Diesel555

Washington captured many issues of the party system in his farewell address. This can relate to many times in history for both parties.

"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force—to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/W...

I really wish microeconomics was a high-school or secondary school required course. It's one of the most applicable to life and voters well-studied disciplines that describes the effects of certain actions towards or away from a competitive market, market elasticity and barriers to entry, explains positive and negative externalities of government action, and how those actions affect consumer pricing and supply (a lot of the topics here and below). Without studying this topic we view words with different underlying assumptions or definitions and it's a lot more effort / time / replies to not talk around each other. It's like two people who only use Windows for Instagram trying to argue about why Apt requiring Rust is good or bad. I'm not weighing in for or against the topic in this thread or its replies, just a plug to study Microeconomics if this stuff interests you!

That’s a fun topic. The US government pays just over 19k per person. This means you need to make 100-150k (I came up with 126 with a standard deduction and normal credits) to “break even.”

You do not understand microeconomics. No economist would ever advocate for free trade in an academic environment. Competitive markets are the goal. The older I get the more I think microeconomics should be a basic course for voters. All the things you list “production capacity, efficiency, cost, and technical know-how” are well studied.

While I agree the conclusion of the article is likely accurate, the arguments lack warrant.

“Since the eyes are directly connected to the brain, Loeffler encourages us to think about our eye health to ensure overall brain health.”

My arm is also connected to the brain. We can argue the definition of direct. Warrant connects the evidence to the claim. This article lacks warrant in many places.

"We should properly tax/negate negative externalities" in accordance with microeconomics. It's at the core of basic economics and both conservative and liberal economists would agree with this statement. It's a well studied field. The problem is policy. I often post this, but I really wish microeconomics was a required course in high school or primary. I find it to be one of the least understood of the well-established fields, and one that matters when we get older and vote or debate on these topics.

"We should properly tax/negate negative externalities" in accordance with microeconomics. It's at the core of basic economics and both conservative and liberal economists would agree with this statement. It's a well studied field. The problem is policy. I often post this, but I really wish microeconomics was a required course in high school or primary. I find it to be one of the least understood of the well-established fields, and one that matters when we get older and vote or debate on these topics.

> At least in the US government, whomever creates the document classifies the document

That’s just not true unless you mean they apply already established classifications on derivative content.

https://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html

Section 1.3 for the list of people that can classify things. The rest is “derivative” of an OCA’s decisions.

This is all covered in microeconomics. Competition is very good for society. Things that stop competition are bad and require government action. The scenario above is describing the behaviors of a “natural monopoly” due to the barriers to enter the market. As with all monopolies, regulation or some government action is normally required to promote competition and stop bad behavior (some examples of government actions are described in the link below / the root article is an example).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

I really wish microeconomics was a required course in high school or primary. I find it to be one of the least understood of the well-established fields, and one that matters when we get older and vote or debate on these topics.

I think microeconomics is an under appreciated class / study. Thanks for that point. If more people understood those concepts we could skip some of these basic arguments which is why I think people love HN. You can get to the meat of tech discussions without wasting time on the basics. And I wish we could do that with economic discussions.

But to add on - congestion is not just a negative externality problem - it’s a policy problem to get a throughput of people to a location that the road infrastructure cannot support and therefore must incentivize people to a new transportation method which I’m not sure has a solution outside of economic incentives (New York’s solution) or strict regulation (Beijing with no drive days based on license plate number). No solution is perfectly equitable or efficient. But it’s a fun policy academic discussion with a lot of data! I am biased towards the economic incentives based on studies of the two.

It does state as the only fix:

We recommend you use a different browser or disable the “EasyList Cookie” filter from your “Content Filtering” settings (found under “Settings” -> “Shields” in the Brave Browser).

That would lead one to believe it is Brave specific. But I can verify I’m getting this on Safari without a content blocker.

No, I’m receiving this same block notice from Safari on mobile with content blockers disabled in Italy by visiting cnn.com.

I found this page by googling the Brave block message on the website that had nothing to do with my browser. I was happy to see the first link was here.

Buying a house in Italy. All fees are much higher than America. Realtor is still 6% - but with the notary, purchase tax, etc I think I will be 10-15%

solving or working around software issues is for some reason more satisfying than fighting intentionally disabled, non documented, functions.

> Either they can't because of shareholder/equity owners pressure, or they won't, because they really don't care and just said it for PR

That is assuming the worst in people. Have you ever wanted to move onto something new? If you make something cool, it is not your lifelong obligation to oversee it.

> did they talk about using it as a display for a Mac?

Yes, in the keynote at 1:32:02. It discusses how looking at your computer then turns the Vision Pro into a display.

https://www.youtube.com/live/GYkq9Rgoj8E?feature=share

> I kept also-busy with woodworking projects

Why do programmers tend to enjoy woodworking? They have interesting parallels.

They are not categorized as a publisher. They receive legal protections as such. This will quickly evolve into a section 230 debate.

I do agree social media companies should be categorized as a publisher - or content providers, but they are not. I think changing section 230 would solve a lot of problems by removing very specific legal protections, which news companies do not receive, and help prevent clear issues such as knowingly promoting false information.

There are those that disagree with me. Problems exist with any solution such as who should judge what should not be allowed and would the counter devolve into an organization that could control information dissemination? A valid point. I think the answer is already out there - a very low standard (or to say another way the high burden of proof required) current news organizations are held to by law, which most seem not to debate is too restrictive, or some line between nothing and that.

There is a lot of academic discourse on this topic and I recommend researching 230 more. It’s a fascinating policy debate with pros and cons on both sides. It was written in 1996, the year the palm pilot and the Pentium 166MHz processor was introduced.

