tanker

Consumers are like water seeking the path of least resistance. It takes lots of engineers to reduce the resistance. Someone pays these engineers. That money comes from the users. Users don't like to actually pay for things if there is a free alternative, so users pay indirectly with their information.

A Facebook clone wouldn't pull many users due to network effects. I think decentralization is opposed to network effects in this case.

The article mentions the somewhat current but certainly future problem of decisions being made by algorithms which "casually crush" users without any human being able to determine why it happened (and in many cases unable to fix it).

They could fix this problem by hiring more people and giving them more power to correct the system, but it will probably never be a big enough problem to affect the bottom line.

Increasing awareness of the problem and technical skill among users would probably cause users to become more autonomous and less like water. This is a long term possibility, but it strikes me as an unappealing fight. It’s like trying to convince an entire generation to take bitter medicine without any parents to assist. I’ll assume users won’t be getting better. Perhaps we just need to focus on building better ways to protect ourselves from the almighty algorithm, so there are options when the system fails. We can protect our data from online shopping sites by having nodes that process purchases for a large number of users and perhaps ship to a network of local points where pickup is by some type of PKI based system. Social networks seem like a lost cause. A return to blogs with lots of links rather than a replacement network may be the answer.

I like the way Richard Hamming stated a similar sentiment:

" I claim that luck will not cover everything. And I will cite Pasteur who said, ``Luck favors the prepared mind.'' And I think that says it the way I believe it. There is indeed an element of luck, and no, there isn't. The prepared mind sooner or later finds something important and does it. So yes, it is luck. The particular thing you do is luck, but that you do something is not."

Full Talk: http://blog.samaltman.com/you-and-your-research

You identified a separate problem from the parent post rather than refuting it.

#1: Big corporations can push small guys out of business by tying up their products in patent disputes.

#2: Patent trolls can bleed corporations big and small while producing nothing of value.

These problems are specific to the patent industry.

Are there similar problems in other areas of the law? If so, we may be able to identify and try to solve the larger problem. If not, we just need to focus on patent reform which is an easier problem.

Your comment made me think about how Waze could direct many people on slightly sub-optimal routes to clear the main routes for some class of premium users.

I wanted it originally because Amazon didn't have a Kindle app for Linux. I could read in browser, but I thought this would be the easiest way to download and read.

I think the organic material idea is good, but not at a distant collection point. If you throw organic material away --> transport to site --> sort it --> delay --> transport to stores --> transport back to garden I think you lose the energy battle.

If you created local dump sites where trash could be sorted and composted, it could work. You also cut down on the amount (and as a result the energy) of trash that gets thrown in the dump. Obvious obstacles are the inability to get people to use the local sites, the initial costs / availability of land, and the resistance to dumps in neighborhoods.

A potential 2nd level effect would be the long term state of trash dumps. At least some dumps are eventually reclaimed. Would reducing or eliminating the organic content prevent that from happening?

True, but then they are the all-time greats for a reason.

I consider a progressive tax code to be justified by supporting the system which permits large gains.

There is also an argument about holding onto large amounts of wealth being difficult without expending some of your resources to protect it. If nothing else, taxes spread the burden of the security apparatus around. If you have more to lose, you pay more to protect it.

I think haircuts are a buyer beware situation.

I trust the average person to give safe haircuts 100/100 times.

If the hairdresser is noticeably disturbed or drugged, I'll be moving on. I can leave at any point in the process if I feel I am in danger.

Out of curiosity, I searched for haircut related deaths and they were all customers killing the hairdresser because they were upset about how they looked. Based on the actual danger, I would suggest licensing someone to receive a haircut may be the more effective method of increasing haircut safety.

I think your decisions were reasonable.

Would you consider a part time teaching job now?

If so, how many days per week and at what salary?

I disagree. I like the analogy of a magazine or newspaper publishing letters to the editor. There is a two way aspect, but clearly the editors choose what to publish.

>For the autodidact it is a time to begin choosing modules that make sense for their own career trajectory.

I think the end of his part 2 courses is a good point to pick a set of courses that will get you to your desired end state. I would also say that completing these courses would establish sufficient mathematical literacy for many purposes.

I would love to see similar guides for other subjects. Personally, I would be interested in guides for chemistry and mechanical engineering.

I think a sunset on all laws would be helpful. It would probably require a change to other parliamentary procedures or the representatives wouldn't have enough time to vote on everything. I expect the US would struggle with this more than most countries. The alternative is less government due to political gridlock. Perhaps that would result in more of these programs being managed at the state or local level.

Initially, every time a soy farmer support bill died due to a sunset time it could be a media issue. Some big bills will continue to die or be renewed amid a media frenzy; however, our capacity for sensation is limited. Many bills would die quietly. A delightful side effect could be the generation of enough actual news to keep the media busy reporting on useful topics.

A maximum word length or similar requirement sounds good; however, it might not be practical. If you prevented disparate pieces of legislation from being voted on as a single law, a limit on length might work and promote transparency.

I've been wanting to buy a Digital Paper from Sony since it came out for technical articles / textbooks.

Overall, I think the product is worth the price (around $1000 last time I checked), but I have other things to spend the money on right now. It seems to be marketed towards legal firms (possibly a source of the high price), but I don't need the collaboration software.

Author is not Scott Adams.

I double checked.

