fsaneq2

My point was more that it was surprising to me that someone as vilified as Trump still got almost a third of the votes in CA, but I agree that your point makes that look substantially weaker, so I retract it.

Come on, try to make an effort. Your comment is full of straw men.

EDIT: Removed comment. See better response below.

Read the studies yourself! :)

That's not what is meant by wage gap, you have been (intentionally) deceived. The gap only works if you do NOT account for things like "doing the same job".

The problem is that the way the issue is (intentionally, I'm sure) presented is with charged phrases like "for every dollar a man makes, a woman only makes X cents". To a reasonable person, that sounds like it implies "for the same work" -- otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges, so they must not mean that, the reasonable person thinks. And so the reasonable person gets (rightfully) angry and it becomes a very emotional issue, even though it was based on deception. In that sense, what most people imagine when someone says "wage gap" doesn't exist.

Many people find it more convenient to instead believe the difference is caused by people in charge automatically offering women less than what they would offer a man. Of course, studies controlling for the type of job, credentials, experience, ability, etc., show that to be a poor hypothesis, but it is nevertheless a phrasing that makes it easy to make people angry (and vote for you).

That has been proven false, negligible or within noise over and over.

The version stubbornly pushed is simply that median_salary(all women) != median_salary(all men).

The concept of minimum wage is beneficial to the big players as well, because the small players will eventually have neither the money to pay people more than they're worth nor the upfront capital to develop the machines to replace them.

You will also never be able to justify hiring more expensively if you can instead use a cheap/free machine, which is of course where we're heading, since people refuse to acknowledge the truth in OP's quote.

> Hackers are demanding a payment of $300 per machine, roughly equal to 300 Bitcoins currently worth around 510,000 euros.

EDIT: nvm. Apparently they mean to imply they have about ~1759 infected machines.

Uh, it's their platform, their rules?