mtgex

I don't feel I've acted like any of the things you're ascribing to me.

Corporations are not divorced from the people that run them, but the people that run them are divorced from the people they impact by their decisions.

Which countries are moving towards shorter workdays without government intervention?

Governments do frequently take advantage of their position. I do not dispute this.

We can prevent a constant churn of negative companies as well as tyrannical states. It's not an either or.

We have lots of restrictions on corporate behavior because markets do not solve human problems, they solve corporate problems.

The corporate response to long hours and low pay is to put up suicide nets. In the U.S. we have minimum wage, hourly restrictions, break, and overtime laws.

You can't trust the market to weed out bad players when the bad players are the ones with enough money to buy public perception and government influence. You have to force them to do the right thing through legislation.

Yeah I wasn't aware of it either before.

I mean, yeah kind of. But I don't think that's entirely accurate. Wikipedia says "Initial funding was provided by Kapor, Wozniak, and an anonymous benefactor."

It's not like he funneled his Lotus gains into the EFF. A foundation is also a money raising endeavor and there were likely many people who contributed a great deal in their early years (and now).

Your statement could just as easily be applied to Wozniak, as in "the money made from Apple (a game changing computer company) eventually went on the found the EFF". It's a fun fact, but not all that accurate.

Yeah, the article discusses this.

I'm not sure, the article doesn't mention any of that.

It actually tries (weakly) to claim the opposite, with statements like "Carlos and Wilber both had very similar white mobile phones" and "We are a little bit more ego-centric, bigger flirts."

Nothing about nurture playing a role though.

I am having a civil discourse and did not intend to cause a polarization.

You cannot discuss luck and success in life without discussing race.

In no way did I suggest that people should want to change their race.

Many people deny this, so I think it is an important part of the higher conversation and inherently productive to discuss.

People tend to think luck is heavily about positioning yourself to succeed.

I think that's true, but I also believe that the most important factors to putting you in those lucky positions are not in your control.

Someone who is not already born into a lucky position has to get even more lucky to succeed.

You telling me to simply stop talking about something that I believe is an important point to make is very strange.

Yes of course, but I don't believe that's what the commenter was talking about.

The comment said it is not a race or gender issue, which I disagree with.

No it's not mandatory at all, just incredibly advantageous. Much more so than physical attractiveness, although that helps a great deal in life as well.

But it is a race and gender issue. I'm not trying to divide people, just stating facts.

Attaining wealth is much easier if you're born into a specific race, thus your chances of being born wealthy are directly correlated with your chances of being white.

Attaining wealth is much easier if you're male. Among the many reasons are increased career opportunities in general, less chance of a stalled career because of child rearing, greater status in negotiations, etc.

All I'm saying is it is incredibly lucky to be born a white male in a society which so highly values them, and try as hard you might, you can't position yourself to get that advantage if you weren't born with it.

You can't position yourself to be born a white male, which I believe affords the greatest advantages, and opens the most opportunities of any personal attribute you can have.

Am I missing some detail here, or is this post getting downvoted solely because it's a faith based app?

I'm not a religious believer but surely a company has a right to build a meditation app targeting a huge segment of the population?

Yeah I can see that, although in that case you do need to prove to your agent what you were making before, and if they feel it's not worth their time they will be more likely to pass on working with you.

But that's a whole paradigm shift in thinking about agency, and they're perfectly happy with how things operate currently. They would have to spend a lot more time actually negotiating.

In the case of real estate, the idea that you absolutely need to work with an agent is so entrenched that it's very difficult to get anyone to consider the alternative outlook.