I'll second that. I'm not 'hiring', but as a freelance web developer I'm always open to people working with me for an hourly rate.
EDIT: and while I don't currently have a steady stream of work available, when I do, I favor working with people who for whatever reason have trouble finding or keeping 'normal' work (having dealt with my own share of issues in this area).
If you read it carefully, you will realize that he is not defending rapists, he is saying you can look at the situation as a mental health problem - similar to the EU view of drug abusers - they are not criminals, they are patients.
He has, multiple times on his blog, put forth his theory that humans are 'moist robots' - he does not believe in the concept of free will; so this post is entirely consistent with that.
Well, the whole concept of "morals" depends on free will, so if you don't really believe in free will, you shouldn't be saying that something should or should not be viewed as moral or not. In your worldview, being "moral" or "immoral" should just be words without a correct definition behind them.
Seems like it would be a simple inexpensive investment (probably completely outsourced) for YC to set up fortnightly (down from Tuesday dinners/weekly) dinners for founders of a single batch to come and report updates to each other.
I recall reading somewhere that YC batches are now split into clusters because there are so many companies in each batch. Maybe these dinners can be cluster specific as well.
As the companies grow in size, they can democratically decide to reduce frequency to monthly - I can see how changes would be slower as the companies become larger.
Edit: To clarify, this is purely a peer group - no YC presence needed. Have to do it this way to scale.
Read the article. The author mentions that he repeatedly requested his employer to sponsor his GC. They made him wait and eventually declined. He tried to change employers at that stage because he knew he needed a path to GC, but was unlucky and got screwed at that stage.
Canada (and I believe some other countries, like Australia) has a points based system. You can fill in a PR (equivalent to US Green Card) application from the comfort of your home country. When you are filling up the application, you can tally the points and know for sure whether you meet the cut-off to have your application be granted - i.e. you don't need to submit if you aren't going to make it. Points are given for your age (younger is better), education (masters is better than just bachelors) and your language proficiency (in English and French), among others.
Then, you wait a while and once the application is granted, you directly get PR. You have a period of time - say 1 yr - to move to Canada, and another period within which you should find a job.
i.e. - when you apply for a job, you are already a permanent resident.
Now that's what I would call a humane immigration system that also manages to attract 'desirable' immigrants. If Canada had America's weather, I would have never moved to the US.
The Canadian immigration system is one of the most generous around.
It's easy to be "generous" when you have fewer people trying to immigrate to your country. I can remember maybe a decade ago Canada had an immigration target of 1% of population (~250K) and that many people didn't even apply.
Compare that to the US where there are 20 year waiting lists for some visa categories. The US has lower, but not that lower, immigration targets compared to Canada.
Some are not as lucky. One time CIC was so overwhelmed with a backlog of PR applications, they literally simply said, "screw it" and cancelled 300K (?) applications that have been sitting on their shelves waiting to be processed for years already.
http://canadianimmigrant.ca/slider/300000-skilled-worker-app...
For you. I know people that have been in Canada decades that still don't have their permanent residency. If it was fair across the board it would be 'first in first out'.
> they addressed the issue of over-population, something that a country like India has failed to do
India took the path to education and propaganda to voluntarily reduce the fertility rate. I don't think India has failed in its initiatives. Instead, I think they are going extremely well given that there is no legal limit on how many kids you can have. India is on track to reach peak-population by 2060. [1]
Most educated middle class couples would not think of having more than 2 kids (this has been true for the last 15/20+ years) and now we are entering a phase where a small minority is choosing to go without kids, completely.[2]
The total fertility rate in India has gone from 6 to 2.5 in the last 50 years. (Google for "total fertility rate india")
Edit: One more thing - there are 11 states in India that are at or below a TFR of 2.1 [3].
Net net - far from a failure, India is making good progress.
I did not know that. I would agree that going fertility rate from 6 to 2.5 is anything but a failure. It might take longer, but it's probably a much better solution that the "One child policy" in the long run.
A most bodacious of comments! And spot on - education is a better solution than rules. We see the same changes in the US across class divides; poorer people are less educated and rear more children.
It's well known that birth rate decreases as a nation's economic status increases. India has also gone through massive economic changes in the last 50 years, which is likely to have affected fertility rates much more than propaganda.
I'd like to see studies with control groups before believing that voluntary methods can significantly impact fertility rates.
Voluntary: done, given, or acting of one's own free will
India's population control has been voluntary. Aside from a failed attempt in 1975 (declaration of emergency/forced castration of a negligible number of people), all of the decline in fertility in India has been voluntary.
Greenwald has said on multiple occasions that he feels very comfortable coming to the US because of its constitution and freedom of speech as an explicit granted right. He isn't going back to the UK anytime soon.
full disclosure: I am a happy FA customer. I do not own stock in the company, not employed by them and have no financial relationship with them other than taking their advice on where to invest.
My parents didn't attend a majority of events for me, for example, I told my mom in 12th grade (in India) - you are going to miss never ever having attended a PTA meeting for me, and the last one is coming up, so you better go. Then she went. I remember coming 70th in a Geography olympiad in my city (New Delhi, current population 27M), and me going alone to receive the award. All the way to my Convocation, Masters from IITD, which (bloody hell) even I didn't attend - I was too busy working to fly back out - (this one I sometimes feel bad about). Net net, my parents never attended shit BUT most importantly I don't feel bad about it; ever.
On the other hand, my wife's dad is a busy industrialist, even he never attended anything. Her mom did though. Her view of it is completely different. She feels very very bad about her dad not being there, to the point that she forces me to attend all of our kids school events, even when I think some are not that important.
I guess it depends on your personality and how you respond to things around you.
How about designing the system so that it doesn't have a single point of failure?