmark of most tech companies. And yeah, it's total bullshit. Give me my 4 weeks a year and let me take them without any judgement, thank you.
It may not be spelled out in the handbook, but it's not that hard to figure out the rules in a company like this. Office politics make or break your career.
It's a great place to work for three or four years if they're doing something you want to learn. You wouldn't want to stay too long, though.
If you read his story about his SF arrest you'll see he and his friend were drunkenly interfering with paramedics trying to treat an accident victim, even after the police told them to stop. He then threatened to commit suicide while in jail and got put on psychiatric hold.
And somehow he turns that into a story of injustice. So yes, he likes storytelling.
Um, what? I read the story of his SF arrest. That's... not what happened.
He was arrested because the police resented that he did not immediately 'respect my authoritah'. He was not interfering with paramedics. He was a safe distance away.
He got put on psychiatric hold by the police as retribution for insisting it is reasonable for him to have the right to see a doctor for medical treatment.
Medical treatment which was only required because the police physically assaulted him.
It's very hard to imagine a retelling of his story which doesn't involve substantial police misconduct.
That's a... selective reading of that police report.
The idea that it is right for police to violently enforce their every whim if one does not immediately obey all commands is a serious problem.
For one, only a small subset of all possible commands a police officer could make are commands which one is legally obligated to follow.
Secondly, I think we want a society where police choose constructive dialog over violence.
Nothing about this incident was necessary or proportionate.
Unnecessary violence has made policing dangerous lately. A few years ago it was more dangerous to supervise lawncare, be a taxi driver, collect garbage, or be a handyman than it was to be a police officer.
I wonder if this year's escalations will lead to policing actually becoming a dangerous profession. :(
>Secondly, I think we want a society where police choose constructive dialog over violence.
seeing how deep the police got addicted to violence one can only wonder whether it is possible for them to get sober at all.
I mean you can't make that up - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/2... . Just make sure to watch the video. The police tried to shoot the autistic patient even after the therapist clearly explained to them everything, and there were absolutely no danger to anybody. The police screwed the shot [fortunately] and instead of killing the autistic patient they hit the therapist in the leg.
I get that everyone's on edge, but please, "PUT AWAY THE GUNS".
America has many consensual crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.), and that makes a very large percentage of the population criminals who must live outside the law.
I'm not sure this can be fixed until it is unusual for a police interaction with a citizen to be a police-criminal interaction. If most of the people you meet as a law enforcement officer are criminals who interact with the world of drugs (a world which currently features privatized violence-based contract enforcement), then I guess a person's prior probability matrix gets fucked up.
it gets even "better" - the police who shot black therapist is now saying that he was trying to save the therapist from the autistic patient. If not for the video, we'd never knew how really low their lies are. The police demonstrate all the symptoms of addiction - doing their drug (violence) and lying about it in the face of obviously contradicting evidence.
Man! The fact that such explanation even came to your mind ... It would be hilarious if it wasn't a such tragic indication of a new low police have reached in public perception and the cost of it shouldered by the blacks and others.
Thanks. I think I read that study (or a report about it.) But I didn't like it so much. (Maybe that study inspired the idea for my study - I don't remember.)
The reason I don't like that study as much is because it's about people's names. But people's names do in fact reflect the level of education of their families, and in an extreme case they can choose a new name if they want. The poster we're reading about, for example, is called "Richard Smith". (Whether by birth or a name that he adopted doesn't really matter.) I like names. If on a dating site I were given, sight unseen, the chance to view an Octavia or a Hermine I would choose it over any Susan or Latisha. Because it seems to me much more likely that Hermine would be educated and interesting.
Does this make Hermine a racial name?
Why couldn't Hermine (or Octavia) be black? In fact they could.
So I would say that the effect of a person's name, and a picture showing them as black, are, as this blog post already shows, somewhat orthogonal. Richard Smith isn't a "black name", but this poster had a black experience.
It's also quite important to point out that parents have almost complete choice over what to name their children. As some linguist pointed out, it's one of the few times that people get to name something (someone) in the world!
So I don't like it as a signal. A picture is much more pure. And also not something anyone can change.
Finally, in my case I'm specifically interested in programmers and tech. So my small "study" would be very targeted.
