NotAnEconomist
> we mean intellectual interest, not all kinds of interest
> For example, there is social interest (the sort of thing that leads to celebrity gossip).
> These things all have their place, but not here.
I'd challenge the idea that this got upvoted for intellectual interest or that it belongs here.
It's not merely predicated on a utilitarian ethical viewpoint, it assumes that we've accurately accounted for costs of the options (eg, second and third order effects) when deciding rather than merely justifying our preferences with biased models.
Empirically, the second (biased models) happens considerably more often than the first (accurate accounting) -- to the point that even if you're a utilitarian, you have to admit it doesn't work in practice. You simply can't make the required benefit calculations for utilitarianism.
This is something businesses get wrong a lot: their numerical justification is actually a reflection of the biases of their staff, rather than an accurate accounting of the options.
They're not going to have to re-issue shares at a lower price; they're going to get bailed out by the taxpayers.
The conditions for government money should be:
1. All current debt is converted into shares, erasing payback preferences and on-going payments to creditors.
2. Companies must issue new shares as collateral to the government at current market rate, in exchange for the money.
3. Rather than repayment, the government will sell the shares on the open market in years 2-6 (a 5 year window).
4. All share buybacks at the company are banned for a period of 10 years.
It's okay to nationally support critical businesses, but make the shareholders take it in the wallet for their reckless business practices leading up to this.
They took a gamble by buying shares instead of saving -- let them take the hit for losing.
Normal deaths are 2.8M/year.
There's 330M people in the US. At 70% infection, that's 230M people. At 1% mortality, that's 2.3M excess deaths.
That's 80% of the normal deaths for a year; and since other causes of death haven't stopped... we get 180% for the year, or "twice as many".
These early RNA-based replicators would go on to become more complicated, first developing a protective barrier and then specialized organelles.
As a byproduct of that process, viruses developed which could interact with organelles (or just the soup inside a cell) to reproduce themselves without being part of the host "genetic code".
In approximate complexity order:
- self-replicating compound, in solution with precursors
- viroid
- virus
- bacteria
- archaea
- eukaryota
From that perspective, hiding viroids (or similar simple replicators) in comets and boosting them into other systems would be a relatively efficient way to "seed" life around the cosmos.
We've seen from CNN and Google that their views don't match society at large, and they're happy to use their positions of influence to "correct" society.
That's what caused CNN's ratings to collapse, and Google to face both a lawsuit (PragerU) and investigation (from Congress).
Did either stop them? Of course not -- they know better than you!
(If anyone wonders why my posts are dead -- it's because HN employs the same kind of Overton censorship, under the guise of policing tone.)
Something I got from a book on negotiating:
It doesn't matter how good of a negotiator you are, if you develop a reputation for being a jerk, you're going to fail.
Why?
Because for every room you're in being the best negotiator, your reputation is in ten, negotiating the other way and talking you out of deals you didn't even know about.
Conversely, if you develop a reputation for being a reliable partner and a fair dealer, then your reputation will do the hard work for you. People will talk you into deals without your input, because they want to work with people like that.
Punch back, especially upwards.
Know an analyst at the investment bank with the largest holding in your company.
Being in the top 10% of them puts you into global fractional percentages.
If it's not soccer, having done it likely puts you in fraction-of-fraction land.
> Most sexual assaults are committed by people who are known to the victims, and there might be electronic proof of friendly communications between them. As a result, according to Victim Support, a nonprofit group in England and Wales, the new policy could discourage victims from reporting, fearing that they will not be believed.
> But the form was criticized because of the possible repercussions for victims who refuse to lay bare their digital lives: The police and prosecutors might drop their cases.
The opposition is just nonsense.
If you complain a crime has been committed, it's always been expected that your property can be searched for evidence, and that if you refuse to cooperate, they might not proceed with your case.
If you claim that an assault happened on your property, but refuse to allow police to investigate because it might reveal exculpatory evidence or unrelated things you don't want found, they're likely to drop your case as well.
I'm tired of these advocates for regressive policies using victims as macabre totems for their causes:
There's a reason we require police to be able to investigate, and it's a good one.
