|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
We went through this a few pages ago already
|
Read pages 8310 (approx) and onward for a discussion on the Google firing.
|
If we are going to bring that guy up again, apparently Harvard has informed the press that he never completed his PHD program. This is also why no one could find his thesis. His online profiles make it seem like he did get a PHD. Maybe the dude didn’t want to compete against women who finished their PHD programs?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Being stupid is neither a legal nor ethical defense for getting fired. As mentioned, this has been discussed before.
|
On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be.
I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day.
But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through.
|
On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through.
I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs.
|
On August 09 2017 03:49 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 03:27 Nebuchad wrote:This is the first post on the matter. On August 09 2017 00:15 Simberto wrote:
Related: Why do people constantly point to Germany as if we were some hellhole when talking about immigration?
It is nice in Germany. Right-wing people from other countries seem to have this idea that there are raving mobs of arab rapist terrorists everywhere. They are wrong. We are definitely talking about Breitbart. Yurie's implication was obviously that her mother's fear wasn't exactly rational or based on the reality of said neighborhoods The reality being that the Swedish areas are safer than US ghettos (and thus implied that they are safe). Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 03:27 Nebuchad wrote:
He's not advocating that she starts smoking or taking risks, he's saying that she has an exaggerated view of the risk in question. This sentence tells me that we are talking about two very different things and that you've misunderstood my example. I never claimed Yurie's mother should take more risks or start smoking and I'm frankly befuddled by how you could ever arrive to that interpretation. I said that his argument (that her fear was irrational because the Swedish areas were safer than US ghettos) was similar to arguing that smoking is fine because it's not as dangerous as injecting crack-cocaine. EDIT: As you have hopefully noticed from some of the prior posts, I also think her fear is irrational.
Your perception of Yurie's argument is that her mother is irrational because she could be in a more dangerous position and so she should be okay with the smoke. My perception is that he's saying that her mother's fear is irrational, because of his own perception of the situation (that you share). He's then adding the bit about US ghettos not as a justification for why she is irrational, but as a comment on the quality of the argument made by the type of sources that caused her mother to have these irrational fears.
I think my perception is more likely because yours requires him being fine with his mother taking risks, which I think is less likely because, you know, it's his mother.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 09 2017 04:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through. I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs.
If I were willing to go to dangerous places for money, I might as well become a mercenary. No thanks.
|
Yeah, a childhood friend of mine is a CPD cop who works in Englewood (arguably the most dangerous neighborhood in Chicago). I asked him what the odds were that I'd get mugged on a random stroll through the neighborhood and he said it's very low still, though much higher than in "safe" neighborhoods obviously. Makes sense if you have an understanding of Bayes' Theorem.
|
On August 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 04:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through. I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs. If I were willing to go to dangerous places for money, I might as well become a mercenary. No thanks.
You have no sense of adventure! I'm just saying that to claim one couldn't be paid enough to go somewhere is absurd. And people make that all that time. But once you put that number in front of them, dicks are being sucked and mercs are being born. We know this to be true.
|
On August 09 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2017 04:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through. I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs. If I were willing to go to dangerous places for money, I might as well become a mercenary. No thanks. You have no sense of adventure! I'm just saying that to claim one couldn't be paid enough to go somewhere is absurd. And people make that all that time. But once you put that number in front of them, dicks are being sucked and mercs are being born. We know this to be true.
And that is a very rational risk-accessment decision. If someone paid you enough money to retire in luxury for the rest of your life, and follow whichever passion you have, how much of a chance of you dying are you willing to take? (Important: Make sure that they have to pay even if you die, otherwise you are setting up a very dangerous enticement structure)
It obviously depends from person to person, there might even be those who wouldn't take even low risks. But most people will probably take at least some risk. I'd guess for the "retire in luxury" package, anything up to 10% would be taken by a lot of people. Anything below 1% would be taken by almost everyone.
|
You guys know that many of the murders that go unsolved in those cities (somewhere around half) are primarily black bodies. You think if those were random white people that shit would still be happening? Not a chance in hell.
The police in those places and many others are actually terrible at their job.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 09 2017 04:20 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2017 04:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through. I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs. If I were willing to go to dangerous places for money, I might as well become a mercenary. No thanks. You have no sense of adventure! I'm just saying that to claim one couldn't be paid enough to go somewhere is absurd. And people make that all that time. But once you put that number in front of them, dicks are being sucked and mercs are being born. We know this to be true. And that is a very rational risk-accessment decision. If someone paid you enough money to retire in luxury for the rest of your life, and follow whichever passion you have, how much of a chance of you dying are you willing to take? (Important: Make sure that they have to pay even if you die, otherwise you are setting up a very dangerous enticement structure) It obviously depends from person to person, there might even be those who wouldn't take even low risks. But most people will probably take at least some risk. I'd guess for the "retire in luxury" package, anything up to 10% would be taken by a lot of people. Anything below 1% would be taken by almost everyone.
