HN user

Matthyze

124 karma
Posts0
Comments79
View on HN
No posts found.

Are these not the 'friction can be ignored' assumptions of economics? They are, of course, blatantly false. But that doesn't stop such models from effectively modelling real-world behavior.

Granted, I know a slight bit about general equilibrium theory, but nothing about DSGE.

I'm always surprised when people suggest using a different language if you want typing in Python. Python's (second?) largest appeal is probably its extensive ecosystem. Whenever people suggest just changing languages, I wonder if they work in isolation, without the need for certain packages or co-worker proficiency in that language.

I personally don't see downloadability as a significant factor in the morality of breaching security. If it's bad to hack a login screen to gain access to private information, why wouldn't it be bad to hack encryption to do the same thing? What moral dimension does downloadability alter?

I think the house analogy fails because you cannot duplicate a house, take it somewhere else, and attempt to break into it there. If you could, that would undoubtedly be seen as a violation.

Googling "Cantillon Effect" gives suprisingly few results. Out of the top five results, two are Bitcoin-related, one is Reddit, and one is the Wikipedia page of Richard Cantillon himself.

The top comment on /r/AskEconomics is:

"The cantillon effect doesn't really exist in any significant capacity. Central banks nowadays announce their actions well ahead of time, that means before the actual expansion of the money supply, people know this expansion will happen, and markets price in that expansion. So there really isn't much benefiting from being "early".

Beyond that there really isn't much empirical evidence on the cantillon effect to exist in any significant capacity."

Since I know little about this topic I'd appreciate HN's view.

The corruption of the tech/'hacker' subculture has been so disheartening to watch. Is this the subculture that was obsessed with cyberpunk? It took so little, too: good (but not great) salaries, mediocre tech, and a small amount of fearmongering. And suddenly we're here, convinced that corporations must be unconstrained no matter the societal effects. It's as if the cyberpunk dystopias are now seen as aspirational. Absurd and deeply sad.

I'll give a somewhat simpler answer than Filligree has. The problem with renewable energy sources is that they are typically both highly variable and not dispatchable (i.e., controllable). The former leads to supply peaks that can exceed transmission capacity or supply lows that require compensating generation elsewhere. The latter means that energy generation can easily be increased or decreased as required, which is of course very helpful for grid management. Dispatchable generation can be increased if supply requires it, or multiple dispatchable generators can be 'redispatched' to relieve congestion in a part of the power grid (by rebalancing generation). Power from renewable sources can be decreased through curtailment, but that wastes the generated energy.

You're absolutely correct and it's ridiculous that HN can't fathom that a hallucination, in both the traditional and LLM sense, is not characterized by its form or content per se but by the fact that the form or content is incongruent with some external factor.

The sentence as a whole is meaningful, which you can see by excluding 'to a combination of tariff and non-tariff':

This calculation assumes that persistent trade deficits are due factors that prevent trade from balancing

The 'tariff and non-tariff' phrase is _technically_ superfluous but, subtextually, it implies there are such non-tariff reasons.

Had them as kids. Amazing animals. Intelligent, social, interactive, curious, playful(/slightly mischievous), and mostly easy to keep. The only major downside is their short lifespan.

Can't recommend them enough. I have so many fond kid memories of my pet rats and their hijinks.