Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
Can you explain why employers must be forced by the state to raise wages if raising wages inspires workers to exert so much more, and so much better, effort that the value to employers of the resulting decrease in employee turnover and increase in output covers the cost of the higher wages? And was Paul Krugman wrong to reason that “there is a fundamental flaw in the [efficiency-wage] argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage ‘compared with other companies’ – and that is precisely what mandating an increase in the minimum wage for all companies cannot accomplish”?
Harvard University's ill-conceived decision to blacklist students who join off-campus, single-sex social organizations continues to backfire, forcing administrators to make exceptions to the overbroad policy
Can you guess where this is going? Care to take a stab at exactly who or what is going to get an exception?
The latest one would permit an off-campus women's club to remain female-only without violating the policy that supposedly punishes "gender-based discrimination." This strongly suggests that the real motivation behind the policy is not sex or gender discrimination at all -- it's that the Harvard administration simply doesn't like certain groups and is willing to be as deceptive as is necessary to try to eliminate them.
I know...I know...you had no idea there was gambling going on in this establishment.
It is quite usual to see examples of the media getting notions of error and significance wrong. But yesterday I saw a story where someone actually dusted these tools off and explained why the Olympics don't time events to the millionths of a second, despite clocks that are supposedly that accurate:
Don't like Twitter because censorship just cramps your style? Or maybe the aggressive leftist cant of your Facebook feed is getting more and more unpleasant? Well, here's a new social media company that claims its entrant in the crowded field of unbridled self expression and narcissism is free of political considerations. Gab may be that platform, except it's only in a closed beta right now, so you will have to wait patiently...
Biofuels -- really just ethanol -- should be renamed Iowa votes first so let's buy their votes. Even granting expensive oil, it is a colossal waste of farmland and water for a return that is nothing short of a catastrophe. Now of course with cheap oil and American fracking it's even more ridiculous. It doesn't save fuel, it damages engines, it adds complexity to engine design, and it is so obviously a political payoff that I am shocked every day that America doesn't rise up and demand that we get to burn good old cheap gasoline instead of expensive vodka in our cars. And my personal pet peeve? Ethanol takes thousands of acres out of food production. People on the margin of the starvation graph will die. Not in this country, but somewhere, people are dying because of our ethanol policy.
Our biofuels policy was meant to boost our energy security while saving the environment, but it fails on both counts. It's a remarkable example of a policy finding a sour spot, and the only stakeholder that benefits from this farce is the U.S. corn industry.