631–640 of 680 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's totally false, at least in the US. Credit agencies measure whether you pay your debts, nothing more.
As posted above: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/10/equifax-breach-fallout-y...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn't this be handled by a government agency? It seems awfully risky to have unaccountable companies trade your sensitive information around for profit.
The government is at least equally incompetent if not more so, at least if a private entity screws up you can sue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anyone is overestimating that, it would be the GP to which they are replying.
That seems to be the same guy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok.. for what role? That's pretty high pay!
Individual contributor, Software Engineer. At Google the recruiter put me in the SRE/SWE track which I was skeptical of and communicated to them. I also communicated about the compensation issues in advance saying if I got a bad offer it wasn't going to happen. Still wasted my time. It's high for the industry if you consider the entire US or the world. The solution there is pick the right employer. The right ones are…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are cherry picking. You did not reply to these parts of what I said: It has been documented that when a job becomes a predominantly female job, society tends to pay less than when it was a male job. The crux of the issue here is that no matter how you slice it and dice it, on average, women make less money than men. We can debate all the live long day exactly why women tend to make less than men, but that is an e…
>>And I am telling you women already do similar work to janitors. No you claimed Housekeeper is similar to Janitor, and I explained in great detail why a janitor will make more than a housekeeper and it has nothing to with the gender of the employee but the fact that it is different work with a different value proposition to the people hiring do to the work >So, I regret trying to engage you I understand, I would hat…
What a revealing sentiment. It speaks to your desire not to engage people here, or share insight or build consensus, but rather a desire to score debate points.
What's more, your entire argument is about addressing tangential (and debatable) inconsistencies and not actually addressing the larger point. If you think observers are blind to this, you're dead wrong.
If you really want to argue that there isn't a wage gap, scoffing and sniping won't work. The overton window, as they say, has shifted. The burden's on you now to provide an alternate hypothesis and shift the consensus.
Consider what this website is for. Folks with math, science or computer education are going to demand a higher standard than sniping around the edges of an argument attempting to discourage the debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so dumb. Employers can research candidate history without any chance of getting caught, and it's an obvious goal of most ethical (1st amendment respecting) hackers to make sure it stays that way.
...without any chance of getting caught... Never take that for granted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so dumb. Employers can research candidate history without any chance of getting caught, and it's an obvious goal of most ethical (1st amendment respecting) hackers to make sure it stays that way.
I'm curious, how does the 1st Amendment play into this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. I meant this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15502923
Am I missing something? Both comments seem to be written by "icelancer"
fierro:
I feel like this is kind of silly. Anyone could make a reasonable estimate of your salary based on your job, which is easily discoverable. At least enough to make a decision "should I rob this house." What are we even talking about here?