Any string dipped in tea is going to wick moisture and dribble on the side of the tea cup. This is due to a property of liquids known as capillary action.
They laid off 400 marketing employees in July[1], out of 1200 total. If you assume an average salary of $75k (not sure how accurate that is; just the average in my non-CA market per Google) and a cost to Uber of 1.3-1.4x that (so ~$100k), that cut $13M every 3 months (of ~$40M for the team total). That's just payroll for 1 team and they employ 22k employees worldwide and 11k in the US. It's not difficult to see them spending $5B every 3 months.
If we take a look at the animal kingdom, females compete for social status over other females in order to get the best males, and males compete for social status over other males in order to get the best females. Both does this in order to get the best offspring as part of evolution and natural selection. You get differences when there is a difference in investment during the reproduction, like egg and sperm.
Looking at humans it obvious also that there is a strong cultural aspect to it. In one culture the apex male attribute to reach the top of the social status ladder would be to go into the jungle and kill a lion with nothing but a spear. In an other it is to have the title of CEO and have a high number listed in a bank account. Both is about a social status hierarchy, but with very different method for competition.
Going back to the article, a man gains social status if he display superiority over other males in a video game. Why? Video games represent physical games which represent competition of strength and skills. We can imagine a culture where that would not gain any social status and then any association with aggressiveness would go away. No brain surgery required.
>In one culture the apex male attribute to reach the top of the social status ladder would be to go into the jungle and kill a lion with nothing but a spear. In an other it is to have the title of CEO and have a high number listed in a bank account.
These are very similar from a behavioral perspective because they both involve aggression and risk-seeking.
No. Inheritance plays a larger role in becoming a successful CEO/"professional" than it would in hunting a lion. The biggest lie Americans tell themselves is that the wealthy got wealthy by "taking risks" and that they deserve their wealth.
What takes more risk: having large amounts of capital accumulate wealth over time due or switching between multiple jobs, working longer hours, and being more stressed as you try to keep your family alive?
The second might be more stressful, but the first is more risky - you risk capital to make money, but getting paid is a direct exchange of hours for dollars.
Indeed, and from what I know the same is true for those at the top on social media platforms. I would think any hierarchy with mobility in it has aggression, risk-seeking and manipulation as key traits in those reaching and staying at the top.
Cultural acceptance / expectations account for a lot of behaviors. I played soccer & baseball as a boy because that was what was expected of me, not because I have some natural inclination to do so.
Given your tone, it sounds like you sincerely believe that I am more likely to have positive feelings about doing well in a game than a girl is for reasons that are not cultural / social.
That's the premise of the article but not the premise of what I'm saying. I think that enjoyment in sports and games in general is an innate part of human psychology. I suspect there are differences on average across a population in what types of games or sports they prefer and that may be more cultural. But the general pattern is there isn't a civilization existing or past that hasn't had some sort of sporting or gaming events, and "play" is also found in many other species.
You would have to score a goal or catch a pop fly in order to experience those things.
My attempts at team sports when young were full of experiences of being insufficent and bullying or ostracism by the more athletic team members. So I didn't ask to go back and didn't join them later on for school teams, and had minimal interest in even observing them. Learning the rulesets was fine, I can follow an american football game, but I can't bring myself to actually care about teams or players or the league itself.
A bit tangential to that comment, there is a fascinating biological aspect to watching and caring about sport.
When people gain social status they produce more hormones which regulates how much effort is spent on defending social status. When a person win in a competition like sport their hormone rises. The interesting part is that for sport fans, their bodies also react just as they have gain status. The body mimic what it perceive as an extension of itself.
This explain a finding that in sport riots it is usually the winning side that "starts" the fight, through a more fair description is that the winning side reacts more extremely when they perceive to be challenged.
Well that seems to follow from dominance hierarchies and we tend to gravitate towards activities we excel in or have a good chance of excelling in, because we get innate enjoyment from being better than average at various things. And that is deeply wired in our psychological system.
