We should be focusing on learning from and highlighting people who are working to make the world a better place - and not focusing on employees from these companies. Any online news aggregator could institute a policy to not promote products or services of these companies. Unfortunately, many startups are operating with the hope that these companies acquire them, and so they're all to happy to continue extending this spying apparatus even further into other domains.

In any commercial organization, there are tremendous pressures in high-investment, super high-risk projects and anyone can trivially find things that are wrong with the current system. The much more difficult challenge is showing an alternate path that is superior - based on the results it achieves. The times when you see the ugly behavior of people are times of desperation. Online commenters expend a lot of effort point out how to improve things by "proving" it by linking to random studies - but the more persuasive argument is by implementing those changes in the real world. "Talk is cheap, show me the code." ;)

Yes, there is a nice division of responsibilities. But ultimately, governments are doing the jobs they get paid for. And they're not only wasteful with our money (spending on wars, defense, etc), ironically (in a sad way) they pay government workers poorly - See teachers' salaries.

>Jobs would be created without the rich.

Jobs were created at all stages in history in all kinds of social and economic conditions. Also, plenty of rich people got rich after starting companies and creating jobs. We're incentivizing people who like money to create jobs, among other things.

>See responses sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31743755) about the issue with 401(k) (or pension funds in non-USA countries).

Those are not responses to my comment, so specifically what part of my comment was inaccurate? I can correct any misunderstandings, or improve my comment to fix any errors on my part.

It is a separate argument, but 'more competition' isn't a magical fix to everything. This sort of gating mechanism relies on the end user/consumer having good knowledge, sound judgement, etc. Also what is best for the consumer isn't best for the society. A wild example - For me, as the consumer I'm happy to get an iPhone for $200, but that might mean that Apple pays their employees below US minimum wage.

What sort of citation will make you happy?

What is happening at the quantum level, to the extent that we can understand it, isn't directly translatable into a non-deterministic world at the higher macro level. And so, we do expect and observe a certain level of determinism in our macro scale world. For e.g. A topic relevant to this community - Computing. For the vast vast majority of cases when thousands of people execute the same program on the same or similar hardware at different times in different regions we do expect, and observe the same deterministic result. The outliers to this are primarily due to damage to the processor/equipment, software bugs, or other known factors (including alpha particles/radiation, etc).

Link to evidence?

That is a good idea, especially for visually impaired users - but why can't we have both? I sometimes like seeing the fancy fonts, and images if I have never eaten that dish before, etc.

>That doesn't make the title click bait.

It does. Sensationalism and misleading headlines designed to drive an emotional response are considered click bait too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickbait