MordinSolus

If you're on a Mac and are rather addicted to these sorts of websites, SelfControl (funny name) can be used to block sites for however long you want after some tweaking. I use it when I notice myself opening a new tab in the browser and instinctively going for the "r" or "h" keys.

I too notice that when I block these sorts of websites, even though I still have access on my phone, I start reading a lot more and getting more stuff done. Now that I think about it, I should try the 30 day challenge. The most I've gone is 15 days. Peace out!

What do you mean by fair?

> Classes are giant

Current CS undergrad at Berkeley. This is the main problem I have with Berkeley. You can interact with the faculty plenty (at least in my experience), especially when you get to your upper division classes. I don't really do that much anyway and care more about how well professor's lecture than anything else.

The problem is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to get into the upper division classes you're interested in. There are just too many people and not enough space. My smallest class is 30 people, but it's a graduate level course, while my other two upper division CS classes have 400 people and 315 with 75 on the waitlist. I thought my classes would get smaller as the semesters went on, but that has not been the case.

If you read the entire article you'll notice that this isn't the only "interactive graphic". Go down further to where it says "How the Tax Law Might Affect You". It pretty much covers all the bases.

This submission seems to be deliberately misleading. The article itself is far less insulting.

I think the act of actually paying a tax is quite important, despite the bureaucratic overhead. For the same reason, I think payroll taxes and the like should be directly paid by checks (not just deducted from pay and handled by the employer). This way, a person would actually have that money and then have to commit the physical act of giving their money to the government instead of just seeing it as money not in their paycheck.

> Would you fire one of them if he sleeps with the other's girlfriend, or would you consider this a 'personal matter' and not interfere?

If I am a small business and only have ~50 employees, I would probably fire them. It's only a personal matter until it affects work. This would obviously affect work.

> As opposed to jetti, I'm not sure the wife would just have found somebody else.

Irrelevant.

Here's the problem:

"At the same time, every time I see his face, I feel like that just kills me inside."

It is silly to think that this doesn't affect productivity and won't affect the business in the future, especially with communication between these two individuals. A person's well being does is in fact a work matter, the acknowledgment of which makes the employees position absolutely untenable. You cannot possibly sleep with a fellow employee's spouse (regardless of whether it is a superior or not) and not expect that to be a work matter.

> It's as if they expect the boss to be able to tell employees who they can fuck.

This isn't about telling the employee who they can fuck. It's about fostering a productive and positive work environment. Knowingly choosing to create animosity between yourself and a superior (or any fellow employee for that matter) in such a hurtful manner is simply stupid.

This employee should be fired immediately.

Does is matter what the rest of the world would call it? No. In America, Obama is certainly to the left.

If you're so well versed, perhaps you could provide a summary as to what is so wrong about the comment?

For point 1, I would call that the use of white space rather than negative space.

Libertarian is a broad term. You have anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, libertarian socialists, etc. The least authoritarian, an-caps, do wish that everything was voluntarily. Then there those in America who I'll call practical libertarians who simply want to follow the U.S. Constitution more closely than has been done while still adhering to libertarian principles.

In this case, they believe that the federal government should be involved in defense and aiding interstate commerce (without abusing the terminology as has been done by Congress), and leave everything else, as the 10th amendment states, up to the state.

True, but those things are quite inexpensive compared to all of the other stuff that governments spend taxpayer money on, at least in the United States.

Tax evasion is illegal. I doubt this is illegal, as that would be an incredibly dumb move, so it's not tax evasion.

> (and the shareholders)

Well of course they are telling their shareholders: they must be rejoicing with the news!

Makes you wonder why we don't lower our corporate tax rate in the U.S. Hell, both presidential candidates this election cycle agreed on that.