Repeated surveys show that the identitarian left accounts for about 8% of the population, and that their views are over represented in media, while people are genuinely afraid of being publicly lynched for saying the wrong thing.
The entire #walkaway movement started because of that.
Is that a problem?
I mean, the same thing happens with literal surgeons/doctors and residency, where their early years of career eventually end and they expect a mid-level position in the organization.
It sounds like a healthy industry that juniors/apprentices work under journeymen and masters at a large organization early in their career, then move up or branch out after a few years.
I'm not sure why companies expect to be able to cost-optimize away a functioning economy, but remain in business.
> [...]
> Where else do we have a group where everyone can be held accountable?
Churches.
They have their problems, but when you hear conservatives lament the breakdown in organized religion, what they're upset about is the breakdown in that system of tiered social pressures and expectations.
I don't know how to reinvent that in a more egalitarian way -- or any way that avoids the problems organized religion (and plenty of other large organizations) have had.
My big application has a dozen packages, one of which defines generic cloud constructs that host and deploy the other packages as a distributed service.
If we wanted to switch clouds, we'd just have to re-implement the constructs we use for a new cloud; generic things like "ingress data pipeline", which contain dozens of AWS resources each, but have a semantic grouping and defined permissions boundaries.
But we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
TypeScript, for instance, is a much better development experience in terms of language constructs, but that only makes the package management situation stand out more.
But the Roman empire lasted fifteen hundred years, while the republic only lasted five hundred -- as a classic example.
Do you have evidence for this?
The evidence I've seen, say, comparing Scandinavian women to Eastern European women, indicates that there are sex-correlated trends in life choices, eg about career.
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-ge...
To be fair, there's a lot of nice locations outside of major cities.
But I agree with you that people tend to congregate around job markets and money pools -- and I think that's precisely what has the wealthy concerned and looking for new models, because the attractive forces in the current paradigm lead to unsustainable attractive blobs.
Those cities themselves are unsustainable: SF, Portland, and Seattle are all literal shitholes, due to failed civic leadership and uneconomic policies.
As a civilization, we need to figure out how to reduce the pressure to collect in a handful of places, and spread ourselves back over multiple locations and jurisdictions -- because it's clear that's a better plan.
Our current system is optimized for a few major players, and it's collapsing. They're right to worry, and try to adjust it.
Figuring out how to get people to live in already affordable places is the only way to reduce the pressure on those cities and create housing affordable and livable for average people.
Mass migration of the poor, who have second and third generations at higher-than-host-normal birthrates sounds like a major trigger of this kind of summary collapse.
It both directly increases inequality and secondarily increases inequality by taxing the middle class harder, at the same time it causes a population bloom.
Under this HANDY model, the mass migration in response to stalled US population growth could be the proximate trigger for a US social collapse.
"Well, your construction firm is well-established and routinely delivers projects on time and under budget, but for this job, we need to know that you believe in our mission -- that deeply impacts your ability to frame walls and pour concrete!"
Why can't I just be a professional tradesman?
Because we're not talking about an abstract situation of sans evidence accusations, and because that's already a problem -- even without eyewitness testimony being admissible.
We're talking about the different rates of bad things we can have in real compromises we can enact for real situations: if you go so far towards never convicting the innocent that you never convict violent home invasions, society will break down.
You can think that's justice, I was just connecting the choice with the outcome.
The failure to prosecute the case of someone attacking someone else in their home merely creates an incentive for people to enact more violence in response, because the system fails to ensure baseline safety and won't be able to hold them accountable for their revenge.
Punishment for violence against others is required to have a peaceable society.
You can argue what you are, but you're advocating for a world of anarchy and uncontested violence.
> The male-female ratio in higher education has been steadily moved in favor of the females ever since the 1970s. Total enrollment figures show that females outnumbered their male counterparts for the first time in the late 1970s, and they have steadily increased their numerical advantage ever since. The superiority first came in public universities, but soon private universities saw female enrollment surpass male enrollment.
University feminism has been a majority power movement for an entire generation.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female...
I'll just note that we're two decades into this one.
That's a non-trivial modification, even before talking about the processor upgrades required to actually utilize that information and do local processing.
Your suggestion would drive the cost of an Echo from $30 to $300.