xux

Perhaps you can offer a rebuttal to my arguments instead of doing an implicit name-calling?

Immigrants do work harder and offer cheaper labor, not unlike the example of younger developers vs older developers. Companies can feel free to make the trade off

Sorry, I don't buy this whole "older workers more likely to see through bullshit" narrative that many presumably older folks on HN push.

It sounds awfully like the arguments that traditionally nationalist groups use against immigrants, contending they're less intelligent and accept lower wages because they're culturally inferior and just don't know better

Maybe it's just that younger workers legitimately provide better labor for lower cost. For a small startup, you really don't need someone with 30 years of experience, and it's better to spend your money on someone demanding a lower wage and will work fast.

We're talking about a country's influence, and per cap stats are completely unrelated to the total sum of influence

Stats like the one you posted do offer some psychological relief though

Regardless of what you think of China, you can't deny its competence and growing influence. This simple chart from Google says it all:

https://i.imgur.com/T88SqnA.png

That's what people said about TV - it completely destroyed accountable print journalism with show business. Nothing new here

So where can I borrow $250,000 for me to invest in the stock market?

Should be renamed to "Wealthy nations, which don't need growth to be more wealthy, tend to be happy"

Big surprise

Did anyone even read the article. The study has nothing to do with complex behavior or "sophisticated" behavior. It's a study on your ability to generate random list of results, like "listing the hypothetical results of a series of 12 coin flips so that they would 'look random to somebody else'"

> The "tech shortage" is a real myth

Except that's wrong. As much as you may dislike the tech industry, you can't contradict the data that shows there are more job openings than developers in the Bay Area

Yes, and random loss in value which is just as bad as theft

The President isn't everything. There's Congress, with members voted in by their district.

You can register with the Data & Marketing Association to opt out of most junk mail:

https://www.usa.gov/telemarketing#item-35222

We owe our current prosperity to companies aggressively cutting costs to make more profit.

Labs generally don't care about unit economics. They're more concerned with cutting edge proof of concept

It's not designed to "beat" you. Casinos are entertainment venues, not banks. One of the main selling points of casinos is the thrill you get from potentially winning a lot of money. You pay for the fun in form of the slight loss of edge in the long run odds.

No one goes in a movie theater and complain that it's "beating" you because you come out with a net negative balance

I love Hacker News, where a random person can tell a company their $2 billion plan on infrastructure is "a really bad move" with authority

"mostly because of how they designed their architecture"

Doesn't matter how you design the architecture. Someone can just force them to "update" their app via the app store, and all of your privacy is gone.

Airline is a classic case of an industry that has too much competition. All these airlines cause inefficient routing, and they're continuously forced to cut prices to compete. This results in bad margins and bad service. Literally no body wins.

Uber / Lyft could be profitable as duopolies though. As in the case of Pepsi and Coke, both can happily carve out their niche and don't rock the boat too much.

For all newspaper subscriptions (and all other semi-shady companies), I use Privacy.com. It allows you to create silo-ed credit card numbers and specify how much each card is allowed to charge you per week/month/overall.

When I want to cancel a newspaper subscription and it's impossibly difficult, I just email them telling them I'd like to cancel the subscription delete the associated credit card. Not my problem anymore

Whenever I see a prediction from academics, I'm reminded of this: http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/scientist-predicts-...

"Princeton professor predicts 99% chance of a Hillary Clinton win"

A lot of people are focusing on the mechanics, but it seems like humans don't generate body parts just like cells don't generate organelles. The entity is not _meant_ to exist by itself, but form a cohesive living group.

A cell doesn't need to repair itself, it can simply clone itself and then die. A human being doesn't need to regenerate itself because it can reproduce and be cleared away. Evolution evolved to ensure the survival of the species, not the individual.

The human being is constantly generating itself by multiplying cells. Similarly, the species is constantly generating itself by multiplying individuals.

You already can. Try it out: "Hey Siri, set a timer for 5 minutes"

It's not a difference between "elite" and "non-elite" paragraph. It's the difference between written and spoken language.

Go to any USA Today or WSJ article and read a paragraph out loud; no one talks like that.

Good list, one thing you left off: Google is already showing realtime results from Twitter. They're well positioned in the deal because they know how many people click through

Exciting times. I used to feel a bit disappointed when I read about all the New World explorations going on back in the 1400s. But now it's starting up all over!

> If I want a thing to disappear I simply don't create it.

The point is that it mimics a natural conversation. Do you refuse to speak just because no one is recording you?

Just because is ad hominem, doesn't mean it's a fallacy. Sometimes a person's reputation is so bad you don't need to give any benefit of the doubt for his/her opinions.