So sure, if you're not skilled or naturally gifted in sports, there are other paths for you to achieve excellence. And that's perfectly fine.
Truth is, the vast majority of the people bullying you eventually dropped out of sports as they tried to climb the hierarchy themselves, whether in high school, college, or later. Society can only have so many pro sports players and so it goes. At least you got a head start on finding yourself and alignment with your interests and better talents.
I joined the school hockey team just because all of my friends were there. I didn't really care about the competition, just wanted to hang out with people and run around a bit.
In a way I used the sports team as a kind of social media.
I would submit that the brain differences are actually a byproduct of a larger dynamic.
Historically, pregnant women and women with small children faced much more difficulty capturing and maintaining adequate resources on their own. Predation, lower upper-body strength, releasing a scent for one week per month, not to mention the metabolic and time constraints created by nursing and mothering small children in general, all created huge, difficult barriers to survival for women.
Historically, men were able to gather more resources from the environment than they needed (primarily through hunting, but later through farming), so they could share their resources with the women and children. However, men didn't want to share their resources with the genetic offspring of other men, so they wanted monogamy in return for support.
At a high level, men gathered resources from their environment, and shared them in exchange for monogamy and adequate care for their offspring, and women, historically, gathered resources from relationships (with both men, for food, shelter, and protection, and from women for child care and protection).
This is the main cause for differentiation between men and women. Because of this division of capabilities, the brains of men and women began to differentiate and evolve because they faced different challenges in their environment.
Men needed to be able to hunt, to work, to go without food for longer periods of time, and to work as a group to hunt large game. Testosterone helps all of those activities. Those who were more successful at these activities had more progeny that survived.
Women needed to be able to successfully raise children, gather local food, process furs, and cook food.
Men would all go hunting together in groups to reduce/eliminate opportunities for philandering, and women would stay in groups to protect each other and to help care for each other's young.
This all got flipped around and mixed up by the industrial revolution, the world wars, antibiotics, vaccines, and birth control. IMO, this is the battleground of the current culture war, because for most of human history, resources were scarce and infant mortality was high. These arrangements have been in place for hundreds of thousands of years.
The recent change in access (and abundance) to resources I listed above (among many others) has fundamentally changed access to resources. As an illustration, the most pressing problem facing the poor class in America is obesity. This is unprecedented, and no one has a good guide for how to move forward.
When's the last time you saw an advertisement to ride a train? Maybe trains are dying because they link up locations that are less convenient for people and nobody knows that trains still exist outside of metro lines?
Let's say we have 100k people that live in a few poor counties where not everyone has government ID and they can't afford to spend time / money to go very far. Now, if 40k of those people need an ID to vote, reducing the hours that the nearest DMV operates will reduce the number of people that get an ID.
Now, you might say, "but why can't they just go to the DMV in the next county?" or "why can't they get their IDs well ahead of time?", and you'd have a valid question! But when you have 100k people.. creating what looks like a minor inconvenience will definitely translate to fewer voters in the end. Now, lets create a bunch of minor inconveniences and the numbers really start to shrink.
What are better suggestions to prevent voter fraud? We know from history that voting fraud is a thing, in the 1800s it was known that political parties would pay fresh immigrants to vote (like the scene in Upton Sinclaire's "The Jungle"), or to even kidnap people and force them into voting [1]. So we can't rely on good faith.
I'm under the impression that to vote you must register in a voting district, surely that registration requires something like a birth certificate or a SSN, which I believe is the only requirement for a government issued ID... Operating on the idea that the requirement for government IDs may in fact be a good faith measure to prevent voter fraud, would perhaps an optimal solution be to bring a web camera to that voting registration area and simultaneously issue IDs there?
To be honest, I thought it was a non-issue since my voter registration is also my draft registration, so I assume I provided some form of citizenship proof when I registered. It was a while ago though so I don't recall the details.
