HN user
I'd love to see drug trials funded by tax dollars, ideally informed by a legal prediction market on which trials are likely to succeed or fail. The people betting on pharma stocks would likely prefer betting directly on trials, since stock prices move for all kinds of unrelated reasons -- it'd be a new asset class. I'm skeptical about single payer healthcare though :p
The price of rent roughly tracks the price of a mortgage, and apartments are only about 20% of all homes. If this legislation passes, and home prices go down, then rental prices for homes will go down, and apartment rental prices will need to match those price reductions to attract renters.
D'oh. abolition -> prohibition in the above
My inference from nature supported a non-moral point, namely "[abortion is] going to be with us until the end of time, regardless of law."
As for my moral argument, I invite you to read about the history of abortion, the history of abolition, and/or the history of America's war on drugs. I expect you will find abolition the easiest example to grok, since it's no longer a political issue. Note the moral arguments for abolition still stand, and yet it's no longer law.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-bruce-effe...
If animals do it in nature, and humans do it with dangerous methods when denied access to safe methods, it's going to be with us until the end of time, regardless of law.
Let's face it, this is just another drug war. An opportunity for Republicans to deny Americans personal autonomy and liberty. A justification for state aggression against your neighbors and friends. Wake up.
Do we agree it's a bad sign when a model treats lived human experience as noise?
I don't think Tor tries to accomplish the same goal as Orchid
If the goal isn't "Anonymity Online" (taken from torproject.org), what is Orchid's goal?
afaik Tor still doesn't have a working iOS port
https://blog.torproject.org/tor-heart-onion-browser-and-more...
our users mostly buy in using "in-app purchases", which has led to use implementing various restrictions on spending them.
Browsing through the code, it looks like Orchid's xdai contract is https://blockscout.com/xdai/mainnet/address/0x6dB8381b2B41b7... -- which shows in-app purchases of bandwidth being a bit less than $75,000 total for the last two years. Is that right, or am I missing something?
I think most projects that have "roadmaps" in this space are using it to cause people in the ecosystem to speculatively purchase large quantities of what should really be a "utility token".
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/orchid-protocol shows Orchid's trading volume as $22 million for just today...
There's a great Warren Buffett quote on this:
"Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don't have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it's true. If you hire somebody without integrity, you really want them to be dumb and lazy."
if the devs only have 76k of capital right now, maybe also pays for ramen?
He spent a decade of nights-and-weekends effort on making kids better at math and science, taking what I understand to be startup level risks in the beginning. How much do you think he should make? Mr. Rogers was paid more than $800k/year if you adjust for inflation[1][2].
[1] https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors...
[2] https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1...
No, society tolerating those vocal trolls does mean that society is sexist.
What change in society would count as not tolerating these trolls?
TL;DR: OP hasn't tried haskell yet ;p
If I am understanding this correctly:
1. My 1 year old cousin is likely to die somewhere between ~1.1 and 2 years old.
2. My 96 year old grandfather is likely to die somewhere between ~100 and ~2000(!) years old.
Naively I would have thought my 1 year old cousin would outlive my grandfather. I'm really glad I found this math to set me straight! Thank you OP!
But, actually do want to test them for radioactivity lol. Anybody know about this?
Perhaps buy a radiation tester? https://smile.amazon.com/GQ-GMC-300E-Plus-Radiation-dosimete...
Every interview I've see with Damore after him getting fired confirms that he's a misogynist.
The only one I'm familiar with is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4WoeOkj2Ng ... which kind of left me with the opposite impression. Can you link to the ones you're talking about? I would love to feel better about his being fired.
The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows: You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
- Michael Crichton
I actually really like this idea, and almost clicked away before understanding it. Maybe try describing it as "What if every Trello card had its own Google Doc?"
(I'm sure you have other features, that was just the one that excited me personally)
Most other drugs have to be proven safe to use even before showing tangible benefits.
What? I encourage you to read about prescription drug side effects. If a drug were safe, it would be over the counter rather than prescription. Prescription drugs are exactly the kind of harm/benefit bundle GP is describing.
Because men love electronics projects and women love keeping a tidy house and ruining their dreams, am I right?
I don't think this is accurate. Personally, I've had a lot of trouble finding people of either gender who are interested in electronics.
I might be overstepping here, but it sounds like maybe you should talk to you wife and see what can be done to minimize the negative externalities caused by your hobby? It's hard to imagine she would actually want to ruin your dreams. I don't have a wife, but I know my girlfriend became a lot more supportive once I started keeping half-finished projects in the spare bedroom, and started putting in an effort to clean up my projects a bit more before letting them out. Just my $0.02 obviously.
There's no point in using a hashing algorithm that can be maliciously collided.
At one point after days of training, my agent actually had a 90% LOSE rate against an opponent that played totally randomly. To this day I am baffled by this.
This is indeed baffling. My best guess: perhaps your error function was reversed? Getting to 90% loss sounds like it would require training.
It's not exactly a citation, but high school culture ("that which sounds cool should be done") doesn't exactly lead to the best of all possible places.
Looking for symmetric universal moral principals sort of does seem to. Though I admit basically no form of government seems to head in that direction, as founding documents post-revolution are not really a form of government in my model.
It does not need to be Samantha Bee's job to win everybody over.
Exactly. It's Samantha Bee's job to feed the polarization cycle. If she doesn't, who will?
(Going meta for a second: I'm sorry this took me so long to notice, but I think this might have become a political discussion. I had believed we were principally discussing mathematical fairness as it applies to markets, with maybe some colorful/relaxed examples to keep thing interesting, but that the examples were all relating back to mathematical fairness. Sorry for being dense :/)
This is not by any means a dismissal, as it provides valuable insight into the behavior of human society, but viewing it as the beginning and end of economics will place massive limitations on any analysis.
My personal interest in economics has roughly nothing to do with understanding human behavior -- I'm interested in incentive structures/mechanism design, mathematical fairness, agency, decision theory, optimal play, optimally exploitative play, cooperation/coordination/defection in partial information games, etc. This is to say that, for me, economics becomes uninteresting as soon as you worry if human behavior matches the model. Econs are so much cooler than humans! It's much more fun to ask what they would do, and what can be done to improve their outcomes.
Yes, I am familiar, especially as it relates to faulty decision making in professional life (base rate neglect, availability bias, etc). I don't think he's considered to be part of the field, but I've also found George Polya's How to Solve it to be related here. He explicitly discusses heuristic search for math proofs, and how this can amount to a blind spot.
It is a simple conclusion that follows from three premises
(This was what made me realize what had happened). My disagreement is with respect to the question of "can a fair game be created within an unfair game, even in a context where you can't correct historical unfairness?" -- to that I say yes (with my earlier caveats about physical limits of fairness in our world).
Perhaps now that I've explained more about my background and perspective, you can consider this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13442034) again from the perspective of "Will capitalism survive the robot revolution?" -- the econs I love will (I hope/expect) finally be a reasonable model of economic behavior. Therefore I hope capitalism will survive, since that would ensure I got to live in a good/fair world. If you are aware of some way in which a capitalist system, when populated by robots/econs, could be improved with respect to fairness, I'm skeptical but quite interested.
Re: the political question you asked. If there were a way to say for sure if wealth was unearned I'd absolutely support confiscating it, if not I'm skittish and afraid of causing more harm than good.
There is plenty of evidence that people have conscious and unconscious biases.
Agreed. I didn't say otherwise, I just also pointed out that there's evidence some of those biases are genetic.
There is ample evidence that the American criminal justice system, for example, is biased at several levels.
I believe this should be fixed! I'm the person who linked the google formalism for modifying a model to be non-racist. This whole thread came from that.
I see where you're coming from: at any discussion of bias, you would rather blame it on genetics, which means we as a society are not responsible for doing anything about it.
No. My position is that I want bankers to use a race-blinded models when deciding on loans. In general, where there is bias (especially where there is genetic/non-correctable bias), I believe the biased human should be replaced by a computer programmed to not have a bias.
I want this because I think the problem is real, I would like it solved, and I believe the other methods people propose (bias training, etc) are unlikely to work.
I also believe replacing as many humans as possible will not fix all the problems I imagine you are currently attributing to societal bias (ie I believe that some life decisions may well have a large genetic component). I do not view those "problems" as things to be solved, so much as deeply disturbing indications that free will does not exist. That in some sense you and I might be discussing optimization methods for player happiness in a zero player game. That in as much as happiness exists, I worry it is primarily found by embracing our genetic biases.
