maxerickson
maxerickson on Hacker News
I think it pairs with the limited liability. It just isn't good to give unaccountable power to anyone. So it isn't about the investors, its about not letting the thing exist.
There's middle ground.
Like I would ban controlling share classes. I guess there could be an exception if they had an aggressive conversion provision that turned them into normal shares as the company grew.
You also omit an important constituency in your formulation. Corporations are extended limited liability with the idea that it will benefit the public. The government absolutely should be taking steps to ensure that this is true.
The future cost would likely be based on chemical synthesis.
We should make sure we are allocating travel to the people who enjoy it most also. More efficient you see.
Oh wait, much of the basis of the modern economy is letting individuals make decisions for themselves.
We literally do say that having more infrastructure is a result of increased productivity.
You say "not worth pursuing", which could also be phrased as "too costly to pursue". With much more capacity available, it becomes possible to do more things. This is true for lots of things.
Is it your position that these differences are due to marketing?
Is your position that the outcome is strictly a result of the marketing campaign?
As car ownership increased, it seems possible that norms would change a bit.
How do you see limited liability and corporations and so on? Are those just natural conditions?
I've started with Opus 5.5 last week. Roughly where do you start to see the context rot?
I've been experimenting with a project that is not growing real fast, but wondering about the risk as I try to make it do more.
So there's not like statutory rules governing the mechanism by which the President makes that guy his avatar (not Rubio, the guy in the article)?
If he ordered a dog to dismantle USAID, would the ineffectiveness of that simply be due to the dog being incompetent and not be legally challengeable?
Live performance is already the better source of revenue for most musicians.
I haven't read the sequels, what is it that happens partly as a result of all that in God Emperor of Dune?
Did you not consider that they were proposing "change"?
There's probably arguments against the change, I dunno, I haven't thought about it. "You can't change things" isn't one of them.
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Electric generation is a business and existing sites will be prime locations for new panels (likely straightforward to permit, connection to the grid, etc.).
Municipalities often have bonkers cost structures and imposed limits on tax increases (limits in state laws and such). Here they are redoing lead service lines, rebuilding substandard water mains and repaving streets. State and Federal grants are paying for a lot of it, along with increases to water rates (to maybe 5-10% above the national average, enough to make people unhappy, but not out of control).
I guess if you take a wide enough lens, the west lives in the civilization founded in Rome. There's no political continuity, but there's a reasonably coherent cultural trajectory going back a few thousand years.
Do we think that there is going to be a major break from that?
I'm not saying it is your job to do anything, I'm saying your argument against it is fallacious.
Seems like a lose lose with joe six pack. He gets to be stupid and lazy and blame you no matter what you do.
You are also begging the question, asserting that the law has no useful impact and is thus useless or even harmful.
Be interesting to see how the new requirement to name the chemical goes.
Prop 65 gets a lot of shit, but the way it is implemented makes a reasonable amount of sense. If there is evidence that the substance causes harm, it gets listed and companies producing products that contain it have to either notify consumers that it is in there, or they have to demonstrate that the amount of the substance does not cause harm (there's a very low general threshold and some specific thresholds that are higher).
That leads lots of companies to go the low cost route and use the notification safe harbor, but it also creates an incentive to find alternatives and so on. You get cases like you mention, but the alternative to the evidence based approach is to hand wave that it's not harmful.
There's some public interest in noting and publishing observations of police (they appeared to be working while they were being paid, for instance).
The same is at least less true for private citizens that are not being accused of a crime.
Tesla has become a vanity project operated by an emotionally unhealthy, power seeking narcissist who will chase attention and validation for the foreseeable future. It is not a critical component to global electrification.Tesla was always an option on batteries improving at roughly the widely forecasted rates. This is the same information that the established automakers used to not focus on electric vehicles.
The US has produced ~70000 warheads, set off ~1000 and currently has 5000 (close to late 1950s levels).
Is your argument that attrition without replacement just doesn't count or something?
Think of it as an HOA fee that you pay to your society.
If nothing matters, people who have reason to use technical countermeasures aren't really taking extra risk by doing it.
There's not really any need for sophisticated arguments, it's a constant shit show and we should abolish it for the simplicity.
I guess that or go full on Judge Dredd.
Right, I put it that way because they are real, hard problems.
Still, we've come a long way from impossible if we are merely looking at a hard problem.