HN user
Keep in mind that this allows, and protects, the academic channel to do their own thing. Right now they are pulled by those that don't care about academia because they want a job and know having the credential is how they get it.
If we begin doing this, and as a result, none of the academics can get a job as they are all filled by the 'embedded' students, I don't mind seeing how that shifts everything.
This aligns the incentives. Education provides positive externalities that the market will not provide.
allow companies to direct the research towards their ends
So long as they hit the requirements to reward the prize, I don't much care what else the students are driven to do. One might ask how does this differ from when a company hires a fresh graduate? In fact, I wouldn't mind also applying this system to those that have degrees, and are trying to advance in their careers.
My only concern is that the students would then be able to be hire-able by other companies in their field. If that answer is mostly yes, the system is working as intended. If it's not, the requirements would be raised until they are.
It's probably cleaner to directly couple those that want it, so that those that want to decouple can be left to the academic path. It's pretty normal to hear from people that when they entered the workforce they learned way more than what they learned at college. Let's incentivize this. Governments should directly subsidize education.
Instead of getting student loans and going to college for 4 years where you don't accomplish much, companies should directly offer high school students 4 year full paid internships. At the end the student needs to go through a test from an expert in that field, possibly a professor lead examination, and to the degree that they pass the company and student share in a large prize. If they pass that test, they officially get the degree.
You're not trying to get individuals to complete work that requires thousands of participants. You're trying to get it so that those one level below currently working on such projects can make it pencil out.
You're trying to give individual researchers, who believe they have a chance at a new strategy, to take their new strategy and sell equity to the prize they might win to a new firm.
Governments can always offer prizes, and any model that sufficiently meets the criteria of the prize would win it and claim a large cash prize. Once claimed, the model would then be free to all forever.
Yes, businesses have the same flaw with a bit of better incentives.
With a prize based approach, what you want is for researchers to make small targetted gambles early in their career, earn their prize profits from those gambles, and work their way up into bigger gambles. There's nothing crazy about this scheme, it's how businesses have formed for hundreds of years. If a company wants to buy equity in the prizes of an independent researcher, I see no issue with this.
then why would this model not be possible in a government office
I see no issue with governmental workers, or those from a university medial research center, or any other persons who can achieve the results from receiving this prize.
someone needs to pay for all of the trials that don't work
The researchers. They are the one taking the risk. They are the one who would get the rewards. Skin in the game.
With a public funding scheme, the benefit analysis could be based on public health interests.
Yes, we should directly pay the organization, or persons, based on the value they generate from their own. The bigger the public health interest, the more they should be paid. Right now we give a tiny piece to these people, and thus harm our incentives. Fully fund the results. It's risk-free.
Prizes pay for working results. Grants pay for possibilities. Grants are therefore riskier, and thus we allocate less resources to them.
Since the people with the money don't understand the science, these possibilities must then be assessed by bureaucrats, and this causes our best to spend half of their time writing proposals instead of working and researching. A complete waste of time. Let the people who know the most about their subject freedom to take risks, and then they are given the spoils of their rewards if they are proven correct.
Prizes are much more efficient than grants. Prizes should be given to academics according to the value they produced. I have no issue if the academics choose to spend some of the windfall profits of their prizes on trials.
This is where prizes come in. If you create a drug and keep it secret, the government can grant you a large prize as an offer to reveal your secret.
This is a much better compromise. The company will end up with more money(and faster!) as a result of this prize than under a patent system - since the patent system induces dead-weight losses, and the government will end up with more lives saved.
A selfish player will claim that they will coordinate with the group, and then vote red in private. A coordinating player will pick what the group chooses, whether that be red or blue. You are talking about a coordinating player here. Yes, in this case if all players agree to red, it's obvious you should all pick red. It's completely safe.
You don't even have to go that far from the original question. If instead of the entire world being a single game, if you have hundreds of millions of sub-games where 9 random people are placed within, what should you do?
Surely some of those groups are going to be filled with selfish red pickers. Should the kind coordinating players still go blue? All the red pickers are going to lie that blue is sensible. I suspect that more coordinators will die in this way than the always blue pickers if every coordinating player went red.
So now the full-world version only has the law of large numbers on their side, but they have no way of knowing just what percentage of the population is a selfish red picker. Going for team blue is the much riskier option that can yield catastrophe.
Your concern can easily be addressed by having a 100% tax on the value of land and then distributing this tax money through a citizen's dividend.
