- vasilipupkin parentactually, they are actively beneficial owners. They can do things more efficiently than small time owners.
- it doesn't quite work that way. Once you do this what you call "work", you can't just extricate yourself in the middle of dealing with complicated situations or drop things where others depend on you. So it's still work in the sense that you can't just literally do what you want the way you do when you lounge around your house.
- you are talking complete nonsense, sorry. Nobody pays full tuition at Stanford unless you are rich, it's literally free for families making less than 150k a year.
there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting parking passes, transportation and assistive technology if you are eligible for it and there is no indication fraud here is involved. So, apologies, but your comments here are totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. The article is very much making it sound like people are getting accommodations to get better grades, not to get better parking. If it was simply about better parking, there would not be a story.
- The number isn’t sourced. But the article does say 24% were receiving academic OR housing accommodation. So 38% registered disabled but only 24% receiving any type of accommodations sounds suspiciously like bullshit. It would require people registering and not using the thing they registered for.
But most importantly, the OR plays a big role here. Where is the data on how many people are using academic accommodations ? Complaining that people at a 90k a year school receive a housing accommodation is just frankly absurd. The article heavily implies that people are somehow using these accommodations to gain an academic advantage, when in fact 24% of people use any kind of accommodation, which includes dirty carpet replacement.
- You are nitpicking. By that logic, since we can never know the precise number because that number is always moving, we simply don’t know what the number is and all this is moot.
- 1 in 4 is 25%
it's on their website. Along with all the other details. where is 38% coming from that is a better source than Stanford's own website. At a minumum the article should have said where they got that number and why it disagrees with Stanford's own number.
And again, it includes every possible kind of accommodation under the sun. Which is totally fine and not an issue of any kind.
- yes, the original article is a flat out bullshit lie
https://oae.stanford.edu/students/dispelling-myths-about-oae
it's 25% registered, not 38%. How do you get this number wrong when Stanford has it on their website? how does that even happen?
this number includes literally every type of possible accommodation. A shitty carpet in your room is included, an accommodation for a peanut allergy is included. This is a 90 plus a year private school, I think it's fine that you can get a shitty carpet replaced in a way maybe you couldn't at University of Akron ? what's the problem? it's a nothingnburger.
the point is the article is somehow implying that 38% of students get some weird special treatment but that just is not the case
- the original article is factually incorrect. Accommodations at Stanford are only 25% of students, according to their website, and that includes every possible kind of accommodation, not just time and half on tests. If you had carpet replaced in your dorm because it gave you an allergy, it would be included. So, this is just an article that is just flat out bullshit.
- this is a flat out lie and a case of bad journalism
it's not 38% - it's 1 in 4 or 25%, according to Stanford's own website https://oae.stanford.edu/students/dispelling-myths-about-oae
and that number includes students getting literally any kind of accommodation whatsoever. Allergies, food allergies, carpet replacement, etc, etc
- there are too many CS grads without experience who are not very good. We have world class universities, by no means that implies that every new CS graduate is world class. A median CS graduate most likely cannot pass a basic interview in CS
- it's not a gambler's fallacy. "You threw money into the pot" and "you own a % of the pot" are two distinctly different things.
- if you are going to argue that Americans don't have a rich standard of living, that is just an absurd argument. It's obvious to anyone who has lived or worked somewhere else.
- you keep thinking about it in Soviet zero sum terms. First of all, the foreign engineer doesn't disappear if you don't give him a visa, he or she just works somewhere else and still takes your kid's job away. Secondly, it's not a zero sum game ! that's the most important thing to realize. Number of jobs is not fixed ! it's not a fixed pie! you are on hacker news. A startup forum. And you are talking about number of jobs as a fixed pie.
- reform is a type of action that tries to identify a concrete set of issues and fix those issues, implies a positive change.
this is a change in the direction of significantly reducing hiring of foreign workers by American companies, which is bad for everyone. It's bad for American companies, because it will reduce their growth. It's bad for American workers because when our companies don't grow, neither does our economy and that hurts Americans. So it's a change, but it's a dumb change.
- and so who owns the shares of "corporate america"? Newflash: Teachers' and firefighters' and cops' pensions are all invested in "corporate america". As well as pensions of union workers. As well as 401ks of all the other middle class people. Come on.
"the exploitation of American worker" ? American workers have one of the richest standards of living in the world.
- it isn't a risk, it is a certainty that companies will off shore more as a result of this.
- you don't believe it why ? you look at American education system and you think it produces multitudes of talented engineers? is it so inconceivable that we need a lot of smart people and we don't produce enough of them locally ?
- why not just hire them in Canada or literally in any offshore office and not pay the 100k tax?
- very real risk ? it's a certainty not a risk.
- this is not smart. If you want to reform an H1B program, reform it. This is not a reform, this is a bizarre attempt to do what? stop companies from hiring foreigners? they will simply hire them in their foreign offices or offshore.
- US is an unreliable partner. EU needs to work on decoupling from it ASAP in every domain.
- It's not a silly analogy. It illustrates the absurdity of accommodating every kind of small group of employees.
- if the owner of a market isn't actually dealing drugs, whether the market is physical or electronic, that is different than if the "owner" of a street corner is either dealing himself or actively supervising those who are dealing for him
- fine, partially responsible is still a huge difference
- huge difference. People can sell drugs on facebook marketplace but that doesn't mean that Zuckerberg is a drug dealer. The difference is you bear responsibility for what you do.
- Agree. Zuckerberg is a really unpleasant weathervane in my personal opinion.
- how many people like this did meta have who had this issue and also had no access to a tampon, so that having it in mens' bathroom specifically was really important? what if I am a forgetful guy and I have socks with holes in them and I forget to buy new socks. Should meta bathrooms stock those socks? at some point this just becomes a bit absurd, no?
- "why go out of your way to remove them" in principle, it's fine to have them. But really, they are just a symbol of the fake performative substance free dei culture. A reminder of it. Transgender employees should not be discriminated against, should have all the protections and respect like any other employees. But do we really need tampons in mens' bathrooms, really?
- how likely is it to run on a reasonably new windows laptop?