The common solution when little documentation exists is to apply ink at voting booths. Something that comes off in a few days, but otherwise bonds to the top layer of people’s skin. That’s plenty for one person one vote. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_ink
As to having non residents vote, vastly more eligible voters don’t vote than people ineligible to vote. Honestly, as much hoopla as this gets it’s clear from recent elections it’s a non issue. Look for actual examples of this happening and your coming up empty.
A paranoid individual might claim that this ink could be tampered with or replaced with washable ink.
Can the same argument not be made for requiring voter IDs? youeseh I'm replying to says it's "few numbers" adding up. Another thread from sverige in this tree links vox and nyt saying that requiring ID has small numbers effect of turnout. So saying that their concern of voter fraud is a small numbers thing kind of lacks heft as an argument.
If these are both the case, then why not go with the requirement (and possibly make the requirement "easier" by issuing IDs at the same time/place) so there's no possibility of contesting the election results with regard to this particular issue?
In person voter fraud requires a large base of conspirators who are never caught, committing a federal crime on behalf of a political actor who also needs to somehow incentivize them to do so without being caught.
Whereas suppressing turn out just requires making it difficult for someone to have a bunch of ID they normally don't need on them in any part of their lives.
These laws are never just "photo ID" - they're always a box truck of weird edge rules about the type of ID.
My state lets me get a state ID even if I don't have a driver's license. The ID has my current address on it and my face too. I think that's plenty of proof.
Also, the DMV offices, where I can get my state ID has plenty of locations and they're open often enough and long enough every day that it doesn't prevent people from getting their ID.
Between those two, I think we're doing a pretty good job of keeping enough people honest that voter suppression or voting fraud aren't big enough issues here.
>I'm under the impression that to vote you must register in a voting district, surely that registration requires something like a birth certificate or a SSN
In California, at least, you can just use your state ID number and last four digits of your SSN [1]. California gives IDs to illegal aliens and SSNs are available to many non-citizens. These might have been checked for citizenship or might not. I suspect that they are not since the SSA itself wants you to bring the naturalization certificate if you want to change your non-citizen SSN card to a citizen's one. California never asked me for proof of citizenship so either it has an access to the citizenship data unavailable to the SSA or it just registers anyone with an SSN and a state ID.
We know from history that voter fraud is, very generally, something that can possibly happen.
However, the available evidence suggests that at present, voter fraud in the US (at least of the type that voter ID would prevent) is extraordinarily rare. [1] It's so rare that any measure that even slightly decreases turnout rates will likely cost at least an order of magnitude (if not multiple) more legitimate votes than illegitimate ones, meaning that the overall accuracy of the voting results will be reduced.
There's plenty of time to change course if and when there's an actual uptick in voter fraud, as opposed to an uptick in evidence-free allegations from politicians.
In Argentina everyone has a national identity card. It cost about US$5, and you can ask for an exception if you don't have the money. And I swear this is not the more organized and efficient country in the word.
To get one, you have to ask for a date about 2 or 3 weeks in advance, and you go to one of the official buildings. The process takes like 15 minutes and they send the ID to your home 2 or 3 weeks later.
Sometimes the government puts a truck with a mobile office in some parks. Sometimes you can get one also in some big shopping malls without a previous date. And if you wish, you can pay more to get the ID in the next day. Also, you can make your passport in the same office.
I heard this fraud implemented in Texas forces low income people without vehicles to travel 400+ miles by bus to the nearest DMV to get the correct replacement voting documentation (many seniors/disabled).
When conservatives (racists) attack voters using economics (in this case a voter tax), they know precisely which non-white voters they are targeting.
Poor people don't have IDs because they don't drive and don't have driver's licenses, and they don't have the work flexibility or the luxury to go to the DMV, afaik
Hey, I watched the video and found it interesting that the guy interviewed people in Berkeley and New York - places where voter suppression is not an issue.
