HN user

echopurity

-16 karma
Posts0
Comments43
View on HN
No posts found.

Kerenidis and Prakash proved that a quantum computer could solve the recommendation problem exponentially faster than any known algorithm

That's not a proof. It's a few hopeful examples.

The current proof only appears stunning to those who were formerly satisfied with weak evidence.

Going out of business isn't the same as losing at working from home. Going out of business is usually not working.

Otherwise this article would just be the fairly obvious statement that people who kept their jobs are "winners" over those who lost their jobs.

New research suggests that ... the drop in interest rates has been caused by changes in population structure and by shifts in the distribution of income.... In most economies, baseline interest rates are “set” by central banks.

No need for quotes here. People at central banks literally set the baseline interest rate. There's not much evidence for attributing this straightforward bureaucratic process to vague trends in population and income.

Central banks can impose any level of (local currency) borrowing costs on the economy that they want, which is why some say that “interest rates are a policy variable.” But central banks generally avoid exercising that power arbitrarily—and for good reason.

Wow bankers have reasons? It seems like this article is not just assuming market efficiency but also banker efficiency. Neither is a good assumption.

the trends in inequality that have retarded growth and have pushed down interest rates were choices that can be changed.

This is a radical claim about cause and effect for which there is almost no empirical evidence. AKA pseudo-science.

It's got to be clickbait. If there are winners, then how many workers are losing by working remotely? It seems obvious that the vast majority of people win big by not being forced to commute into a full day at an office where they would rather not be.

employment in the rich world is 3% below its pre-pandemic high (see chart 1). That points to a deficit of about 18m people—a huge waste of talent, not to mention a hit to tax revenues.

It's telling how The Economist views lost taxes and lost "talent" as the worst effects of unemployment, rather than homelessness or hunger for example.

And apparently people using their talents for personal enjoyment is outside of The Economist's models. No surprise there.

privately owned business corporations (“capitalism”) have done a great job bringing down the cost of photovoltaic panels, developing electric vehicles that people want to drive, creating promising fake meat substitutes, and otherwise creating the building blocks of a sustainable economy.

Even if we attribute this stuff to "capitalism" (instead of "workers" for example), I'm pretty sure none of it is actually sustainable.

Now of course we don’t have carbon pricing, and I think we never will because it’s hideously unpopular. But that’s the essence of the climate crisis — not an ideological crisis for liberalism, but tragically a crisis of mass indifference.

So we don't have carbon tax because of mass indifference to the planet being destroyed? Otherwise carbon taxes? Whatever, lib.

Many people start coding at a young age. Imagine your kid having to report their dapp to the IRS. It's not about the money. It's about the control.

The situation is probably worse for adults. Why go through the hassle of developing dapps when it means dealing with the IRS and potentially jail, etc.? Personally I've abandoned working on completely harmless dapps because of threats from the state. It's stifling for independent development.

On the other hand, when people compare this to China banning mining, I think the USA is far friendlier to crypto than China, because, as the ascending fiat superpower, China has much more to lose. As the dollar continues to devalue, the USA would most likely prefer a future based on Ethereum rather than the Yuan.