itsumoiru

I think most people equate "bicycles are dangerous" with "cycling is dangerous", which seems perfectly reasonable to me. What matters is whether you'll get hurt using a bicycle, not the pedantry of whether the bicycle itself is the problem.

This isn't quite dumping. It was more about achieving the scale necessary to make it usable. If there are no drivers, there are no customers. With no customers, who would drive?

As you mentioned, the data processing inequality[1] applies here, but I imagine synthetic data could help training squeeze out more from the existing data.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_processing_inequality

"The people" are not one. It's entirely possible to have an oppressive democracy.

> I've seen people say that apartments that are being provided to the homeless for free should have granite countertops or GTFO

This is a common problem in American policy. You're going to have the thing and it's going to be nice, or you're going to be priced out of having it at all.

See minimum floor space regulations, (non-fire related) residential occupancy limits, regulations requiring certain coverage in medical insurance plans, etc. There is a reason that short term insurance plans (STLDIs) that are not subject to as many regulations are much cheaper.

> those paying in to the system today acquiesced to the plan...

No, they didn't acquiesce to anything. They were required to pay whether they wanted to or not.

I read the parent "except" as "the above is true, but..." not as "in all Englishes except American English"

There's a culture of forced retirement there too, so it's not at all surprising. Pay generally increases with age so Japanese companies want people to retire.

Whoever has the most USD cash. (In proportion to their total wealth) most certainly not the "rich".

Not original poster, but I presume that the answer would be "of course not".

> My fallacy is that there is a billion things that I am good at, but I don't consider them difficult (how could they be, if I am good at them)

I see you've rediscovered Rothbard's law: "People tend to specialise in what they're worst at." (Because anything too easy seems like it's not worth doing)

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jul/27/change-...

Doesn't seem very different from https://artofproblemsolving.com/texer which has been around for quite a while.

The most enthusiastic lockdown supporters are unlikely to be the ones that can't afford food now. Much more likely to be people reading HN or writing for the NYT.

I am currently in this class and can confirm that navigating the codebase is a nightmare. The specifications we are given in the relevant assignments are vague or wrong and the code itself is pretty questionable. I spend more time trying to understand the assignment and current code than actually writing anything myself. If that's what he's going for, I guess he succeeded.

The law that applies/ought to apply is the one against fraud in the beef example.

If you still put your money down for the stock, the value isn't $0 anymore. It's whatever you value it.

I just read a related article the other day, claiming the same thing, but with a different analysis: https://mises.org/wire/world-looks-abandon-dollar-us-sanctio...

That's less than a tenth of the 4,161 employees in the company.