HN user
This completely negates the fact that due to how the labor market is structured, most people who sell their labour to survive are in a disadvantageous position for the negotiation you are talking about. What you are talking about works well in a basic economics text book but does not translate to the real world.
While I agree with your sentiment somewhat, the leap to equating vegans with carnivores is unjustified in my opinion
You dont need the failing stamps to hang around. All you need are the successful stamps. It's actually better from a human psychology perspective anyway. Less shame.
Everyone will have some successful stamps, and they accrue over time giving better signal. Hiring managers can make a rational decision about what number of stamps over what period of time is sufficient to evaluate a person, trading against the risk of misreading a profile by accepting someone with fewer stamps.
This seems like a great idea. Even without the linked surveys. Two questions I have:
- how you does this handle the fact that a lot of accounts on social media platforms are bots that maybe controlled by a small number of people.
- how do we actually get this implemented?
Benn Jordan
What is the benefit of writing a negative travel guide for a place? And then the choice to list one in a compendium. The second guide for the farow islands is depressingly bad.
These don't work for very good liars. They know all these tricks, often intuitively, and purposefully avoid them. The only strategy that works is listening to your gut and extending trust slowly. Keeping up a ruse is tiring and the more time you give them, the more chance they have to make a mistake. Combine that with listening to the brain in your gut that has evolved for millions of years to sense danger. In the early stages, the mistakes are often subtle and you will usually only get a feeling that something is "off".
We need an AI workers union. The real power and discernment is in the hands of the people building these systems. They are extremely difficult to replace and firing them basically guarantees they go to a competitor.
https://notdivided.org/ is basically validation that there is appetite for something like this amongst them.
The head of Google's "Paradigms of Intelligence" team using their research to make the wondrous argument that Life can reasonably be conceived of as a phase of matter. One of the most beautiful and inspiring talks I have watched in my life thus far.
Not that I agree with either of those things but I think the implicit argument is that breaking encryption would lead to faster arrest and fewer years of abuse for the victims.
Also weird it didn't mention Peter Attia's connection to Epstein outright. It did this weird tongue-in-cheek thing for a few paragraphs referencing Epstein only in the foot notes. I still can't tell whether what I read was actually praising these guys or extremely subtly sardonic.
That includes cars on public roads.
You prosecute one case at a time. A judgement against TikTok (arguably the largest example) will make similar judgements against others easier.
Also, LSD isn't addictive in any sense of the word.
US federal income tax raises vastly more revenue than tariffs ever have. Eliminating income tax would require tariffs at levels high enough to dramatically raise consumer prices and would certainly trigger retaliation.
Also, reduced competition from China does not imply higher wages unless labor has bargaining power and firms pass gains to workers. Historically it has been passed to shareholders not workers.
Finally, tariffs mainly protect manufacturing jobs. AI threatens white-collar and service work
Awesome and inspiring! Many blessings to you
What is the relationship here? I searched by but I couldn't find details of what case this pertains to.
This person is being honest about how he feels about a hypothetical situation. I appreciate the humility of sharing a thought people might look down on and would be trivial to lie about. Also based on this article I would be surprised if he is not the type to show such kindness - if anything this reflection shows that such openness is not to be taken lightly, that it is special and should be appreciated as such. How wonderful then that is is so ubiquitous.
Top comment my whiskered friend.
The link from OP also has the map
That is unfair. The largest co2 producers are also large in size. I think 1km resolution is more than sufficient to identify the source of the majority of emissions - e.g. factories, power plants, buildings, etc. Even if the resolution is not fine-grained enough for definitive identification it reduces the scope to manageable size for more detailed investigations.
Yeah I usually dip in when I want to look at the space. But I am trying to include a more regular scan of the headlines to keep abreast of whats happening.
To be included in the top 1% you need a net worth of over a million. So what you said is untrue. The correct figure is something like top 10%
The American government gets that money from taxes. If wealthy people are using that wealth to avoid taxes and put the burden on to the worker then the worker is being hurt twice - first by the lost power in their vote, and second by paying an unfair share of public infrastructure costs.
It's like reverse clickbait with him
Who told you this? It's so obviously false.
It doesn't even make sense. I think you meant to say "efficiently" perhaps but even arguing that is an uphill battle - at most you could say that is true for some types of projects.
I agree with your overall position but I disagree on the first point.
Wealth is ownership, ownership is control of value. Allocating more (not all) value away from SaaS companies and into food security or education is a good thing and would make things better for everyone.
There are a couple of nuanced issues with what you are saying.
1. In our current political system, wealth translates into political power, which can (and is) used to change laws to secure more wealth - just look at the portfolio performance of members of US Congress. Democracy is about putting political power in the vote.
2. Many if not most of our important problems are beyond the ability of one person (or a small group) to tackle - climate change, food security, etc. Having wealth more distributed means that more economic participants are involved in deploying it, and thus greater predictive power per dollar spent.
The minimum entry requirement for top 1% inclusion is about 1 million dollars.
So your comment is just wrong.
Tell me you don't worry about money without telling me you don't worry about money
I would agree here if our political systems weren't vulnerable to capture by wealth. Inequality drives more inequality, it has to be counterbalanced by laws.
The majority of human civilisation has been feudal. We recently got democracy for everyone. We are not yet out of reach of our local civilisational attractor.