Funding is so plentiful right now that they are really competing with acquihire rates. That amount might sound crazy as straight salary, it comes with multi-year golden handcuffs and avoids having to buy them out for billions if they go start their own endeavor.
For this one, it appears to be something along the lines of $250M in RSUs vesting over 4 years with $100M of it in the first year (almost a seed round per week!)
Feminist groups also regularly try to get games banned from Steam, typically for sexism or violence against women. Eg.
> Women in Games CEO Dr Marie-Claire Isaaman has called on Valve to “act urgently” and remove the game from Steam, saying the game’s content “is not only vile and dangerous, but also actively promotes the dehumanisation of women and girls.”
> In “Irreversible Damage,” Abigail Shrier argues youth are being “fast-tracked” into medical transition — a claim experts say isn’t true and harms trans youth.
Anti-trans activities is the fascist agenda. Fascism should always be stopped. Saving democracy and lives of transpeople by stopping fascists is not controversial in any way.
When you start digging past their marketing material, you quickly discover that these organisations are just right-wing fronts, against trans-people, against abortion.
Here's a 38 minute video that walks through some of the recent major incidents.
Why should feminism be incompatible with right-wing politics?
How do I know what is or isn't a legitimate feminist position, given that the list apparently constantly changes over time?
I am constantly told that there are many different kinds of feminism and that my various complaints about feminism — based on actual interactions I've personally had with feminists — are not valid because they don't generalize across the whole thing (even if I point at well-known, established feminist literature and critiques thereof). Yet I also constantly see groups of self-identified feminists point at each other and try to claim that the others don't actually count as feminists because they disagree about some other issue.
I assume you accept the validity of more than two genders. Will you accept the validity of more than two kinds of political position?
> Consider the discrepancies in jobs requiring similar education and responsibility, or similar skills, but divided by gender. The median earnings of information technology managers (mostly men) are 27 percent higher than human resources managers (mostly women), according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Way to blow up their credibility in one sentence... Those are completely different jobs. An IT manager needs both management skills and sufficient technical knowledge to make decisions about technical matters and effectively supervise technical employees. Those skills are in higher demand, resulting in higher pay for IC staff and managers.
Also, numerous studies have found that the pay differences within job categories are largely accounted for by factors like overtime, lack of flexibility, stressful work environments, long commutes, etc. Society encourages men to pursue higher compensation, so it's hardly surprising that they are willing to put up with more for an extra 5-10%, even if it's to the detriment of their health and work-life balance.
When you compare apples to apples, male vs female engineering manager with similar backgrounds, the pay is the same. In the Bay Area it favors the woman.
Desire has a large part. It’s no coincidence that the countries with the most women in programming are places like India and China, where they are given little choice. If you can do the job, you do it because otherwise poverty.
Yes of course, but it doesn't fit the current narrative of women being the perpetual victims. I'm increasingly annoyed by the propaganda around women's issues because it always amounts to some bullshit.
Considering that women can offload the hard parts to men (hard work and competition) they would be stupid to not do so. Funny thing is that when they don't, they stop making kids, which means that they don't have much value as women actually and end up being just weaker men (at least in the biological strength sense but it's also true for the IQ curve so...)
If at some point in the near future we could finally agree that women and men are not actually strictly equal and that it would be incredibly stupid and useless if it was the case, I would be extremely happy.
This isn't a uniquely American problem. Age verification is a huge pain to implement and completely tanks user sign up metrics. No tech company will do it unless absolutely forced by a major government, eg. see the recent US state-level laws that require age verification for porn sites. Websites are using IP-geo checks to apply the age verification process to as few users as possible.
Also I'd question putting Roblox in the child-friendly category. Hindenburg Research characterized the platform as a "Pedophile Hellscape". They obviously have a financial angle as a short-seller, but they point out some issues that seem pretty significant, in my opinion.
> We found Roblox to be an X-rated pedophile hellscape, replete with users attempting to groom our avatars, groups openly trading child pornography, widely accessible sex games, violent content and extremely abusive speech—all of which is open to young children and all while Roblox has cut content moderation spending to appease Wall Street and boost earnings.
> We put together a brief video compilation of Roblox moderation failures
Oh, I was wrong about Roblox. Some users even encourage 8, 9-yo to install Discord so they can groom them. So I guess there are two different issues here: porn sites showing indecent images and videos to everyone, regardless of age, and sick people grooming kids on social media and in games.
