0x49

Because its not 1 study. Its 99% of all studies..and if the system is this way, how can you possibly trust any studies?? The system needs to be scrapped and started over. If you cant see this or dont want this, you are part of the problem.

Hackernews is supposed to be about free thought and open source and in reality, anyone with an opinion against the narrative is silenced.

Im not even close to a troll and i have had many of my comments silenced over the past week.

True science is striving for the truth, even if it makes that same person wrong.

without truth, we will have no progress. I suppose this means that myself and hackernews just dont have a good 'culture fit'. Im more about getting to the truth, expressing free thought, and having intelligent discussions. Not having to walk on egg-shells and fear the down vote and account ban for saying something that goes against the personal beliefs of the mods.

the community rules are also heavily skewed toward one group, because like many other inclusive groups, its an attempt to socially engineer the thoughts and beliefs of the community. Dictatorships and evil people have been using these techniques for centuries.

If i wanted this, i would work for a big corporation again.

Im done. Its only been a week, but im not coming back.

This should make anyone think twice when they see that next study on climate change.

When i say encryption, i mean 1-way encryption like bcrypt. So they could get the hashes, but would still have to somehow brute-force it.

This site, while clever, is spreading potentially bad information. For instance, ive worked for plenty of companies that send out site-generated passwords. The password is stored encrypted and sent out once to the user. While not the most secure, an attacker still wont be able to get to all of the plaintext passwords if they cracked into the database.

Its a show. I honestly dont believe anything i see on a comedy sketch show, especially one as heavily politicized as the daily show. Once again, this is not 'proof' of anything.

Im also not wrong. If you wear a suit, you will be treated better than if you wear casual/hip-hop clothes. Ive seen it myself (and with my friends white and non-white) plenty of times.

Its not just the police. Everyone has an impression of you based on how you present yourself and will treat you accordingly.

You dont need a manual, just common sense.

One example is not proving anything. You are trying to tell me on a systematic level, it happens.

It seems you arent going to listen to reason. It doesnt really matter much to me. I will continue to dress appropriately and be treated well.

I also find it funny that you sent me your proof in the form of a skit from a comedy show (which can be cut, stopped, and changed, to push a specific agenda)..lol?

The crime dropped after prohibition because the FBI became a bigger part of preventing crime and rooted out all of the police corruption. Violence in Mexico will continue, unless the government can prevent any cop, judge, or agent from being bought.

Drugs arent special as you say, but they also arent the cause of the violence. Gangs will still be violent and kill each other. It will just be over something new. So yes, we might see a decrease in drug-related violence (im still not convinced of this though), but we will see an increase in violence related to something else being traded on the black market.

I also have a hard time seeing crack or meth being legalized when many people still sue the cigarette companies for giving them cancer. I think tort reform is also needed.

How you dress and how you present yourself definitely has an effect on how a person people perceives you. This is human nature and will never change.

If you are in a business suit and wearing a nice tie, regardless of skin color, you will be treated well.

What drug-related crime would not exist? I seriously doubt the legalization of anything is going to change this (unless you get rid of our law system entirely).

The illegal drug market will always exist, regardless of legalization. Why? Anything legalized will be regulated and taxed and many people will still find it easier to go around both.

Name someone in prison for just smoking a joint. I honestly have never heard of anyone. all the people in prison are either dealers, were found with a large amount of drugs, or other non drug-related crimes.

Drug use is a small part of why someone is getting arrested..especially to the point of a prison sentence. A chart showing that just as many whites and blacks tried an illegal drug (smoking weed is still illegal in most states) doesnt really tell us anything.

"Employees may not always be aware of the risks, but they are exposed to them."

Everyone is exposed to risks. Jobs are never a sure thing in the first place and being a first employee or an employee at a newly funded startup is always going to have some risk. If you aren't willing to take on the risk that comes along with the job, you can work for a non-startup. Plenty of people do this.

"But consider someone who has the ability to get hired as a senior SE at a place like google or netflix, who instead works at a startup for, say, $150k a year. That's still probably close to $75K in lost income a year, and I really do think I'm keeping these numbers conservative."

An opportunity risk, maybe. However, if the person loses their job..they don't really lose that money. It's pretty unfair to put that responsibility on the employer and impossible to prove one way or the other (How are you going to prove an opportunity that will or will not happen??)

You could also make that same argument for any company (not just a startup). If I work at a place making $75K, I could be potentially leaving money on the table because another unknown company might want to hire me for $100K.

