antidesitter

> I can google IEnumerable a lot more easily than "what is -> after ::"

That's not really a fair comparison. You're comparing an identifier in one language with the basic syntax of the other. The correct comparison would be whether : {} <> [] , ++ ; & * and other syntax structures of the C-like counterpart are more easily searchable or understandable than those of Haskell, which I don't think is the case.

I already addressed that under the very comment you linked to. The fact that you readily accuse me of breaking the rules but then consider discussing the merits of that accusation as "too tiring" and "playing a game of cross-examination" is very concerning.

Also, notice how some of my comments are, without any valid reason, being falsely flagged and silently hidden from view. What do you make of that?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20379602

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20378337

I have no intention of emailing you to "appeal" this retaliatory ban, because you've made it clear that you will ban anyone for questioning the merit of your accusations. You've made a mockery of the HN moderation process.

> Your first comment upthread was obviously unsubstantive

Which one? The one asking for a source on an incredible claim? That's not welcome on HN?

Regarding the cases you linked to, only the first and last are valid. The second and third (which are the same, so I have no idea why you posted two links) don't violate any HN guidelines, as a careful reading of the conversation would make obvious.

Don’t be ridiculous, dang. Requesting sources for an incredible and unsubstantiated claim is in no way “dismissive, hostile, and/or unsubstantive”.

> You've been doing it a lot

I don’t think so. Did you have some particular examples in mind?

So no sources, just a downvote. As expected.

> Isn't the American president a barometer or descriptive reflection of the democratic population?

For a sufficiently loose definition of “reflection”, yes. For a sufficiently tight definition of “reflection”, no.

> does one define American conservatism by reciting a prescription of what people ought be when they say they're conservative

One defines conservatism by a set of values and policies. The same goes for liberalism, fascism, communism, environmentalism, nationalism, etc.

It’s clickbait. These experiments show no inconsistency in quantum mechanics, which can be easily seen if you think about the whole system as a single wavefunction under unitary evolution. And as someone else mentioned, “observers” are part of that wavefunction. Fundamentally, they follow the same rules.

You’re equating the president with conservatism?

To give you an idea of what your comment sounds like:

Does the content of the beliefs matter? Is it easier to be tolerant of free speech than Communism?

That’s a very strange reading of the parent comment.

> I think "successful" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this sentence.

How?

> A free market is one in which, once uniform or standard rules or requirements are established

This is not correct. A free market is a market that is free from government interference. Such rules or requirements can constitute government interference. Ergo, they can fail to yield a free market.

To see the absurdity of the claim that "uniform or standard rules or requirements" always yield a free market, consider the "uniform rule" given by the price floor I described above.

> Even within a so-called free market, numerous market failures may exist

This is irrelevant to a discussion about whether the term "free market" is meaningful. It's moving the goalposts.

> coercion, fraud and misrepresentation, capital concentration, systemic risk, capture and corruption, numerous parties unable to participate in wholly market-based transactions (?)

These are not "market failures", and many of the failures you described are really the same (Gresham's Law and information asymmetry). That aside, one must take into account whether the alternatives are worse: in other words, government failure. For example, on your point about "rent-seeking and rents":

Alexander Hamilton of the World Bank Institute argued in 2013 that rent extraction positively correlates with government size even in stable democracies with high income, robust rule of law mechanisms, transparency, and media freedom. [1]

> What you're describing

What am I describing?

[1] Small Is Beautiful, at Least in High-Income Democracies: The Distribution of Policy-Making Responsibility, Electoral Accountability, and Incentives for Rent Extraction. Alexander Hamilton. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/195551468332410332...

You didn't say it was possible (which almost anything is in this context). You said it was inevitable.

If such conditions change the price of labour, for example, they are by definition an interference with price mechanisms. The magnitude of the interference will depend on the magnitude of this change. For example, setting a price floor for labour at $0.03/hr will have a smaller effect than setting that price floor at $30/hr.

> whenever "prevent competitors from reaching the market" is on the table

So when you don’t have a free market?

> Someone will point at the GDP going up and say this justifies literally everything that corporations do. Someone will draw comparisons between two lines on a graph and say this is why Facebook never did anything wrong.

Except literally nobody will do that, except the caricatures in the fantasy of your own mind.

> Starting from a totally free market, regulatory capture is inevitable.

How?

> free markets require a ton of government-backed regulations

What’s this “ton of government-backed regulations” you’re referring to?

> Radical advocates of free markets... always seem to forget the violent nature of humans.

What kind of “radical” are you talking about here? Anarchists?

> "Free Market" is a terrible term, the freedom of the market needs to be defined.

Free market: A market that is free from government interference, prices rising and falling in accordance with supply and demand.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20...

> Does the market a business exists in give you the freedom to not be burgled?

Yes, it gives you that freedom.

> Does it give you the freedom to not have to pay for healthcare for your employees?

Yes, it gives you that freedom.

> Does it provide some level of free training to those employees?

Are horses brown? Depends on the horse. Does that mean “horse” is a “terrible term”? No.

> If you're a fisherman and there's another fisherman does the market ensure that other fisherman won't exhaust the ecosystem?

No, because the lack of property rights in that situation creates a tragedy of the commons.

Elaborate?

I didn’t visualize it when I first read your comment, but I can visualize it if prompted. This might be because information can be parsed and stored more quickly in abstract terms, that is, without visualization.

Read the grandparent comment.

> democracies need to benefit a majority

Not at all. See “concentrated benefits and diffuse costs”.

> Breaking up Ma Bell as an example.

The Ma Bell monopoly was created by government in the first place.

> corporation that is in no way on the hook for anything towards the common man.

It is, because corporations have stronger incentives than governments to benefit the common man.

It’s actually the opposite. States reduce choices available to customers. See my sibling comment for an example: the cable industry.

> chosen for you based on where you live

That’s right. By the government [0][1].

[0] https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-ju...

[1] http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/02/19/whos-afraid-o...

No. It’s usually much worse, actually.

Not everyone shares your adoration for "the nation state".

I misread the comment.