The problem with those stats for Ireland is that the Gini coefficient measured by the World Bank just looks at household income, not wealth. Much of the inequality in Ireland in the last few decades has been driven by the explosion in property prices and rents. This has created a great deal of inequality between people who benefited from the rapid increase in price of those assets, and the people stuck paying much higher rents. In roughly a generation (30 years) property prices have increased by roughly 600% after adjusting for inflation.
Household wealth inequality has also fallen significantly in Ireland. Longer term statistics are more difficult to find compared to income inequality but see Chart 3 here - https://www.centralbank.ie/statistics/statistical-publicatio... - provides a 12 year time series which proves this.
Irish property prices are and have risen considerably - but "600%", I think, is a somewhat dramatic way to present the increases - on an average yearly basis, it's been about 3.5% per year for the last 2 or 3 decades. To put this into perspective, average household incomes have been rising at a rate closer to 9% (non-inflation adjusted) per year - see https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/ireland/annual-househo...
The source I linked shows the Ireland housing index going from around 33 in 1995 to over 180 in 2025. That's an over 6x real return, which equates to a rate of return of over 6.5% after inflation.
Looking at the CEIC data you linked, which is not inflation-adjusted, it shows household income increasing from just under $20k in 2003 to around $40k in 2023. Plugging that into the CAGR formula you get a 3.5% nominal annual return.
So house prices have increased at over 6.5% annually after inflation, while household incomes have increased at 3.5% before inflation.
And your other link makes it clear that the change in wealth distribution is really just a side effect of the housing bubble:
> The Gini coefficient fell from 0.78 in Q2 2013 to 0.70 as of Q4 2020, before declining sharply since 2021 (Chart 3). This steeper decline in 2021 is driven by increasing net wealth for the Bottom 50%, accounted for by a combination of a decline in this groups mortgage liabilities and, to a lesser extent, an upward appreciation in the value of housing assets. As a consequence, by Q1 2022 the Gini coefficient for Ireland stood at 0.68.
Yes I made a mistake in my calculation - household income (from that CEIC data) rose 4.1% per annum between end of 2012 and the end of 2023.
Your graph comes from BIS data - picking 1995 as starting point is a little unfair as that's exactly when house prices started to rise - if I measure from 1990, the rise (using BIS nominal nominal to make comparison easier) is 5.1% per annum.
But yes house prices have risen faster than household incomes. Like pretty much everywhere else in the world.
> And your other link makes it clear that the change in wealth distribution is really just a side effect of the housing bubble
The claim I was contesting was that wealth inequality had increased in the last few decades. It has not - it has decreased significantly.
True this is bullshit. The government has a direct policy of wealth transfer from the population to itself and banks, who have "foreign" (except of course not really, for the worst example look at the board of the "gift to Ireland" national wealth fund and how the very young board members have no qualifications or experience and DO have family in government ...) ownership. Which, conveniently, isn't counted in the Gini coefficient.
But if you count household wealth in houses in Ireland, household wealth in Ireland in 1986 used to be 3 average Irish houses, and now it's 1/3rd. This was, just like anywhere else, deliberate government policy, amongst others to allow banks to invest in housing stock, preferential tax treatment and guarantees for property ownership, government buying of specific (mostly politician owned) housing, non-enforcement of both Irish and non-Irish tax law ... the list goes on.
Ireland prides itself on creating prosperity by lying and cheating other EU countries out of their tax income. Surprise! A government that lies on international treaties (they promised to enforce minimum tax since 2008, then ... didn't, then claimed credit for the "unseen in history prosperity boom"). Surprise! A government that does that ALSO lied to it's constituents and instead of delivering prosperity took 2/3rd of every euro you own.
Again, the statistics and numbers completely contradict this narrative. We have a statistic - income redistribution - which effectively measures government policy in this regard.
And in figure 3, page 11 of the above report, Ireland has seen the 3rd highest growth in income redistribution in the OECD with redistribution from wealthy to poor growing by 40% in the space of a decade
So as far as I can see the facts indicate that Irish government policy is the exact opposite of what you claim.
Clearly, it redistributes mostly from normal people to the government, not so much from the rich to the poor. Wouldn't it produce exactly those graphs if anyone actually counted became a lot poorer, then the rich just need to get not counted (Isle of Man perhaps?).
