There are more high level players on ICC because that's where the high level players are. Chess.com also has a decent interface, but they particularly excel in chess news, event coverage and community support.
That said there are plenty of verified expert-level players there, whom are probably at least 1 standard deviation above and beyond satisfying 99.99% of the world population of people looking to play chess.^1
> There are more high level players on ICC because that's where the high level players are
It appears this is not the case, anymore. I logged in to both servers this afternoon, and counted the number of players rated over 2350. Lichess had 50, ICC had 6. I logged in again tonight and saw roughly the same ratio.
Those data points could be valid, but it's important to note that chess ratings work relative to the players involved. A site that only allowed pre-schoolers, for example, would still have 2300+ rated players.
No, I don't currently own one. I bought a MakerBot Cupcake in 2010. I had fun assembling it, and was happy that my first print (a Darth Vader head) was flawless...it would be the only one. All subsequent prints suffered from lifting rafts, or air printing, or just stopping for who knows why. I fought daily with the machine for a good month before recognizing that I wanted prints, not to be a tinkerer of 3d printers. So I handed it over to my local makerspace, and started using Shapeways. The results were very satisfying, even though it was expensive.
Each of the last two generations of MakerBot Replicators were released with promises that they just work. While much has improved, threads on their mailing list show that some of the same frustrations that I experienced 4 years ago have persisted...specifically the air printing. I'm not going to buy another one yet.
This story hilariously epitomizes the gulf that lies between the tech scene and the rest of the population. For you a low paying job is a hobby to keep you in check, I'm sure only so long that it doesn't impede your "real job". For most, these jobs are an important source of income. Doesn't it strike you as slightly obnoxious to take such a job away from someone who needs it? I can see this story ending up in Mike Judge's "Silicon Valley". Here's a better "hack": hire smart people away from low paying jobs for your startup, pay them more, and go for a bike ride in the morning.
I've thought about this a lot before, and there definitely is some merit to it.
I worked retail as a teenager, and the managers would give more hours to an older employee because she needed them (I was told this explicitly). I was fine with it at the time, because yeah, I was still mostly living on my parents' dime. Working in a corporate setting now, if I was told someone else at my company was getting a big raise only because they just had another kid or bought a new house, and not due to the quality of his or her work, I'm not sure how I would feel. I guess it just breaks down to whether you think like a capitalist or a communist.
YEAH to staying forever young and being white, male and without kids! No, honestly we don't have enough context. Maybe there simply wasn't anybody around willing to do the job before and if somebody would need it like in your example then maybe startup guy would "get fired"? Who knows? Context.
That's a bit different, also, have you considered that the other people were more experienced and better qualified so the manager used the age and need as an excuse to spare your feelings/morale?
* If OP doesn't do this, then he's a spoiled and far-removed brat who has no idea what it's like to be a real person working a normal job.
* If OP takes on a small and humbling side job, then he's obnoxious and selfish for taking away this job from someone who needs it.
* If OP volunteers for this job, then he's self-righteous and still selfish for taking away someone's job just so he can feel good and wake up early. Doesn't he know some people have no choice but to wake up at 5am and work all day to feed their family?!
