hfdh434535

I apologize for not being clear enough, and I think I misread your intentions. There are people on HN who believe the government could be abolished tomorrow and replaced with private services, including a private military force, and that this would make everyone more free, since the invisible hand of the market would do the job of protecting the rights of the ordinary people. I mistook you for one of those people.

Governments aren't fundamentally needed per se to create a free market. But rules are needed. And whatever system we have to enforce those rules would resemble a defacto government. How that governments power is distributed, who's interests it represents, and how far it goes in regulating the market may vary.

Without someone enforcing rules to keep monopolies in check, I think those monopolies would become defacto governments. And they wouldn't be democratic. This is what I mean (but did not carefully express) when I said that some government intervention in the markets are needed to prevent the powerful from take advantage of the weak. (And it can go the other way too... governments tilting the scale in favor of existing powerful interests.)

Good point, and we need to recognize that every so-called free market still relies on governments to enforce the rules (to enforce contracts, to issue currency, to protect against fraud, etc). If governments disappeared tomorrow, we would not have a free market utopia spring up in it's place. Instead we'd have a no-rules situation where the powerful could take advantage of the weak. Some other system, potentially worse than what we already have, would fill the power vacuum.

Natural monopolies, by definition, arise from natural market forces, and thus do not rely on government intervention or unfair business practices to suppress competition. (That doesn't mean natural monopolies always compete fairly or never engage in regulatory capture. Only that these are not necessary for them to become monopolies.) Railroads are a commonly cited example. Today, the network effects of digital platforms are thought to give rise to monopolies (or at least high market concentration).

People who usually ask "give me an example of a monopoly not maintained by the government" are usually not asking in good faith. Many laissez faire capitalists explain away natural monopolies, or pretend they don't exist. So perhaps you expected this answer, and are already prepared to dismiss it.

RSS was never really alive to begin with.

This person had a terrible experience at work, and you telling them "don't vent" is condescending. Our industry has a problem with toxic work environments, and we need to talk about it.

Thanks!

I don't need to memorize anything. Information I use on a daily basis is easily recalled. Information I use infrequently can be looked up on my phone.

Spaced repetition might help if I was studying for a test or preparing for a game show.

"people need to improve constantly" No they don't. Plenty of people happy to be as they are. When you're constantly running on this treadmill of self improvement, you'll probably get depressed real quick.

It's not so much that we don't want to learn from someone we dislike. It's that we don't want to scour the haystack of awful traits to find a needle we can compliment.

There's nothing wrong with making cool woven textiles. I suspect if someone had a problem with your comment, it's because it sounds like you're workshopping a startup idea. I get that this is a very startuppy place, but even other startup founders probably get exhausted by all the business ideas shared on this website. (As the saying goes, ideas are cheap and execution is what matters)

I'm not saying you did anything wrong. Just sharing why I think your comment was downvoted.

I think we agree, and you should heed your own advice not to assume what someone else thinks.

What I mean by mental models: Some producers rely on their favorite DAW's workflow. I'd never tell someone to ditch the DAW they're more productive in. This is not a judgement. I'm not implying you don't "get" Ardour. On the contrary, I'm endorsing your approach: choose the DAW that meets your needs.

I said Ardour had improved a lot for me. I never said it would work for you. My comment was for the benefit of other people here. Giving a counterexample to your experience. No DAW is good for everyone. Ardour doesn't work for you. It does work for me. And if someone's looking for a DAW, I think Ardour is worth trying. I wouldn't tell you to try it.

And you already know it doesn't work for you, so you don't need to try again. I support you in sticking to the tools that you're most productive in. Nothing is more annoying than someone dictating what tools you use to do your job.

During the 2016 primary, I'd argue Bernie Sanders got more coverage than normal. He was behind in polling and in delegate count. He should have been getting none. But he got more than what I think his candidacy deserved, since a horse race is good for ratings, and the story of him vs Clinton made for the perfect one. This is all based on my observations, and no empirical data however.

I do think Sanders was shortchanged of some press coverage in this primary. I think that's changing as his chances of winning go up. I hope he's covered extensively, because I don't think most people are aware of some of his negatives, and as a front funner, his candidacy deserves our scrutiny.

You make a good point that there is an oligopoly of corporate press. I think that's something harmful to our democracy, and something we should be concerned about. I'm not sure what the solution is. For now, I just donate to public radio.

I'm sorry - why is Yang entitled to a place in the conversation? I wish his campaign got more attention too. But the lack of coverage he's getting seems related to the fact that he is not well known, he is not as popular as the other candidates, and his ideas are not yet part of the mainstream discourse. You're not entitled to equal time in media coverage because you declared your candidacy.

Ideally, journalists would cover the topics they think are important to their audiences. We know this doesn't play out in practice. But even in an ideal world, I don't see Yang getting more coverage.

I would agree, re: rough edges, if we were talking about Ardour 2 or 3, which both missed some important features and weren't as stable as I'd like. But in the last few years, ardour has improved. I do most of my work in it now. Would recommend it to anyone who wants a FLOSS DAW and isn't too dependent on mental models from other audio software.

If anything, LMMS has the rough edges. The interface lacks polish and consistency. There are some awkward things about using it (why do I have to make a blank bar before I copy and paste a bar into it?). And I've noticed some glitchy behavior - for instance, I just made a ZynAddSubFX patch that sounded different as a plugin in LMMS than when I used it in Zyn's own application. Strange behavior like that, but fortunately it's rare.

But all that considered, LMMS is still great, and I appreciate the work it's authors put into it. I don't think of it as a daw; more of a sequencer. But if your music is 100% digital synths and samples, it serves all your needs.

Right now I'm using: LMMS (sequencer), Ardour (daw), JAMin (mastering suite), and Audacity (swiss army knife). I like Reaper. I've used ableton live many times, and I still don't get it - I guess the workflow is optimized for live mixing? I found it less than ideal for recording in a studio.

I think the other replies are correct, and this is nothing to be alarmed about. But I don't think you should be downvoted just for asking. Nazis are using new dogwhistles all the time, and infiltrating forums like HN. I don't blame you for having your guard up.

Disney is an entertainment world leader. There's no reason to think their approach would work well for a university.

Disney's corporate culture encompasses more than what the company believes. Rather, their culture encompasses everything about the company's approach. It doesn't sound like that's what's being discussed at these workshops. If the slogans aren't being matched with changes in leadership or changes in policy, they are just slogans.

You're right about a mission statement's intended purpose. But in practice, mission statements usually have no impact on a company.

You say the author must want something else that leadership is offering. That is not necessarily the case. It sounds to me like the author thinks the university's culture is already good, and doesn't need work.

We're talking about a suicide, so there is possibility for physical harm.

(I'm not at all saying TikTok should be responsible for this person's suicide. Only that moderation of online platforms can have real physical consequences. When moderators respond appropriately to posts involving suicide, stalking, and child pornography, they can help prevent abuse in the physical world.)

Buyers and Lenders are in fact, colossal fools. People build in floodplains all the time.

I'm a little unclear on the specifics too, even after reading the article. The article says "majority employee-owned company" So Cards Against Humanity still retains some ownership in it I presume.

Here's one possibility: Maybe they bought ClickHole, and gifted over 50% of shares to the employees?

No but it would be great if they'd stop profiting off lies.

Facebook claims to care about climate change: https://sustainability.fb.com/

But if they are taking money to help people deny it, then the incentives don't line up. This can't be good, right?

The word 'capitalism' appears nowhere in the article. This article is about the effects of consolidation and monopsony in book publishing. I don't think your comment was written in good faith.