ethanhunt_
It's terrible that as you say your family has no country to go back to. I am fighting hard to ensure that doesn't happen to my family.
The US is a nation and a home for its people, it's not an economic zone for anyone in the world to come and get rich. Everyone like you can go live somewhere else as rootless cosmopolitans surrounded by people who have no common ancestry or heritage.
I wonder if someone could fork it and take all the people from Mozilla who are actually contributing to the technical mission (a small group these days!). Brendan Eich would've been perfect for this, but he's got his own browser now and wisely chose to use chromium as the base.
> I don't see that all of the great masses of Cpp code and libraries would be rewritten or annotated to use these new features.
It's much more likely and tractable that C++ libraries will be annotated than that they'll be rewritten from scratch in Rust.
If it's just left alone, the market will react to this. If a 1BR apt costs $2500/mo, then the price of a sandwich might go to $25 to be able to pay that sandwich-makers $75k/yr wage. And if SFers don't like paying $25 for a sandwich then they can vote for more density.
And here we are.
Isn't saying that a fire-able offense at Google? I hope YC is really sure that these are anonymous because if she gets doxxed her career is over.
Sounds like a study that finds people who buy Rolexes live longer. It's not the Rolex: it's that only rich people who have money to take care of themselves well can afford a Rolex.
Not that this changes the rough idea here which is that someone changing a license plate on a car shouldn't have a gun pointed at her and have to depend more on her de-escalation skills than the officer's.
Obviously. The point of my OP was that there shouldn't be liabilities to advising the president (liabilities for endorsement are another matter).
> You're repeating yourself needlessly.
Because the central point of our disagreement is whether being on the economic council is an endorsement or not. Musk and Kalanick both being on the council and loudly leaving it, but not telling any of the public that the advisory council is an empty photo-op seems unlikely to me. So I wanted to get your explanation for why that would happen, but you twice didn't respond to the question.
- executive power should be wielded (WITH | WITHOUT) input from leaders of the economy
I'm not arguing that we should elect Trump. It's done. Now that he wields exec power, you think that "WITHOUT" is the better choice above? Why?
No it's not. The president has an enormous jurisdiction, and you can cooperate on some issues and abstain on others. And you can advise on all of them.
> there is some objectively good direction for the the economy as a whole which is clear to all
It is clear to all that the economy is best off if the titans of our economy give their thoughts to those making policy and decision. I'm not saying everyone has to help the pres do whatever he wants, but withholding advise from the president in the area of economy because you disagree with his stance on immigration is nothing but spite that harms the country.
Good democracy:
- fierce competition in the election
- choose winner
- work together as much as possible to do what's best for the country
Replacing step 3 with "do as much as possible to obstruct the winner and hurt the country until we win again" is stupid. It slows us down and weakens the functioning of the democracy.
Nothing wrong with anyone saying "We are fully against policy X". There is something wrong with "We are fully against policy X, so we will harm unrelated things: Y and Z (the economy in this case)".
People trying to punish the CEOs who advise him are harmful to our country, and worse than the politicians that make decisions to further their own careers instead of do what's best for their country/state/county.
The magnitude of CAC and LTV are only meaningful together. A ferrari dealership might have a $5000 cost to acquire a customer and that would be a bargain, because their LTV is $250k+.
The five-minutes-of-hate culture and public lynching culture is dangerous and has to end. In a year some contrarian will post an article on Medium with the title "Kalanick was unfairly ousted" and it'll be posted on reddit/r/TIL and the tide will turn as all the people whose opinions are an expression of whatever made it to the frontpage of their favorite aggregators reverse their opinion to fit the status quo.
The "4chan parable" is saying that though.
> The nation-state arose as a protective force to ensure that violence occurred only within well-defined wars at the edges of their territories, and citizens could basically count on peace when not at war. It basically succeeded at that, but it succeeded so well that the "battlegrounds" now have nothing to do with physical location and often little to do with physical force.
This is an interesting idea, so suppose the nation state is eliminated. Wouldn't there just be a new equivalent of the nation state that arises that is based not around physical borders but around digital borders in some way? People are always going to disagree about fundamental ideas, and they're going to band together to protect their ability to live according to those ideas. Which brings us back to the article's point #1: "Nation states, true to their name, tend to emphasize the interests of a particular nation above others.". We'll just end up with that again but instead of the US sanctioning Russia, we're going to have 4chan, reddit, and instagram launching DDoS attacks against each others' users.
Obviously that wouldn't happen, but there's more discreet ways of killing someone than that. Obama has an enormous amount of people assassinated without trial, including American citizens. It's more than just a thought experiment.
> I wouldn't trust the sources on that Like I said, I think there's no good source for it. That the highest levels of the US govt considered the idea of assassinating Assange because he is damaging to the image of America is plausible though.
Remembering the good vs the bad probably aligns with someone being naturally upbeat or sad (glass full vs half-full personality).
Also I'm skeptical of that Democrats and Repubs line. In the good old days they got into fist fights on the congress floor.
The example proves you wrong. Without another gov't protecting him, Assange would absolutely be in a US jail right now, or dead. I didn't say that the Ecuadorian military kept him safe. It is the nation states playing against each other that has kept him safe. Whether that play is social or economic or militaristic is just a minor footnote.
> He might as well be holed up in a private citizen's condo in California, if he could find a private citizen who was willing to take him.
Not an acceptable alternative. Gov't would find him. Very unlikely he would make it out of the airport. You have to have the power of the nation state to play against the other nation state. Ecuador provides that in this case. It doesn't always work (US rolls over nations in middle east all the time), but it does work most of the time most of the people (for some definition of "most of the people" which would be people who live in nations that play the nation state game).