I'm still very interested if anyone has any comments about the methodology. I've never done any social science research before (well not formally anyway), and I'd be very curious if I'd be making some mistake in the methodology that I could avoid.
> But people's names do in fact reflect the level of education of their families, and in an extreme case they can choose a new name if they want.
Good point -- I hadn't thought of that. But wouldn't the resume reflect the actual education of the applicant? Maybe the discrimination against names you describe is cultural, which could also be of interest in the tech world ("this guy wouldn't fit in with us").
I did see a study on the success rates of people that had changed their names to be less "ethnic," and it was high, but of course there's a self-selection problem, since someone would have to be a very motivated person to change their name to get ahead.
One disadvantage of using pictures is that it makes race immediately apparent, and people might deliberately change their behavior to not appear racist. Maybe they offer an interview to the black candidate to check off a box on the HR form, even if they'd never hire him/her.
Anyway, just some thoughts -- I'd love to see the results of the study here on HN if you manage to pull it off!
thanks! oooh, excellent point about deliberately changing behvaior to offer interviews (which can be patronizing.) Now I really, really, really, really want to see the results of my study. I am 100% putting it on my plate, this should be doable. I've got this :)
That's not what they were doing, though. It absolutely is petty and jealous to quit because someone else got a raise, and now you're not making more than them.
The folks that left were the folks that built the company. The new hires came in, and promptly got a massive pay raise to match the most senior employees, even though their contributions were non existent at that time.
The CEO got really good personal PR. The new hires got huge raises. The employees that had toiled long hours and built the platform got nothing.
That's not somehow petty, nor jealous. Let's not demonize the employees that decided they were not going to be part of that company anymore - a company that showed it wasn't going to reward hard work and dedication. Most of us would have made the same choice.
You got all of this from that same article? It doesn't mention anything about long hours or toiling. All it says is they were there for a while and were mad that new hires were getting the same pay.
No one bats an eyelid when a company hires a new unicorn, 10x developer. It's equally possible that raising the salary also allowed them to hire 10x employees and the old hires were feeling threatened so left.
We work with data, if I don't feel I'm compensated fairly I write a letter complete with numbers saying what my renumeration should be. And forward that to the manager and HR.
We're discussing previous articles about this company.
> No one bats an eyelid when a company hires a new unicorn, 10x developer. It's equally possible that raising the salary also allowed them to hire 10x employees and the old hires were feeling threatened so left.
That's not what happened here. No "10x developer" was hired. It was literally just a huge pay raise for the newest employees, and shafting the ones that had been there for years.
It turned from a merit-based system into one that valued everyone equally - and while this sounds great on the surface, not everyone contributes equally. Those that built the platform really felt like they got the short end of the stick. New hires, who put in none of the effort to get the startup up and running, had none of the knowledge nor ___domain expertise, suddenly were earning as much as the most senior engineers.
Not to mention the entire thing reeked at the time as one big PR stunt, since it didn't "just happen" one day, but rather the media was notified and it turned into a big fuss. It seems the stench had some credence given this lawsuit.
> We work with data, if I don't feel I'm compensated fairly I write a letter complete with numbers saying what my renumeration should be. And forward that to the manager and HR
This statement seems like hyperbole to me. I imagine few managers respond well to threats or begging via email about salary. Nevermind pointing to what other people get in a market for compensation is a terrible way to value yourself. You should start these discussions with how much value you bring to the table, not what others at other companies may or may not bring to theirs.
"That's not what happened here. No "10x developer" was hired. It was literally just a huge pay raise for the newest employees, and shafting the ones that had been there for years."
No, it wasn't. There was no "shafting" involved. Phrasing it that way shows that you're just as petty and jealous as those others. Someone else getting paid well does not take away from your worth.
"It turned from a merit-based system"
Payroll has almost never been a merit-based system, so any arguments about that are deeply flawed.
It is petty. If you've worked somewhere for ten years, you've already made 10 times what the new hires will have made in their first year. So for your ten years of contributions, you have ten years of back-pay that the new hires don't have a dime of.
It is entirely petty, and I will demonize those who are so caught up in what others are making to the point where they'd rather quit than work for a company where everyone is being paid well.
