the editorial bias from management of NYT has always been skeptical of Google and Facebook and perhaps all of big tech because big tech was a threat to their business. Most newspapers in the US have been hollowed out because of social media and the tech industry, NYT ironically has not because they hired a real in house tech team that has kept their paper relevant.
But that doesn't mean they like paying their tech workers any more than any other management. It's just about money. Big tech is a threat to management's profits, just like workers demanding better salaries is a threat to management's profits.
> Most newspapers in the US have been hollowed out because of social media and the tech industry,
They've been declining ever since radio and TV started doing news broadcasts, early to mid 20th century. Internet tech has played a role too, but the whole newspaper industry should have seen the writing on the wall several generations ago.
sure. Not making excuses for any business decisions by newspaper management, just pointing out that that their criticism of the tech industry isn't out of character with a company that also is hostile their own workers' union.
very funny to write an article about the crisis in the legal system without addressing how it is a pretty good example of almost complete elite capture by a few top law schools whose admissions are far from meritocratic. Or talking about Steven Donziger vs Chevron, a case so shameful the UN Commission on Human Rights has called for his release. Or talking about the basic truth of the US legal system, where the wealthiest can nearly always afford to win a civil case just through a war of attrition by hiring incredibly expensive lawyers while the bottom 50% of America could never hope to hire one lawyer.
But I don't expect much else from Bari Weiss' publication, where the scariest thing in the world is always some college kids that asked each other their pronouns or something. Why is this even on HN
As someone who went through this process intensely and was an avid reader of places like r/lawschooladmissions (which has a lot of people posting stats and results--could be interesting to datamine and analyze), I would say no.
The one exception is affirmative action; being Black or Mexican (it's not even really generally Hispanic, IIRC, just Mexican) or Native American has a quantifiable effect equivalent to like +10 LSAT, +.x GPA or something. It's quite unfair, IMO. But it's very mechanical. For example, undergrad school prestige matters only at the very margins. Better to have a 4.0 from rando state school and a 170 LSAT score than a 4.0 from Harvard and a 167 LSAT for most law schools.
There is a whole site where people post stats and admissions results that is central to people trying to go to top schools. Nobody was getting results that deviated greatly. The racial boost was also well quantified on there (you check a box if you're an applicable race).
more than ten tweets from Sam in this thread and he doesn't mention that public colleges used to be essentially free, but now cost enough to put students into crippling debt. And the last tweet seems to suggest he thinks the remedy is a for profit alternative. The libertarian privatization gene is strong at YC
I'm curious what people here think of all the healthcare startups that many of you likely get recruiter emails from regularly. Aside from the ethical questions of making money in the American healthcare system, a lot of them would likely have a vested interest in that healthcare status quo to an extent right? If something like Medicare for All happened, it would upend so much of the system (in a good way in my opinion) that a lot of these companies might have to pivot massively. It's enough to make me just not want to work in that sector.
Not saying this applies to all healthcare startups. There's a lot of "luxury" healthcare companies that would likely be fine because their customers are high paying companies that would still want it as a recruiting tool.
wild how different the prices are, but I guess that's what happens when a lot of buildings only have one or two providers. No fios available for me, but I'm paying $70/month for optimum "up to 300 download, up to 35 upload". Usually on speedtests I'm usually getting 15%-20% lower than that.
Yeah makes sense. I never paid more than $35/40 but I always lived in the city with at least a few other options (FIOS and RCN) in addition to Time Warner. BTW was using RCN the last few years and they were very good.
Now we're moving to Long Island and the town has only two choices - optimum and FiOS. When I looked at the Optimum statement, there was a ton of "discounts" for being in a high-competition area which is how they got the price down to ~35 as well, from the base of about $70 as you said. Though we later changed our minds and went for Fios at about $39.
yeah I live in New York and I definitely went to more protests this summer because they were happening literally right outside my apartment than I would have if I had to deal with driving and finding parking (probably hard if it's a big protest).
I think generally American style suburban sprawl decreases social capital just because you're more isolated, and that includes protests. I think mask wearing is another example.
I mean we do have PBS, we just underfund it relative to something like the BBC. We probably also don't have as strong of political norms around not politicizing it so it's inevitable that someone like Trump does.
did paul graham really just imply that himself and his fellow silicon valley millionaires would have been abolitionists if they were alive during slavery
But that doesn't mean they like paying their tech workers any more than any other management. It's just about money. Big tech is a threat to management's profits, just like workers demanding better salaries is a threat to management's profits.