"1) they may be taking on vastly more risk than you have estimated through lost opportunities/salary/lack of job stability,"

Which really isn't taking on more risk in regards to the company, which is my point. We are all taking on risk with almost every decision we make. Nothing is a sure thing.

"they may be entitled to more shares even at lower risk levels because their skills are very valuable (truth is, they may be more valuable than the founder in some cases)."

They aren't entitled to anything and nearly all employees are expendable. How do I know? I was the valuable employee in many companies before I started my own. I, and everyone I ever worked with, could be replaced. Was it easy? Of course not. But the work in most companies isn't rocket science...and when it is, the company compensates the employee accordingly and tries to keep them there at all costs.

Once again, shares in the company is directly proportional to risk. If as an employee, you are willing to take a paycheck directly related to the success of the company and, or take on debt when the everything crashes, they you have the leverage to get a higher percentage of the profits.

The way I see it, you want a higher percentage of the profits for no more increase in risk, which doesn't really make sense.

"Founders can start a company for $7 on Digital Ocean with almost no risk. Founders complain constantly they can’t hire engineers."

I disagree with this and the point of the article that it's not very risky to start a company these days. Out of all the people creating startups, very few get investors. Especially early on when the company has no customers.

It's also not easy to hire anyone..let alone an engineer. It's so easy to fake experience with a fake resume, fake startup experience, and a few Github projects.

..and saying that you can start a company with only $7 and a digital ocean account shows me that the author doesn't really know that much about what it takes to start a company. Even if one person does all the work, it still takes money to start a company. Much more than $7 and many startup owners are using credit cards or savings.

"Employees take the most risk today. Not the investors or the founders — it’s the employees. Yet they’re still compensated like it’s 1990"

I finally see why the author doesn't know anything about running a startup: they are an employee. Yes, an Employee does take some risk with a startup.

However:

-Employees can quit at any time

-Employees, while working at a company, are paid hourly or salary, regardless of the profits of the company. I own a company now and my pay is directly effected by the amount of money the company is making (this isn't the case for my employees).

-9 times out of 10, Owners invested their own money in the company. If the company goes bust, the employee is inconvenienced, might even be able to go on unemployment, and can just get another job. Owners now have credit card debt/other debt that they need to pay off.

-Owners and investors risk reputation as well as money. If the company is unsuccessful, it does not matter to a future employer (for an employee). It definitely does for an owner and investor.

-If an owner takes on VC, they almost always end up in the same position as an employee. Aside from a few anomalies, most founders that graduate from YC and take VC end up getting pushed out of positions of power and having their shares heavily diluted. I think it has to do with the fact that many founders don't have the experience to run a company with hundreds or thousands of employees and the investors aren't willing to risk their money to find out. This is a huge risk.

"There’s a strong slant toward the status quo, and most still try to force this outdated 90’s math on today’s startups and employees"

It's not 'outdated math'. An employees doesn't risk money or reputation and can leave at any time with little consequences. This is reflective of the potential shares they get of the company above and beyond their paycheck.

Why should someone get more shares of the company without taking on more risk?

The more I read articles like this, the more I realize that the war on drugs parallels the new war on guns. The outcomes will also be similar: when you restrict or outlaw something that people really want, they will just go to the black market.

3D printers are getting cheaper and cheaper and you can actually make a real gun from it. While these guns aren't that desirable or accurate, it's only a matter of time before they are. So what then? Are we going to ban 3D printers or make a person get a license??

"Kivimaki admitted that, yes, he’d trolled Blair in IRC rooms, and had harassed him offline on occasion—in particular, he’d “shut down his Comcast a few times,” and had gotten the Straters’ phone service cut off. He also said that he’d copied and pasted the passwords to Amy’s social media and email accounts to an IRC channel, but denied he’d been the one to deface the accounts. And he denied, more broadly, that he’d been the sole force behind their harassment campaign."

Yes, he may not have done those other things, but he clearly is responsible. He gave out the passwords intentionally so other people could do the work for him.

This highlights the problem with having little to no punishment for these sorts of crimes: the criminals don't learn why what they did was wrong and continue to do it.

$4000 is nothing if it means I can end all of this nonsense. If it were me, I would have no problem flying to Finland and making sure this guy doesn't ever do anything to me again. They went through the proper channels and the law won't do anything about it.

I would be wondering why a company is completely changing their stack after 3 months. Im in my late 30s and 9/10 times, my experience is that its for the wrong reasons.

Older and more experienced devs have a hard time seeing poor decision after poor decision being made and just following the path to failure.

Why? Weve seen it too many times and also have seen too many companies go under as a result.