Automation is just a boogeyman, the real competition for low-skill jobs comes from desperate people, and there's no shortage of those. Minimum wages help preventing the perverse "reverse auction" that would take place otherwise.
Oh, so your beef with SL all these years was that it's slow !
Silly me, I thought the problem was that it wasn't standardized, that it was patent encumbered, that it wasn't "web", and that it allowed to pollute the web with black boxes of native code. Oh, and that it was a monkey-wrench thrown into the progress of web standards.
I'm not even too sure about why it should be so much slower, but honestly I don't care too much: I simply love the idea of being able to use native code in the browser and I don't care who gets there first. All that matters is that we finally get the silver bullet that kills off the JS monster (hmm, I wonder why Brendan Eich is not a fan...). Good times... :)
This is one of the standard arguments that is always made for not increasing the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage might push the lowest paid workers up to a wage equivalent to other higher up the ladder, but that just means that the rest of the business is predicated on underpaying it's employees. We shouldn't be making monetary policy that placates people who want to continue to work against the interests of the economy. As with the arguments against the ACA due to "costs": If your business depends on exploitation of employees to survive, you aren't good at your business. You are on the way out anyway, so why should we continue to provide life support through social programs that you probably argue against anyway.
No, that just means you have to raise progressively all the wages that are below the mean.
Put it this way: if you just bump up Bob's hourly wage from $10 to $15 and leave Alice's untouched at $15, you have just increased the number of minimum wage workers. In a few years, $15 will become the new $10 and you will then have the same situation as today, except with more people in the lowest percentile.
Back then, IBM's marketing was at its nadir; for a little while pretty much anything came with a complimentary OS/2 Warp CD; it was the physical equivalent of the Ask toolbar.
I don't doubt the author has his heart in the right place, but the idea is completely bonkers.
Among the various indicators of fairness, the simplest one is to observe the mean and the median income of the population: in a fair society those numbers must not be very far apart (this is necessary but obviously not sufficient).
Let's look at the 2010 report of the Census Bureau, and specifically at table A-2 at page 34. All numbers are conveniently expressed in inflation adjusted 2010 dollars. This is a rough summary:
Back in 1967, the mean income was $45,599 and the median was $40,770. That's pretty fair. The upper part of the curve contained:
100-150K: 4.6%, 150K-200K: 0.9%, >200K: 0.8%
Over the years (regardless of who was in charge), those numbers changed steadily to (in 2010) a mean income of $67,530 and a median of $49,445 and the upper part of the curve became:
100-150K: 12.1%, 150-200K: 4.5%, >200K: 3.9%
That's the real challenge: there's a significant portion of the population (some 20%) making more than twice the median income. It's not a bad thing that the country is getting richer, but when a part is getting richer faster than everybody else, then there's a problem.
Now, hoisting the minimum wage significantly would paradoxically obtain the opposite effect of what is needed: the mean would increase even further, but the median wouldn't move by one dollar. Of course, it would eliminate the poorest percentiles, and that's a good thing, but that wouldn't make much of a difference in the big picture and inflation would kill any good effect in a few years. Yes, because there's no escaping inflation... if Bob makes $10/h and his boss Alice makes $15/h, you cannot expect to raise Bob's wage to $15 by decree and leave Alice's untouched. Lest you want to see how she handles a pitchfork.
On a lighter note... if you think inequality is bad for us commoners, look at what happens upstairs...
so, 1% controls 20% of the wealth. Boo.
But then, the 400 richest Americans (there are 92 more billionaires not making that cut), control about 2% of the total wealth. So, in the context of the top 1%, 0.013% control 10%!
Quite the United States of Extremistan. :)
That isn't working. Well, in hindsight (which Glass isn't equipped for), they should have handed them out to charming people with excellent PR skills instead of a bunch of overzealous nerds (and making them pay 1500 bucks for the privilege just helped raising the bar of their nerditude). What's sad is that this botched attempt caused an immune reaction to the whole concept and it will take a long time before we recover.
You yourself brought up Z-order. It is actually an important UI concept. I don't think it is a stretch then to give buttons a slight 3D look just to make it appear that they are slightly above other UI elements and therefore makes it more obvious that one can interact with them. But it can be subtle and professional looking.
Just curious... people use the web all the time and seem to infer what they can or cannot click based more on context and position than from visual clues (even the rollover effect is lost with tablets and touch).
What makes a desktop application different?
I don't agree with Hobby Lobby, but yours is a strawman argument. Blood transfusions are a treatment (or part of the treatment) for a life-threatening condition; it's hard to define contraception the same way.