What's the monetary equivalent of death so that we can make that EV calculation?
|
On August 09 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 04:20 Simberto wrote:On August 09 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2017 04:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through. I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs. If I were willing to go to dangerous places for money, I might as well become a mercenary. No thanks. You have no sense of adventure! I'm just saying that to claim one couldn't be paid enough to go somewhere is absurd. And people make that all that time. But once you put that number in front of them, dicks are being sucked and mercs are being born. We know this to be true. And that is a very rational risk-accessment decision. If someone paid you enough money to retire in luxury for the rest of your life, and follow whichever passion you have, how much of a chance of you dying are you willing to take? (Important: Make sure that they have to pay even if you die, otherwise you are setting up a very dangerous enticement structure) It obviously depends from person to person, there might even be those who wouldn't take even low risks. But most people will probably take at least some risk. I'd guess for the "retire in luxury" package, anything up to 10% would be taken by a lot of people. Anything below 1% would be taken by almost everyone. What's the monetary equivalent of death so that we can make that EV calculation?
I'm mostly joking around, so don't take my previous posts serious.
I would say the monetary equivalent should be your yearly wage x 15 plus funeral expenses. That should be more than enough to cover lost wages. If you're already in the upper tier of earners, then, well...fuck off?
|
On August 09 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 04:20 Simberto wrote:On August 09 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2017 04:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through. I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs. If I were willing to go to dangerous places for money, I might as well become a mercenary. No thanks. You have no sense of adventure! I'm just saying that to claim one couldn't be paid enough to go somewhere is absurd. And people make that all that time. But once you put that number in front of them, dicks are being sucked and mercs are being born. We know this to be true. And that is a very rational risk-accessment decision. If someone paid you enough money to retire in luxury for the rest of your life, and follow whichever passion you have, how much of a chance of you dying are you willing to take? (Important: Make sure that they have to pay even if you die, otherwise you are setting up a very dangerous enticement structure) It obviously depends from person to person, there might even be those who wouldn't take even low risks. But most people will probably take at least some risk. I'd guess for the "retire in luxury" package, anything up to 10% would be taken by a lot of people. Anything below 1% would be taken by almost everyone. What's the monetary equivalent of death so that we can make that EV calculation?
Depends how much you value free time over work time. I would guess that almost anyone would value free time higher than work time. Let's put the value at Work time is worth 50% of free time.
That means that if you retire 40 years earlier, and throughout these 40 years would have worked 40 hours a week for 40 weeks a year (Usually more, but whatever, lazy maths), you win the equivalent of 0.5*40^3, or 32000 hours of free time. That is about 3.5 years worth of time won under these circumstances. If we assume you would otherwise live for another 80 years, anything up to 4% risk is fine. This obviously ignores any money you get over working that job for 40 years. (I also calculated lazily at some points, but this should give you a rough idea.)
|
Y'all should check out loss of consortium and wrongful death damages calculations if you wanna get real morbid with tying value to life 
|
On August 09 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 04:20 Simberto wrote:On August 09 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2017 04:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through. I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs. If I were willing to go to dangerous places for money, I might as well become a mercenary. No thanks. You have no sense of adventure! I'm just saying that to claim one couldn't be paid enough to go somewhere is absurd. And people make that all that time. But once you put that number in front of them, dicks are being sucked and mercs are being born. We know this to be true. And that is a very rational risk-accessment decision. If someone paid you enough money to retire in luxury for the rest of your life, and follow whichever passion you have, how much of a chance of you dying are you willing to take? (Important: Make sure that they have to pay even if you die, otherwise you are setting up a very dangerous enticement structure) It obviously depends from person to person, there might even be those who wouldn't take even low risks. But most people will probably take at least some risk. I'd guess for the "retire in luxury" package, anything up to 10% would be taken by a lot of people. Anything below 1% would be taken by almost everyone. What's the monetary equivalent of death so that we can make that EV calculation?
want to say it's generally 10 million US dollars per life. At least that's the number they use to figure out if spending money on safety measures (government wise) makes sense or is just a waste of money.