But this isn't all that related to the productivity dividend. That's more natural by setting banks to have a full reserve requirement. At that point new innovations would yield deflation, which would be harmful. The Fed would then have to step up and be the creator and distributor of new money. That money would then be the UBI, distributed equally to all.
Landlords should be pushing for an LVT so that in a downturn that can sync up all at once it is the local government that needs to take that hit. It makes no sense that they currently are the ones to take on society level risks. The LVT is a de-risk to their business. In a downturn they would have no capital losses, and instead only see land taxes fall.
For those that don't know, an LVT causes land prices to drop, where a tax on 100% of the rental value of the land would cause land prices to fall to zero. This would allow landlords who were able to own many more properties, and could use their funds building out extensive retail spaces, and have many tenants pay them rents.
The disconnect here is that they built it this way, but still call it a question and answer site and give a lot of power over to the person who created the question. They get to mark an answer as the solution for themselves, even if the people coming from Google have another answer as the solution.
If they were to recreate the site and frame it as a symptom and issue site, which is what the interview described, that would yield many different choices on how to navigate the site, and it would do a lot better. In particular, what happens when two different issues have the same symptom. Right now, that question is closed as a duplicate. Under a symptom and issue site, it's obvious that both should stay as distinct issues.
Riolu is a uniquely terrible example. While he used Cheat Engine to slow down gameplay, he could have just as easily used TAS to record and replay his inputs since TrackMania is deterministic. This is still possible today. This will always be possible even with Kernel level anti-cheats.
I'll note here that the work that Nadeo has done on the matchmaking aspect is in line with what I'm thinking and should be expanded throughout the online gaming space. A division 10 COTD player will never see a cheater. If cheaters do show up, as they commonly do in Weekly Shorts leaderboards, the community ignores it. Their region leaderboards do a much better job than typical games of bringing the community together and they promote continuity. When top players smurf COTD on a new name, the community sniffs it out within the hour. TM doesn't need anti-cheat.
The problem here appears to be the banning. If the cheaters are never banned then they will continue to only play with other cheaters, and everyone is happy. And in fact, to a normal player I doubt they care very much if the player is legit and smurfing or if they are not legit and cheating. That player ruins the game they are in.
The ranking system needs to be a better determinate of skill, especially early in a new accounts life, so that they can stop harming normal players games. This might mean changes to the rules of a game to allow this to be done better. The match-maker should take this into account, so that if a player does go up against a player that was far from the skill level that they end up at, it should protect that account from being placed with new players for a time so that they can forget about it.
For the example you choose for Chess, you might force players to do Chess Puzzles before they can queue for their first match. A normal player would then never see any cheaters.
This argument is that the match-making software is incompetent. If what you say is true, and the match-maker could determine skill with any ability, then the cheaters would quickly find that the only people they match-make with is other cheaters. The non-cheaters don't care that the cheaters exist if they never play against them.
Yeah, this is pretty clear. The community for any competitive game if you are a member of the top 100 players is always amazing. These players play the most, they end of seeing each other over and over, and you build up a rapport with the other players and can start to play against specific peoples play-styles.
However, for the vast vast majority of the player-base who is top 50% in skill, the fat normal distribution nearly guarantees that most of the people they play against will never be seen again. And therefore there is no harm for them not to be toxic to them, so most people only ever experience toxicity in online competitive games.
Server browser games solve this because players end up with "home" servers where they come back to over and over, and over time build communities who do the same. This was taken away from the players when we moved to matchmaking, and many in the player-base have a bias against matchmaking because of it.
But this is in no way required, and merely a result of gaming companies to do any work on this front. It would be extremely easy for these games to add an arbitrary community tag to the matchmaker that would attempt to put people in games with players that they have not previously reported. The matchmaker might take a little bit more time, but since these players are in the fat normal distribution, their average matchmaking times will still be incredibly low.
This is why the best form of UBI is a Citizen's Dividend funded through a Land Value Tax. Any increase in rents through the CD just make their way back into higher taxes that then raise the CD.
Sure, but this has nothing to do with the land values which are still extremely positive. It has everything to do with Prop 13 allowing speculation. Repeal Prop 13 and all of those lots will be better cared for and rented out.
If one of these fast food places shuts down, it's not like the lot is just going to sit vacant forever.
The primary effect of these types of laws is that businesses that employ fast food workers are less profitable, and thus when they compete against other businesses for a given lot, will bid less for the land. If the marginal buyer changes, it would have to do so to a business that relies less on minimum wage fast food workers.
