Throwaway23412

The average American has more wealth than pretty much everyone on Earth. You can't seriously think that it's because Americans are all genetically smarter than everyone else?

I don't use Snapchat, so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those relatively new developments? From a quick Google search, it seems that the acquisition of Looksery and the launch of "Snapchat Lens" didn't occur until September 2015. By then, Snapchat already had at least 80 million daily active users. While their current real time computer vision stuff is definitely not something the average engineer could make, it does seem like they started out as a cookie cutter app.

To be fair, that has more to do with everyone now having mini super-computers in their possession distracting them than with speed limits.

This isn't limited solely to vegetarians/vegans. Any diet that goes against your social group is difficult. Take keto/low-carb diets. It's amazing how snacks and foods I've been offered from friends and family that are just pure sugar.

>If you own an apartment building and rent it out, you have to pay taxes on the income it provides.

Which is why the most common advice among long-term real estate owners is "buy more property".

Wealthy people don't have a higher need for milk (or any basic necessities) than the average person. So why would they need to sell any significant portion of their wealth? As someone said elsewhere in this thread, the problem is we don't tax wealth directly, only when it's transferred.

>Some people (like me) think that effective tax rates of roughly 50% (US, California, Marin County) are too high.

Wealthy people aren't getting taxed 50%. You're thinking of income taxes. Wealthy people don't make income. Genuinely wealthy people make their money from land they own and rent out and from stock they invest and hold.

I personally use an app called TapeACall. You could also just put your call on loudspeaker and record it with another device.

The problem is that Google and Facebook aren't ISPs. One doesn't have to use Goog/FB to use the Internet. There are other search engines and social networks. One can log out of their Goog/FB account. For most Americans, only one or two ISPs are available where they live.

It's actually extraordinary how many "Yelp extortion" claims I've seen without a single bit of proof. It's not at all difficult to record a telephone conversation with a Yelp representative.

I've seen some thoughts about this:

- Some of the businesses claiming "Yelp extortion" actually deserve their bad reviews.

- Some of the businesses claiming "Yelp extortion" posted fake positive reviews. Unbeknownst to them, Yelp bots automatically detected and removed the fake reviews. Later, after rejecting a call from a Yelp rep asking to advertise, the business owner decides to check their Yelp page and sees that their fake reviews are gone, incorrectly deducing that Yelp is extorting them.

Would they have to? The USA has a GDP (PPP) per capita around 3x that of Mexico. The sheer magnitude of the difference in purchasing power would make patio11's claim true, even if they were hypothetically, in our president's words, sending us drug dealers, criminals, and rapists.

>It's in the bottom right.

Not in OP's video. There's literally no way to escape the full-screen without pressing the escape key. You can't even double-click. I'm actually impressed by how user-hostile that video is.

A pretty small percentage, obviously. The top grossing movies of 2016 were Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Finding Dory, Captain America: Civil War, The Secret Life of Pets, and The Jungle Book. All of these movies would be impossible to do without CGI.

Viewers want movies to be spectacles. If we're watching something in a theater, we have high expectations of the production value. Otherwise, why even waste the time and money going to a theater? We can watch the "good", low production value movies at home.

>the real problem is something else

Would you like to elaborate or give examples of that something else?

>First: actually read the resume and letter. Learn about the experience this person has.

>I don't use challenges, homework, riddles, quizzes, etc. anymore.

Unless you don't get many resumes, I find it hard to believe that this is a good hiring flow for you at all. A lot of people who agree with me will often say that nobody has time to be reading hundreds or thousands of resumes, but I'll take it one step further: unless you are rigorously verifying the information on resumes, resumes are basically useless.

It is way too easy to lie on a resume. I don't mean mere embellishment or exaggeration. I mean straight-up lying. I looked at your profile. You have an impressive resume. What would stop me from copying your resume and submitting it as mine? Your impressive positions would be harder to fake, so I'd just lower all the CTO, head, VP, and chief titles to lower level titles.

Let's take this even further. Let's pretend that you actually call the references for the positions on all the resumes that you read. What's stopping an applicant from giving you a friend's number and having them pretend to be their former manager/employer? One could argue that the same sort of deceit works for challenges, quizzes, etc., but there's the additional barrier of at least knowing a decent enough programmer who can take the challenge or quiz for you.

I'm struggling to see how that would even be true. ABP literally allows companies to pay to get past their block.