The idea of ads indistinguishable from content is troubling. I agree this is a probable outcome. It sounds like food for conspiracy theories. I see two paths. First, ads so good you seek them out knowing they are advertising. This would be similar to a good catalog. Second, you are looking for content and find something produced by a company without your knowledge. It would be easy to produce "Top 10" lists or other style of content that favors your products. In that scenario, trust becomes the valuable commodity.

How do you encourage full employment with fiscal policy?

Does the concept of full employment imply large corporations hire most of the people or do the fiscal policies also encourage small business and self employment?

You raise a good point. Economies are the collection of individual decisions. Perhaps what people are getting after is the short term vs. long term incentives or the potential for conflict between the incentives for individuals and those for the group.

I communicated poorly. Paying your employees more and giving them a discount is harmless. Lots of employees receive a discount.

I meant you run into problems when you end up effectively paying them less and justifying via a larger discount.

Management could end up doing this gradually as times get tough. For example, a company announces lay offs and pay cuts, but softens the blow with a larger discount.

I guess I'm recommending caution. I would avoid making a discount a major part of employee compensation. A worker deciding to apply for jobs at Walmart and Costco could end up weighing a better health plan against a higher discount on basic goods. That seems problematic to me.

Obviously, you would have to avoid the "Company Store" problem.

I think it could be a terrible PR move. If you effectively pay your employees less and justify by giving them discounts. A program that begins with good intentions could end badly. Especially if the program is conceived in an era of high profits. In low profits, management makes different decisions. Also, you often get new management.

That's an interesting problem.

I have a few ideas 1) Replace tuition with taking x% of income for y years following graduation. I'm not sure how this would work in regards to low-income degrees / departments. For example, would the low return on investment for an arts department mean it would get less funding? I suppose this would cause universities to optimize their education for earning potential of graduates. Could have interesting effects. Not all beneficial.

2) Could they use their endowments to essentially provide interest free loans? I'm guessing their would be lots of problems with this that I can't see.

3) You pay nothing while in school, but you pay a straightforward fraction of the school's operating costs for the next x years. I like this concept. If you make x long enough, your graduates have an interest in ensuring future students are able to contribute to the cause. Of course, they also have an interest in keeping costs low. That could create poor dynamics. Improvements would have to come from donations, not be a part of the budget.

"Overall, 62% say the government doesn’t do enough to help the middle class, while 29% say it does about the right amount and 6% say it does too much. Roughly the same share (59%) says the government does not do enough for poor people or for children (59% each), and 66% say the government doesn’t do enough to help older people."

Basically, people think the government doesn't do enough. I would like to see views on taxes included in the same survey.

I disagree, at least at the undergraduate level.

There is no shortage of problems and solutions to check your knowledge for much of undergraduate mathematics.

As to the value of tutorial sessions for you, it is important to remember that people learn differently. Speaking with an expert is valuable, but not required in my opinion.

To really learn a subject, you have to go beyond the minimum required to get a good grade on homework and tests. You can absolutely do this in university, but I found that I was rarely willing to do so. Studying on my own, I find it easier to reach a deeper level of understanding.

I think there is a trend in this direction. The Art of Problem Solving series is a good example.

As I understand it, the Every Child Succeeds Act gives more control to the states, but still seems to optimize for high test scores. That may help more students meet the profile for which college admissions officers are looking, but it may not help them be successful in college or life. For example, the ability to successfully apply formulas would help students perform better on a basic calculus test. However, this ability is all but useless outside of that test.

I think the root of the problem is our reliance on credentials and in turn test scores. As long as those are important, they will be selected for over actual understanding.

While I don't have a solution, I will reference Paul Graham's essay on "After Credentials." He suggests that small companies capable of relying on performance rather than credentials is the solution. The wealth of articles on HN complaining about interview processes indicate this is less than a complete solution.

I'm interested in the effect a basic income would have on higher education. Would eliminating some of the economic pressure result in a better university system? Might people go to university because they were interested in learning something rather than following a prescribed set of classes required to obtain a degree?

There may be a problem. Computer science may be a solution.

The author establishes neither.

My opinion, is that it would be good if we could find a way to reduce the requirement for unskilled manual labor through computer science. Without more research, I wouldn't make it a call for action.

Does anyone have a better article on this issue?

Agreed, with the additional observation that this is just a reservation builder akin to a knowledge of Microsoft Office products from yesteryear.

This is the only part I saw that directly addressed the question of "Will the Push for Coding Lead to ‘Technical Ghettos’?"

>...for students of color in particular, whether the emphasis on knowing Java and JavaScript only puts them on the bottom rung of the tech workforce.

The obvious follow-up question is, "Are there significant differences in the way coding is being introduced in schools based on the average income level of the area?"

Yes --> Is there some reason for this? Does one method require more resources? Is one way actually better than the other?

No --> Then, "Technical Ghettos" are not likely to result from the program.

I would wait until you have a Raspberry Pi 3 on order, or you might be waiting longer than you would like.

Consumers can prefer Blu-ray quality while being satisfied with much lower quality. For many, quality of content and selection would be valued over picture quality.

I think it is because, for a lot of people, Lisp is fun.

If Lisp flourishes, more people would get to use it at work.

Lisp not flourishing means less fun.

Also, when I've worked in Lisp it just seemed like the right way to do things. Everyone likes to do the right thing, so anguish results when you seem denied the opportunity to follow the path you feel is right.

That said, I think the author was right and the community issues and ease of building your own solutions will limit Lisp as a language family.