The motivation is good, the implementation sucks.

> requiring disclosure of AI-altered listings

So all the landlords will just disclose it and everyone will continue to be deceived. Just like every other picture on Meta platforms these days says it is AI-edited. That didn't make the feed any better; it's still a feed full of disclosed AI crap.

Why is this mayor so fucking chicken to just BAN AI-altered listings altogether? Have jail time and $1M fines for it. Fines big enough that you would risk losing your property altogether. We need more real leaders.

▲

idiotsecant 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Relax. This post is wildly aggressive for no reason.

▲

rjh29 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Choice of tone can communicate the same thing as 3-4 paragraphs of calmer discourse. Should we ban the use of tone? Personally I appreciated it and the frustration was palpable.

▲

qurren 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm just tired of regulators realizing the right things to regulate but not implementing them correctly.

Job postings must include a salary range? Who the fuck thought of that? Did they even ask a mathematician whether providing the min() and max() would be useful rather than mean(), median(), and std(), which is what the law really should require?

▲

sgerenser an hour ago | parent | next [-]

For many tech jobs, that still wouldn’t help much. Salary alone is often half or less of total compensation. They’d also need to include stock grants and bonuses for the comparison to be meaningful.

	▲	qurren 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Good point. Absolutely include mean, mean, std of stock grants, bonuses, and sign-on bonuses by law as well.

▲

sokoloff 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How many people who are considering hiring their first few employees have an idea of what the minimum they’d likely pay and the maximum they’d likely pay for those new positions? Almost all.

Now how many could even tell you the rough definition of standard deviation, let alone be able to give a value for it? Almost none.

As an applicant for a single opening, it’s not obvious that standard deviation is helpful either.

For normal people, I think that min and max are the two most practical and understandable measures.

▲

qurren 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> As an applicant for a single opening

You're nitpicking at details. I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out how to write it so that this isn't an issue, but it seems you're more interested in "taking the other side" rather than thinking together about how to increase job compensation transparency.

Here's the problem with minimums: Companies posting ranges of $100K-$900K. Yes, I've seen them.

Here's a hint for everyone else: For small companies and single openings they can just aggregate mean/median/std by job level (E5 average, M1 average), or aggregate horizontally by team (HR average, ops average), whatever. Anything to increase transparency. If you're criticizing the math instead of building on the math, you're clearly against job transparency.

	▲	sokoloff 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I’m in favor of transparency (and consistently argue for that and act accordingly inside my own company). I’m against adding information that will confuse far more people than it will help. A company listing $100k-$900k per year for a role that’s not commissioned sales is exhibiting malicious compliance and should be dealt with directly as such rather than adding an additional nearly useless measure to somehow help smoke that out or avoid it.

▲

master-lincoln 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

we need less normal people