echo419

Ok, but that in no way directly answers the question of "why was this story flagged?".

Ouch, that's rough and I absolutely feel for her.

I'm also curious as to why this post is currently flagged.

Thanks for pointing that out! Obviously I should have read the spreadsheet/link beforehand, but I hope linking the Twitter thread here directly also helped some people as well.

I frame myself as a contributor, because as I stated before, I would be contributing via the same proposed methodology as anyone else, via a tax on investments. Additionally, I haven't downplayed this, me downplaying it would be me either obfuscating my debt, or not discussing it at all, I haven't hidden the fact that I'd benefit from it, I'm arguing the merits of the proposed policy and why it would be good not just for me, but for society writ large(including you my friend)(benefits include increased consumer spending, increased GDP, etc...). Furthermore, given the potential timeframe on this, and any investments I would likely make in the future, it is well within the realm of possibility that I end up paying far more than the $40k that I might gain in the short term which would seem to reasonably answer "you're a net taker argument".

As I argued in my previous post, taxes are not altruism they are a cost of living in society, it's why we have a progressive tax system the more one benefits from society, the more they pay back. I do argue however that I'm more than happy to pay this tax so that current/future generations are better off, which doesn't seem to be a point that you've refuted at all. It seems that your argument is that because you struggled, everyone else should have to as well which seems fairly draconian to me(and ignores a basic sense of fairness, depending on how we want to define fair), and also seems to ignore the potential struggles of others and any questions of why they took on such debt (but that's another question for another time). I have no idea why you keep framing this as a means of "takers" vs everyone else, when I've kept bringing this back to the more nuanced point that yes I would benefit, and yes I would also contribute. It's also strange to me that you haven't seen fit to offer an alternative or any kind of compromise, but rather dismiss the whole proposal out of hand.

I suspect that you're going to come back to the point/continue belaboring the point that "you're a net taker"(while conveniently ignoring any other points) as if somehow: A. The only point of society is for no one to benefit from it. B. The only point of society is to make a profit. Neither of which is true, because frankly everyone "takes" from society in one form or another to varying degrees, we do this because everyone should have a reasonable shot in life. It seems unreasonable to ask people who are just starting out, to be potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt in the hopes of pursing them for the rest of their lives to make money. This is a question of lives/quality of life versus money, you seem to be fairly square on the side of money which is certainly a position one can take. Generally the point of society isn't profit, but to try and make the society a better place, and sometimes that comes at a cost, or with things we disagree with(I disagree with ag subsidies, but it likely helps rural farmers somewhere, so I'm OK with that in the end).

I'm glad you seem so willing to engage in constructive/effective arguments regarding the proposal, rather than how the proposal should be framed/discussed in terms of individuals.

And I'm certainly glad you saw that my other points were reasonable and saw fit not to refute them at this point. :)

However, even under this proposal I would be a contributor as I invest in the stock market, which is the entire point of taxes/a community(it's literally giving back to the community/the cost of living in a society). So no, I would contribute my fair share, and arguably get less out(compared to others) since I've already paid $10k+, and I have no problem with that, at all.

Like I said, I'm happy to help others given the position that I'm in, which is better than some and worse than others.

I really love bell hook's work. Feminism is for Everybody was a clear and concise discussion of the issues of race, class, sex, and gender and I truly wish more critical theory books were up to that standard.

This seems to highlight the ever present disparity between culture/society and laws that are on the books, and this is just another expression of it.

Hopefully the FBI has relaxed such standards since this piece was published in 2014, but I doubt it.

In case anyone was wondering as I was before I searched around for it, Dr. Bourke actually has a good number of other resources available on his faculty site including lecture notes/PDFs for searching/sorting, data structures, security/cryptography, trees, and more.

As someone who's new to CS, I love this resource, and while I've been coding for about a year now I've come across most of these topics, but as someone who wants to go deeper into CS, what topics would you all expect to see in a Computer Science II book?

...Here's what the rest of us put up with that aren't in SW engineering/development/IT.

Step 1. Put in 300+ applications (200+ in Nor Cal Central Valley area, 178 in PHX area)

Step 2. Wait for responses and get a 2% response rate in Nor Cal/central valley, and a 17% response rate in PHX...with the exact same resume despite being top 25% of the class, extra curriculars, and having a decent econ degree)

Step 3. Of 90% of the places and recruiters that contact they will either A. Pay you substandard wages, B. Make it clear that you are replaceable and they don't actually care about workers or work/life balance, C. Ghost you after contacting and interviewing you or D. Some combo of the above.

The worst one I've had is the same corporate recruiter lie to me multiple times over a part time job with no benefits, who brought me in for an interview that made it clear that they had no quality control, no work life balance, poor workplace communication, and expected workers to be treated like crap and be OK with it, oh and the best part is, that company was a major household brand that does $5bn in revenue annually.

So yeah, I've had recruiters treat me like crap, tell me I'm worthless, and companies string me along, while I'm trying to scrape by and eat...not that I've got a chip on my shoulder about the entitled attitudes that are represented by this comment on HN.