The actual statement portion after all the understandings

> THE DEFENDANT: From approximately March 2018 through November 2022, I worked at Alameda Research, a cryptocurrency trading firm principally owned by Sam Bankman-Fried. At Alameda Research, I first worked as a cryptocurrency trade and was later appointed by Mr. Bankman-Fried as the co-CEO and eventually CEO of Alameda Research Ltd., the subsidiary that housed the firm's main trading and market making operations. In those roles, I reported to Mr. Bankman-Fried. From 2019 through 2022, I was aware that Alameda was provided access to a borrowing facility on FTX.com, the cryptocurrency exchange run by Mr. Bankman-Fried. I understood that FTX executives had implemented special settings on Alameda's FTX.com account that permitted Alameda to maintain negative balances in various fiat currencies and crypto currencies. In practical terms, this arrangement permitted Alameda access to an unlimited line of credit without being required to post collateral, without having to pay interest on negative balances and without being subject to margin calls or FTX.com's liquidation protocols. I understood that if Alameda's FTX accounts had significant negative balances in any particular currency, it meant that Alameda was borrowing funds that FTX's customers had deposited onto the exchange. While I was co-CEO and then CEO, I understood that Alameda had made numerous large illiquid venture investments and had lent money to Mr. Bankman-Fried and other FTX executives. I also understood that Alameda had financed these investments with short-term and open-term loans worth several billion dollars from external lenders in the cryptocurrency industry. When many of those loans were recalled by lenders in and around June 2022, I agreed with others to borrow several billion dollars from FTX to repay those loans. I understood that FTX would need to use customer funds to finance its loans to Alameda. I also understood that many FTX customers invested in crypto derivatives and that most FTX customers did not expect that FTX would lend out their digital asset holdings and fiat currency deposits to Alameda in this fashion. From in and around July 2022 through at least October 2022, I agreed with Mr. Bankman-Fried and others to provide materially misleading financial statements to Alameda's lenders. In furtherance of this agreement, for example, we prepared certain quarterly balance sheets that concealed the extent of Alameda's borrowing and the billions of dollars in loans that Alameda had made to FTX executives and to related parties. I also understood that FTX had not disclosed to FTX's equity investors that Alameda could borrow a potentially unlimited amount from FTX, thereby putting customer assets at risk. I agreed with Mr. Bankman-Fried and others not to publicly disclose the true nature of the relationship between Alameda and FTX, including Alameda's credit arrangement. I also understood that Mr. Bankman-Fried and others funded certain investments in amounts more than $10,000 with customer funds that FTX had lent to Alameda. The investments were done in the name of Alameda instead of FTX in order to conceal the source and nature of those funds. I am truly sorry for what I did. I knew that it was wrong. And I want to apologize for my actions to the affected customers of FTX, lenders to Alameda and investors in FTX. Since FTX and Alameda collapsed in November 2022, I have worked hard to assist with the recovery of assets for the benefit of customers and to cooperate with the government's investigation. I am here today to accept responsibility for my actions by pleading guilty.

You are confusing economists with politicians. I can point you to many conservative economists who recommend good policy - whether or not that is implemented is a different story. Economists are advisors, not decision makers, in this context.

We also have policy problems. As the article states this problem is easy to solve. It’s not a technical problem, it’s a policy problem.

It’s not an ideal problem. Even very conservative economists would agree that there exists a negative externality in the transaction between the call center and the telecom company on the person being called where there should be some cost on the transaction to account for that externality.

So, it’s not even a conservative liberal thing (intentionally not using party names as those names may not reflect conservative or liberal ideals). It’s a policy problem. Write your member of congress.

Anyone claiming “deregulation” for the names sake is speaking rhetoric without knowledge. The most conservative of economists understand the concept of externalities. Call centers bear a clear externality. The business transaction between the telecom Company and the caller bears a negative externality on the callee who is not a member of that transaction. Conservative economists would also agree with regulation to at least impose a cost on the transaction to reflect that externality. The problem is with policy and lobbying as you stated - write your member of congress.

News and anecdotal data are terrible sources. Point him to well-researched articles that do their best to show causation. But please don't just claim that extreme flooding must be caused by global warming without any evidence of causation when there are many variables in our world.

I did a data science project to show that the earth was warming (no cause implied) to counteract arguments that it wasn't. There is good research out there - use it.

I feel like most counter arguments generally fall into the category of X is okay because Y is worse. I find myself more and more stating that the two points are not mutually exclusive and that they can overlap. Both can be bad.

I make this point while recognizing that I agree national security has acceptable carbon footprint costs, while at the same time not liking arguments in support of that cost based not the premise that other policies are worse.

Even the world leaders need to meet in person. When you have people with that level of impact on policy - virtual meetings just do not have the same effect. They need to meet in person, talk, have side-bars, read body-language, get a drink together, do human things while solving human problems.

Jadi is a real human being in danger.

Edit: I also realize your account is a new throwaway. I’m curious why the multiple star wars dehumanizing posts on this thread?

And I struggle to explain why I use the word dehumanizing. But it’s something similar to taking a real world awful situation (just put yourself in his shoes), and deflecting that thought process to the fact his name is similar to Jedi and we have hope for him (puns a plenty). It takes the thought process from him being a real human in trouble - to this joke that distances us from his humanity. I don’t know, maybe someone else can explain it better.

I'm not sure I agree with the inhumane (flight pay is an incentive pay where without it pilots still make the same pay as the rest of the military their rank), but I can confirm the stupidity of the policy. Usually anyone medically interacting with a fighter pilot on an issue that could be grounding must spend some time gaining trust for the pilot to be completely open with them. The result of this policy is normally that pilots are completely fine - until they are completely broken.