I don't know why the rich in Ireland are somehow not on that graph, but when you walk around in Dublin for 10 minutes you see that this just isn't the real situation. It absolutely isn't the case that there aren't very rich people in Ireland and obviously they're not getting their wealth redistributed ...
Are you talking about the Southport mass stabbing that killed three children and wounded 10? The perpetrator was a second-generation African migrant found with an Al-Qaeda training manual and ricin, who had been repeatedly referred to Prevent. The UK government initially refused to release information about the perpetrator, which caused speculation and confusion about the attack.
It's a bit odd to focus on the anti-government protests and call them terrorists, when they were out protesting because the government failed to adequately protect them from an actual terrorist.
> The perpetrator was a second-generation African migrant
He isn't a migrant. He was born in Wales. He's British. 100%. This is exactly the kind of language that starts the wheel of hatred rolling.
Nobody knew anything about him when the riots were fomented by the white supremacist lunatics. They just made it up because it fit their narrative and allowed them to go after brown people. They invented a muslim sounding name and claimed he was an asylum seeker. None of which was true.
> The UK government initially refused to release information about the perpetrator
They didn't "refuse". It's normal practice for the police to not release the details of an alleged perpetrator.
> which caused speculation and confusion about the attack.
Speculation is not a good enough reason to try burning down a hotel with refugees in in. I'm sorry, but there is no defence for the violence and hatred that was stirred and fomented by the white supremacist lunatics (and by Musk et al).
What happened with those children is tragic. Truly. But that doesn't give a free hand to white supremacist lynch mobs.
> It's a bit odd to focus on the anti-government protests and call them terrorists, when they were out protesting because the government failed to adequately protect them from an actual terrorist.
That's a fucked up sentence. He committed a crime, not an act of terrorism. A horrific crime, yes, but what came after was not an "anti-government protest". It was a riot where people were actually trying to murder immigrants based on no information other than what they had made up themselves. I mean, a mosque was attacked the following day and the perpetrator is a Christian (or at least his family is). That's not a protest, that's pure extremist hatred.
Would you want your children to be gay? As a straight person, given the choice I would want my children to be straight, so they could have biological children with their partner and a dating pool of ~48% of the population rather than ~2%. Those are pretty clear objective advantages, even putting aside the issue of societal acceptance.
It's completely understandable to have an attachment to one's own identity, but at a certain point trying to impose that identity on one's children becomes ethically questionable. A good example is the deaf community - would it be appropriate for a deaf couple to withhold medical treatment from their child that would allow them to hear? I would argue no, but some people disagree.
> A valid and reliable survey instrument was mailed to 4,924 households on the mailing lists of six
non-profit Down syndrome organizations.
Definitely no sampling bias here... And given that the vast majority of people who do prenatal screening decide not to have a child with Down Syndrome, I don't think the people who choose to have a Down Syndrome child are really representative of prospective parents as a whole.
The revealed preference is clear, particularly in places like Iceland where prenatal screening is ubiquitous. They have effectively eradicated Down Syndrome going forward.
The perspective in question is about what it's like to raise a child with Down Syndrome.
Why on EARTH would the opinions of people who were so scared of the experience that they never tried it at all even for a minute be relevant to that perspective?
Because people can reasonably predict whether they will be happy doing something before they do it. Like for example, if you polled people who had gone skydiving and asked whether they enjoyed the experience, I'd expect many would say yes. After all, they voluntarily signed up for it and paid money to do it. But if you randomly selected people and made them jump out of a plane, the results would be very different.
Also, people who have had negative experiences raising a child with Down Syndrome are presumably far less likely to be involved with non-profit organizations related to Down Syndrome.
What? People suck at predicting whether they will enjoy things, especially when they know little about them. Regret is staggeringly common. Look at divorce rates if you want a life decision of comparable magnitude. And the opposite is just as true, that people are constantly finding new things they enjoy, or even love passionately, when they least expected it.
That's a card with a $800 annual fee... And the Amazon Amex requires a Prime membership, so you are paying at least $140/year for that card.
Credit card companies aren't stupid, they offer a few loss leaders but they make it annoying and time-consuming to come out ahead. And most of the big perks are one-time only, they have gotten much better at banning "churners".
Not my Sapphire. $95. Undecided on whether to keep it or change to another type (I'm not a churner, so 5/24 is not relevant). Also undecided on whether to keep the 100,000 points sitting in the rewards balance for the time being, or cash it out to the aforementioned $1000 now.