You can't imagine an American that cannot afford $50-100 for a government I.D.? You can imagine (& possibly smell) the feces on the street but not the poor people who excrete it?
We know most Americans can't come up with $400 for an emergency, are you going to act like this won't impact voting?
This thread is why people are forcing diversity quotas even when it seems unnecessary, income diversity should be next.
You need a government ID to apply for food stamps or welfare or medicaid/social security, and to apply for unemployment or a job. It would seem like a poor person would utilize those services.
Also, you need an ID to have a bank account, buy a cellphone, buy alcohol or cigarettes.
> Also, you need an ID to have a bank account, buy a cellphone, buy alcohol or cigarettes.
Incorrect on all three accounts in the U.S.
Some states might have a law requiring ID for alcohol or cigarettes, but at least one definitely does not. Some stores actually violate their state's law with their store's ID policies.
I've done all three without ID (alcohol, not cigarettes though). Yes, it is possible to have a bank account without ID.
> Yes, it is possible to have a bank account without ID.
Where do you get that from? It seems incorrect: "You’ll need to provide a valid, government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport, or a state ID card from the Department of Motor Vehicles." [1]
> Some states might have a law requiring ID for alcohol or cigarettes, but at least one definitely does not. Some stores actually violate their state's law with their store's ID policies.
All states require you to be 21 to buy alcohol. Which states do not require you to provide ID for that?
Seems like we might be splitting hairs here due to laws such as Indianas that "Indiana has a photo identification requirement for all off-premises transactions to anyone who is or reasonably appears to be less than forty (40) years of age." [3]
So yes, some liquor seller might be lax on enforcement or judge you to look over 40. However, that doesn't change the laws.
"To open a checking or savings account, the bank or credit union will need to verify your name, date of birth, address, and ID number. An ID number can be a social security number or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). To get an ITIN, you will need to fill out a form with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) .
If you don’t have a U.S. government-issued SSN or ITIN, some banks and credit unions will accept a passport number and country of issuance, an alien identification card number, or other government-issued ID number." [1]
Just to make sure we are on the same page, we are equating "ID" to a physical identification card, right? Since I think that's what this conversation stemmed from.
I bet those credit unions were just running my Social Security Number against a database to make sure it matched with the name, DOB, etc I provided.
I wonder if there is a legal definition of "verify" when it comes to banks and customers. Verifying could just be asking the customer, what their name is.
Since they need to verify your address as well I presume IDing with social security card also require providing a piece of mail.
Getting someone’s social security card is hard so this plus a piece of mail or government picture IDs seem fair for an election. Basically, the banking bar.
YouTube's content ID system is in place to facilitate DMCA takedowns. Folks such as Nintendo can go either the route of filing a claim to take the ad revenue of a video, or filing a copyright strike claim to have the video removed.
Whichever variation that is used is up to the copyright holder (legitimate or otherwise), and both are definitely used by legitimate actors for sometimes the most ridiculous of copyright claims (someone humming a song for instance).
AFAIK Content ID is an entirely extralegal system applied instead of DMCA, executed as a part of YouTube's TOS. It's used because copyright bullies would prefer not to involve courts if they can avoid it, and I suspect it exists to prevent MAFIAA from utterly destroying YouTube, as most of its value (until recently) came from copyright violation.
The content ID system is just a system for "search by video" or "search by audio". It doesn't do anything "instead of". Just helps copyright owners find infringing content. What they do after that is up to them.
In some strict sense that may be true, but in this discussion I think it is reasonable to read 'Content ID' as including YouTube's copyright strike system, demonetisation, and re-assignment of ad revenue to the claimed copyright holder.
These things are all very much extralegal, and used instead of the DMCA in many situations.
Seems absurd to ban bad people from giving their money to good causes. Bad people with money will still have money, whether you shun them or not.
If you take this to it's logical extreme, you only allow bad people to give money to bad causes; especially so because the folks making these determinations allow no room for neutral causes.