The abstract states that there are 2.7% less fast food jobs, not 2.7% less jobs. There might be 2.7% less fast food restaurants as a result of this change, but in their place will be other businesses that employ people of higher than minimum wage. Those businesses might hire the best fast food workers while the average fast food worker continues to be employed doing fast food. As a result, there may be no people who have now become unemployed as a result of this change, and only increases in wages. The data is inconclusive.
Regardless, instead of arguing over which commercial property takes which spot and trying to engineer the perfect fit with the limitations we are dealing with, we should be increasing the amount of places that are zoned for commerce. This will bring increased demand for labor, which will increase wages.
It's impossible to know with the data we collect. Census tracks the homeownership rate, which tracks if the house is owned by someone living in it. However if you are a tenant living in a house that someone else owns and lives in it as well, for example if you are an adult renting in your parents house, that counts as a homeowner owned home. We do not collect the tenant non-ownership rate, but it would be much higher than the inverse of the homeownership rate.
Mostly agreeing with you here but I've been through this journey and this shocked me when I ran the numbers one time so I'm sharing.
A better way to be thinking about this is at what point will you stop gaining weight? If you are someone who burns 2000 calorie a day but eats 2170 calories a day, you will be gaining 170 calories on that first day. But then you will add some fat, and you will burn 2001 calories, and only gain 169 calories the next day. Eventually you will reach equilibrium where you burn 2170 calories. But fat isn't like muscle, it's very efficient because that is it's main purpose - it just sits there. So it actually takes a lot to reach that new equilibrium.
The rule of thumb is 100 calories surplus will lead to a long run gain of about 15 pounds. So the 177 calorie average would end up yielding about 25 pounds of fat above what they should have.
Then the next question is if you will ever reach equilibrium, or if when you start burning 2001 calories, you start eating 2171 calories...
Yes, this nuance was already included in my previous post. Thank you for agreeing with me.
that we can
Highways are designed to be unsafe by design, so without a redesign they require speed limits.
Note that a Georgist tax on 100% of land rental value does not stop the landlord from earning a return on their improvement values. The land tax of a property with a 100% land tax will decrease the land price down to $0, and thus instead of for instance putting $500k into buying land and $500k buying apartments, they could instead buy 2 $500k apartments for the same capital cost. The end result of this will be more apartments, which will bring down rents, but this will yield a higher ROI than they currently achieve, since they have to pay less rents to the banks.
If the safe speed of the road is 25mph, and the design speed of the road is above 25mph, you will not have safety no matter what the speed limit is. Vision Zero strategies take these factors into account to ensure safety.
I understand this is a tangent but you picked a really bad example. We should be trying to remove every single speed limit that we can.
If the design speed of a road does not match the speed limit of the road, people will drive the design speed, cops will learn to sit there all hours of the day waiting for people to mess up, and get ticketed. Instead of just putting up the speed limit sign, city planners should design for the road to be safe without need for the speed limits to be in place. This can mean things like reducing the width of a lane, could mean speed bumps, to purposeful non-straight sections.
What do people on here say, luck favors the prepared? Had he gone on to college, the odds that he was on that forum go down, and thus he would not be the one strike when the opportunity arose.
Confirmation bias is very tricky here. A quick look at top essentially single games of all times shows that a full 50% or so of them were created by drop outs, a number way outside of what we would expect. But how many dropped out and failed?
All of these guys clearly had the capability to create greatness within them their entire life, but were stuck in an environment that did not fit their talents or did not otherwise give them the support that would allow them to thrive, like Tao got.
And yet, all of the people whom were failed by the system will never be heard of, and we have no idea the numbers of these people either. I expect that there are way more of them than unsuccessful dropouts.
It's useful here to split up these people into different categories. Terrance Tao was a prodigy and was allowed to succeed within the school system beyond what others are given access to. Zuckerberg and Gates succeeded and didn't require finishing college - not really dropping out.
Indie Gaming slant on these following examples, and I suspect that this sector is above average for this type of thing, but I suspect if I looked I could find many dropouts in other fields. On the other hand, Carmack dropped out of college, Jonathan Blow dropped out of college. Markus Persson dropped out of high school. Eric Barone never found a job despite graduating from college. All of these people are out-of-this-world fucking good, but were not at the time that they dropped out, which means according to your guide should not have gone on to create what they did.
If locally hosted AI can do many jobs, why would a person ever consult a company and pay for their services?