dlss
As for my moral argument, I invite you to read about the history of abortion, the history of abolition, and/or the history of America's war on drugs. I expect you will find abolition the easiest example to grok, since it's no longer a political issue. Note the moral arguments for abolition still stand, and yet it's no longer law.
If animals do it in nature, and humans do it with dangerous methods when denied access to safe methods, it's going to be with us until the end of time, regardless of law.
Let's face it, this is just another drug war. An opportunity for Republicans to deny Americans personal autonomy and liberty. A justification for state aggression against your neighbors and friends. Wake up.
If the goal isn't "Anonymity Online" (taken from torproject.org), what is Orchid's goal?
> afaik Tor still doesn't have a working iOS port
https://blog.torproject.org/tor-heart-onion-browser-and-more...
Browsing through the code, it looks like Orchid's xdai contract is https://blockscout.com/xdai/mainnet/address/0x6dB8381b2B41b7... -- which shows in-app purchases of bandwidth being a bit less than $75,000 total for the last two years. Is that right, or am I missing something?
> I think most projects that have "roadmaps" in this space are using it to cause people in the ecosystem to speculatively purchase large quantities of what should really be a "utility token".
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/orchid-protocol shows Orchid's trading volume as $22 million for just today...
"Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don't have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it's true. If you hire somebody without integrity, you really want them to be dumb and lazy."
[1] https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors...
[2] https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1...
What change in society would count as not tolerating these trolls?
1. My 1 year old cousin is likely to die somewhere between ~1.1 and 2 years old.
2. My 96 year old grandfather is likely to die somewhere between ~100 and ~2000(!) years old.
Naively I would have thought my 1 year old cousin would outlive my grandfather. I'm really glad I found this math to set me straight! Thank you OP!
Perhaps buy a radiation tester? https://smile.amazon.com/GQ-GMC-300E-Plus-Radiation-dosimete...
The only one I'm familiar with is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4WoeOkj2Ng ... which kind of left me with the opposite impression. Can you link to the ones you're talking about? I would love to feel better about his being fired.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
- Michael Crichton
(I'm sure you have other features, that was just the one that excited me personally)
What? I encourage you to read about prescription drug side effects. If a drug were safe, it would be over the counter rather than prescription. Prescription drugs are exactly the kind of harm/benefit bundle GP is describing.
I don't think this is accurate. Personally, I've had a lot of trouble finding people of either gender who are interested in electronics.
I might be overstepping here, but it sounds like maybe you should talk to you wife and see what can be done to minimize the negative externalities caused by your hobby? It's hard to imagine she would actually want to ruin your dreams. I don't have a wife, but I know my girlfriend became a lot more supportive once I started keeping half-finished projects in the spare bedroom, and started putting in an effort to clean up my projects a bit more before letting them out. Just my $0.02 obviously.
This is indeed baffling. My best guess: perhaps your error function was reversed? Getting to 90% loss sounds like it would require training.
Looking for symmetric universal moral principals sort of does seem to. Though I admit basically no form of government seems to head in that direction, as founding documents post-revolution are not really a form of government in my model.
Exactly. It's Samantha Bee's job to feed the polarization cycle. If she doesn't, who will?
> This is not by any means a dismissal, as it provides valuable insight into the behavior of human society, but viewing it as the beginning and end of economics will place massive limitations on any analysis.
My personal interest in economics has roughly nothing to do with understanding human behavior -- I'm interested in incentive structures/mechanism design, mathematical fairness, agency, decision theory, optimal play, optimally exploitative play, cooperation/coordination/defection in partial information games, etc. This is to say that, for me, economics becomes uninteresting as soon as you worry if human behavior matches the model. Econs are so much cooler than humans! It's much more fun to ask what they would do, and what can be done to improve their outcomes.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics
Yes, I am familiar, especially as it relates to faulty decision making in professional life (base rate neglect, availability bias, etc). I don't think he's considered to be part of the field, but I've also found George Polya's How to Solve it to be related here. He explicitly discusses heuristic search for math proofs, and how this can amount to a blind spot.
> It is a simple conclusion that follows from three premises
(This was what made me realize what had happened). My disagreement is with respect to the question of "can a fair game be created within an unfair game, even in a context where you can't correct historical unfairness?" -- to that I say yes (with my earlier caveats about physical limits of fairness in our world).
Perhaps now that I've explained more about my background and perspective, you can consider this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13442034) again from the perspective of "Will capitalism survive the robot revolution?" -- the econs I love will (I hope/expect) finally be a reasonable model of economic behavior. Therefore I hope capitalism will survive, since that would ensure I got to live in a good/fair world. If you are aware of some way in which a capitalist system, when populated by robots/econs, could be improved with respect to fairness, I'm skeptical but quite interested.
Re: the political question you asked. If there were a way to say for sure if wealth was unearned I'd absolutely support confiscating it, if not I'm skittish and afraid of causing more harm than good.
Agreed. I didn't say otherwise, I just also pointed out that there's evidence some of those biases are genetic.
> There is ample evidence that the American criminal justice system, for example, is biased at several levels.
I believe this should be fixed! I'm the person who linked the google formalism for modifying a model to be non-racist. This whole thread came from that.
> I see where you're coming from: at any discussion of bias, you would rather blame it on genetics, which means we as a society are not responsible for doing anything about it.
No. My position is that I want bankers to use a race-blinded models when deciding on loans. In general, where there is bias (especially where there is genetic/non-correctable bias), I believe the biased human should be replaced by a computer programmed to not have a bias.
I want this because I think the problem is real, I would like it solved, and I believe the other methods people propose (bias training, etc) are unlikely to work.
I also believe replacing as many humans as possible will not fix all the problems I imagine you are currently attributing to societal bias (ie I believe that some life decisions may well have a large genetic component). I do not view those "problems" as things to be solved, so much as deeply disturbing indications that free will does not exist. That in some sense you and I might be discussing optimization methods for player happiness in a zero player game. That in as much as happiness exists, I worry it is primarily found by embracing our genetic biases.
> I'm sure the people that have been forced into high-paying fields against their natural inclinations appreciate your feeling ill on their behalf, though. /s
People used to make arguments like this in defense of arranged marriages you know. Letting the heart decide isn't stupid.
Then, assuming he agrees with your above summary, I encourage both you and Amartya to locate the foundational assumption. It really would be big news to a lot of people.
> Regarding economics as a science, it is widely accepted by economists that it is not a precise science, and has no inviolable axioms like math
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_economics would be a good starting point if you are wondering at economic axioms, etc. The Austrian School generally did a good job building models worth thinking about, rather than devolving into econometric-style silliness.
> Any "just" and "fair" system could only begin by returning this wealth back to society.
A lot of us disagree.
Validate before building an MVP.
See: https://steveblank.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/customer-deve... -- company building happens at the end, not at the start.