|
On August 09 2017 04:40 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2017 04:20 Simberto wrote:On August 09 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2017 04:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through. I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs. If I were willing to go to dangerous places for money, I might as well become a mercenary. No thanks. You have no sense of adventure! I'm just saying that to claim one couldn't be paid enough to go somewhere is absurd. And people make that all that time. But once you put that number in front of them, dicks are being sucked and mercs are being born. We know this to be true. And that is a very rational risk-accessment decision. If someone paid you enough money to retire in luxury for the rest of your life, and follow whichever passion you have, how much of a chance of you dying are you willing to take? (Important: Make sure that they have to pay even if you die, otherwise you are setting up a very dangerous enticement structure) It obviously depends from person to person, there might even be those who wouldn't take even low risks. But most people will probably take at least some risk. I'd guess for the "retire in luxury" package, anything up to 10% would be taken by a lot of people. Anything below 1% would be taken by almost everyone. What's the monetary equivalent of death so that we can make that EV calculation? want to say it's generally 10 million US dollars per life. At least that's the number they use to figure out if spending money on safety measures (government wise) makes sense or is just a waste of money.
I don't think (purely economically speaking) a single person is worth 10mil. They won't make that much for the company unless they are rather high up the ladder and won't see that much in their lives. I think it would be more prudent to calculate how much they would have taken home and then multiply by an average number of years for that person. My 15 was pulled out of my ass, but if you make 75k and multiplied by 15, you'd take home 1.2mil rounded. Most people will never see that amount though. Also, if you wanted to pad for inflation tack on 25%.
|
On August 09 2017 03:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 03:31 Godwrath wrote:
I didn't know Moohdo was a consumer of Breitbart's fabrications. I think you are underestimating how many people actually believe that's true. He isn’t. The myth that the EU is some immigration hellscape has escaped into the public discourse and is now a common misconception for our entire country. Immigrants are ruining parts of the EU and this is a reason to change our immigration laws in the US to be “merit based”.
It's not a myth. It's exaggerated. Don't for a second think that it's as bad as some media makes it ought to be: but don't make a mistake and think that the opposite is true.
I grew up in a city that had problems with migrants already 25 years ago (and we're talking big problems), the entire "oh everybody is welcome, what, no you don't need a passport or ID or something, just come in and feel at home" bullshit really didn't make it better.
So no. Germany is not a hellhole as some people make it ought to be, but "no-go areas" certainly do exist and formed, everybody who's denying that simply doesn't live for example in Northrhine Westphalia or Berlin.
edit: sorry just saw you said EU, no idea what it is like in france so i'm limiting my answer to germany specifically
|
On August 09 2017 04:45 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 04:40 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 09 2017 04:22 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2017 04:20 Simberto wrote:On August 09 2017 04:14 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 04:10 LegalLord wrote:On August 09 2017 04:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 09 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On August 09 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
We are not in the 1960-1980 era of US cities where they were all in massive recessions due to white flight. Plagued by urban blight and high crime. Most US cities have pockets of economically depressed areas with higher crime. But none of them are the hellscapes people seem to make them out to be. I have a friend who lives in Chicago and feels zero risk to his safety. Rides his bike to and from work (20 minute bike ride) every day. But he also says that there are parts of Chicago he dare not even look at. There are some areas where you couldn't pay him to walk through. I'm calling bullshit. I'll walk through the Congo for the right price. Everyone has theirs. If I were willing to go to dangerous places for money, I might as well become a mercenary. No thanks. You have no sense of adventure! I'm just saying that to claim one couldn't be paid enough to go somewhere is absurd. And people make that all that time. But once you put that number in front of them, dicks are being sucked and mercs are being born. We know this to be true. And that is a very rational risk-accessment decision. If someone paid you enough money to retire in luxury for the rest of your life, and follow whichever passion you have, how much of a chance of you dying are you willing to take? (Important: Make sure that they have to pay even if you die, otherwise you are setting up a very dangerous enticement structure) It obviously depends from person to person, there might even be those who wouldn't take even low risks. But most people will probably take at least some risk. I'd guess for the "retire in luxury" package, anything up to 10% would be taken by a lot of people. Anything below 1% would be taken by almost everyone. What's the monetary equivalent of death so that we can make that EV calculation? want to say it's generally 10 million US dollars per life. At least that's the number they use to figure out if spending money on safety measures (government wise) makes sense or is just a waste of money. I don't think (purely economically speaking) a single person is worth 10mil. They won't make that much for the company unless they are rather high up the ladder and won't see that much in their lives. I think it would be more prudent to calculate how much they would have taken home and then multiply by an average number of years for that person. My 15 was pulled out of my ass, but if you make 75k and multiplied by 15, you'd take home 1.2mil rounded. Most people will never see that amount though. Also, if you wanted to pad for inflation tack on 25%.
I read an article that that was the number they used in like construction safety calculations. IE if it costs more than 10 million per life saved then it's not worth it. Now that doesn't mean it applies to every single calculation but I think that's the actuary number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
