So, if Google does continue like it should, at the very least we should watch out for Sergei & Larry's dirty laundry hitting the internet soon enough?

I would guess that Uber is a good example.

We do pay people to go to school already, there are a multitude of retraining programs available for older workers. But as in this article I think the people in question are the reason for these programs not working, the one factory worker in this article didn't like school so he stopped going and went on disability. With that kind of attitude it's going to be hard to help people.

Every time these disruptions happen people said we had hit a tipping point and it was going to be different this time. Not sure how this time is different.

Look out the window. Dow at a record high. Unemployment in recession territory. Labor demand and economic growth are decoupled.

The stock market is not economic growth. A far simpler explanation is that investors simply expect things like the labor market to recover, which is exactly why the markets react dramatically when the monthly jobs numbers are released.

They are not necessarily related. Information symmetry just means that both parties know exactly the same information and neither knows more or less than the other. In a scenario where one or both parties have information that is not accessible to the other they can still engage in a trade in which each party, at least believes, it is better off given their information. A neutral/third-party observer may not come to the same conclusion but that is not relevant to this scenario.

So what you mean is both parties think they benefit

You can get to SFO for less than $20 provided you're willing to use a shuttle/van service. The premium is for a private ride that is direct to the airport. So it's definitely possible to get these types of services cheap you just can't expect the same level of quality as Uber say.

Fyi, I believe this is actually a gay couple given the author's name is Peter and his partner is named Danny.

Which makes the judge even more amazing in my book.

10 years ago it was more then extraordinary to entrust a gay couple with adopting a child.

Times and attitudes have changed massively in this time, which is a good thing. It's much better for a kid to be brought up by a loving, caring gay couple then in a total dysfunctional traditional marriage.

Oops, my fault for not paying attention to details.

Still, who adopts a child spontaneously without consulting their parter?

The real miracle here is the partner that didn't leave him over it.

In point of fact, quite many babies are conceived against the intent or desire of at least one parent.

And this adoption wasn't completed until Danny signed on. Someone had to start the ball rolling.

Whoa, this isn't a puppy.

You don't adopt a child when you have a partner without even mentioning to them, let alone discussing it.

I mean that's insane, and I don't get the downvotes.

Who the hell adopts a kid while in a long-term relationship without even asking their partner?

It's all good because it turned out okay but seriously who does this? It's a massive life-changing event. You plan these things, otherwise it shows a complete lack of respect.

The parallels in this story to unplanned conception in conventional marriages are so obvious that I wonder if they're deliberate. Many children are brought into the world under exactly the same emotional/psychological circumstances.

In any case, you didn't read the story carefully enough. They went back to court, both of them, to confirm they were both willing to adopt. Had the partner objected, the adoption wouldn't have happened. You're going to have to find something else to find objectionable in this story. :)

>Who the hell adopts a kid while in a long-term relationship without even asking their partner?

Maybe there is context that we're not aware of. Perhaps they had both previously expressed a desire to raise children.

You also don't find a baby. Can we grant this is an extreme circumstance?

Not sure where you get this idea that one cannot live in San Francisco/Silicon Valley without a six figure salary. Thousands of people live in San Francisco and do not work in tech and surely make much less than six figures while still live relatively well.

I live in San Francisco. 35-40% of my income goes to oil the tax wheels, another good 15 % goes to make sure I can live within the city. If you keep doing the math, you don't save much at the end. I am not saying I live paycheck to paycheck but the city is so freaking expensive that you don't save much. In fact, a friend making 30% or so less in Austin did the math and found out he could save much more than I could. On the other hand, I am not complaining, I choose to live in this great and amazing city.

Can you point to data corroborating your statement that universities are supplying a growing number of STEM graduates?

And the inadequate amount of housing availability is because of government regulation as well. If they would allow more building this would be less of an issue.