I'm sure the people that have been forced into high-paying fields against their natural inclinations appreciate your feeling ill on their behalf, though. /s
People used to make arguments like this in defense of arranged marriages you know. Letting the heart decide isn't stupid.
Analysis of the famines in Bangladesh and the role of speculation in them has been done by Nobel prize winning economist Amartya Sen
Then, assuming he agrees with your above summary, I encourage both you and Amartya to locate the foundational assumption. It really would be big news to a lot of people.
Regarding economics as a science, it is widely accepted by economists that it is not a precise science, and has no inviolable axioms like math
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_economics would be a good starting point if you are wondering at economic axioms, etc. The Austrian School generally did a good job building models worth thinking about, rather than devolving into econometric-style silliness.
Any "just" and "fair" system could only begin by returning this wealth back to society.
A lot of us disagree.
and the initial goal after validating my MVPs
Validate before building an MVP.
See: https://steveblank.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/customer-deve... -- company building happens at the end, not at the start.
1. Economics, unlike the other social sciences, is built off of mathematical assumptions about behavior. Computers are built similarly off of the math that is Von Neumann's modification to Turing machines, so I'll use them as a metaphor: if Windows 95 crashes, it's probably not a problem with the Von Neumann or Turing's work.
This is to say that if you believe the 1974 famine in Bangladesh (which I also discuss below) is indeed a counter example to the optimality of markets for allocating scarce resources without violating natural law, I encourage you to examine the foundational assumptions and theorems in Economics to locate where the error is. That would be big news to a lot of people!
2. In response to: "Disneyland and Apple hardware has its target demographic as the top quartile of the population. The people who spend all their money on basic necessities such as rent, food, water, heat can't ever access these "awesome" services."
The result of capitalism is not that everyone gets the same outcome. The result is that everyone has a better outcome than they would have with a system other than capitalism. This is why I above mention that if we could modify the laws of physics, we could do better than capitalism. Put another way: you and I do not have private jets. But we also wouldn't in any other system, at least on average. That's not a fault with axioms of capitalism, that'a a fault with the laws of physics (if only metal and rocket fuel were plentiful enough!... :p)
3. In response to your examples I generally encourage you to google the benefits of allowing others to speculate ("speculation economic benefits" in google looks good to a first glance). The gist of it is that speculators add liquidity to a market by moving risk to themselves (who demonstrably are happier to hold the risk than the other market participants). My understanding is that most speculation ends in financial loss.
Re: "A particularly chilling example of this would be the 1974 Bangladesh famine, when food production in Bangladesh was at a local peak, yet speculative hoarding of grain drove 1-1.5 million people to starvation."
I'm not so familiar with this example, however looking at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_famine_of_1974) there seems to have been a major flood following a war in Bangladesh at this time. These seem to be pretty large confounding factors, but let's assume they are not and play a little game:
--> Imagine you're in Bangladesh in 1974, and you are in possession of food enough to feed 100 people for 1 month. How do you decide what to do with this food? Remember that you do not know in advance when the food shortage will recover, and that if you don't save enough, you'll have to buy it at even higher prices or starve. Also, if you give all the food away, another famine may come along in the future, and you will have no capital left over to save those people.
(For a reasonable ethical framework you can use to build an answer, consider reading the material provided for free at https://80000hours.org)
Re: "In 1943, due to a combination of Churchill's policies and hoarding, an estimated 4 million people starved to death."
I've often wondered by people use famines which happen in freer markets as examples, while ignoring the tremendous numbers of famines and shortages that happen through government intervention. Thank you for listing one.
4. For an example of what happens when scarcity occurs and speculators / hoarders aren't allowed to operate, consider the current situation in Venezuela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortages_in_Venezuela . You can also find the a tremendous number of (Godwin's law skirting) examples from Russia and China (countries which acted similarly to Venezuela). You can find good economic analyses of all of these btw, if you are curious about how they were caused on a mathematical/game-theoretic level, and how to minimize the chance of such shortages happening in the future.
Competitive markets are a sub-component of Capitalism. Allowing private individuals to own the means of production (so corporations) is another important part of capitalism not guaranteed by competitive markets. Voluntary exchange is also not guaranteed by merely competitive markets. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism