Looking at it from a B2B perspective, I can think of a lot of business situations where my own country spying on the data I store is acceptable, while any other country spying on it is not. Any sort of work with your local aerospace/nuclear/etc program falls into this case. Or any sort of work with a biggish company with ties to the power, really.
It's fascinating to see how some people seem to find silly the idea that their domestic government could be on their side.
Click "wrote about a report", then in that article click "new report", and you'll find this:
"The signature finding of Out of Reach is the annual Housing Wage - the hourly wage a full-time worker must earn to afford a decent two-bedroom rental home at HUD-estimated Fair Market Rent (FMR) while spending no more than 30% of income on housing costs."
It is not at all obvious. I really wish that news articles like this would set aside a section where they explicitly name and link to their sources rather than burying them as hyperlinks in the text.
Yes, it really seems like a variable approach would work better. There's a big difference between spending 30% of your income on housing while living in a rural area and doing so in the middle of Manhattan. I imagine that percentage could go considerably higher in big cities.
This reads like one of those cheesy pickup line / how to pick up women "tutorials".
"Peter, with his crazy profile, has a strategic opening message that he claims to be successful with more than 80 percent of the time. I call it 'The Neg And Reverse.'”
Here are the steps to Tinder, as I understand it (never used it personally, since I'm married, but I have friends who do):
1. Be reasonably attractive.
1.1. Have a reasonably good picture of yourself.
2. Use the app for a few minutes a day.
There is no step three. At this point you will be busy dating.
If you fail step one, it's probably time to get in shape, since that can make almost anyone a lot more attractive. If you're in shape and unattractive, that is hard, and I wish you the best of luck. :-/
As someone relatively plugged-in to the PUA community, outsiders would be surprised how nuanced the discussion on this divide is.
I suspect that the game of love is impervious to hacking. Not that PUA techniques don't work (they do, and it is not a fun realization to have that people are so easily manipulated on something that seems pretty core), but that a lot of what people are seeking is ego validation, and you'll get "technique validation" instead.
I don't doubt that some variations on PUA techniques can improve your success rate. I mean, the negation is ludicrous: humans are perfectly capable of detecting and ignoring posturing during mating dances. But you can get NN% of the way there by doing things that actually add value, and as a bonus, people won't think you are a scumbag.
Except that negging works. Talking about differences right away makes you seem honest and unafraid of losing the relationship immediately.
The way it's phrased in PUA tutorials is often silly or hyperbolic, but it doesn't mean it's not a fun bridge into conversation that works well on dates or when flirting.
In the long run, the only way in which it "works" is that you lose any semblance of being a decent human being and people can just straight-up see that you're a scumbag from the get-go.
This seems a little crazy. Just because someone who has different political views than me is on the board of a company whose product I use, doesn't mean I must support their political views. By that logic, I can never use a product made by a company who has a board member who doesn't have the same views as me.
And to the point that her political views will somehow cloud security at Dropbox: they probably brought her on to advise on how to deal with security requests by the government.
In any case, the idea that adding Rice to the board will somehow make Dropbox excitedly comply with all governments surveillance is preposterous.
I'm American, but this kind of statement pisses me off: just because some people from India didn't perform well in the Google Code Jam, we shouldn't hire them?
I found reading the project more interesting than the article.