ethanhunt_

I have nothing against you, and was unaware of the historical usage of the phrase rootless cosmopolitan.

It's terrible that as you say your family has no country to go back to. I am fighting hard to ensure that doesn't happen to my family.

Yes, I am aware that these donations don't fund browser development, and that hucksters laundered the reputation of Firefox to take donations to advance their social causes instead of the browser.

Anything to avoid working on the browser itself. Very sad to see the decline of Mozilla and Firefox.

I wonder if someone could fork it and take all the people from Mozilla who are actually contributing to the technical mission (a small group these days!). Brendan Eich would've been perfect for this, but he's got his own browser now and wisely chose to use chromium as the base.

While partially using annotations only allows you to eliminate /instances/ of bugs, if you completely apply the annotations then it can allow you to eliminate the entire class of bugs (theoretically). Consider nullabiliy in java.

I don't see that all of the great masses of Cpp code and libraries would be rewritten or annotated to use these new features.

It's much more likely and tractable that C++ libraries will be annotated than that they'll be rewritten from scratch in Rust.

Why should taxpayers subsidize unsustainable prices for the restaurants/shops/services?

If it's just left alone, the market will react to this. If a 1BR apt costs $2500/mo, then the price of a sandwich might go to $25 to be able to pay that sandwich-makers $75k/yr wage. And if SFers don't like paying $25 for a sandwich then they can vote for more density.

Over the years, a common argument I've heard against the tactic of calling all kinds of right-leaning people Nazis and Racists was that one day we might really need to identify Real Nazis as Nazis and then nobody will believe it (the boy who cried wolf).

And here we are.

I tried to think of a realistic scenario where someone would be inclined to fake the existence of a restaurant: to make real estate look more appealing? If a RE developer built a development with several dozen houses, it could boost the values of houses enough to make it worth the cost of faking a few trendy bars/creameries/restaurants next door.

I also agree that there are differences between the behavior of men and women, on average.

Isn't saying that a fire-able offense at Google? I hope YC is really sure that these are anonymous because if she gets doxxed her career is over.

The study doesn't control for companies are probably much more likely to have Diversity Programs if they are doing really well.

Sounds like a study that finds people who buy Rolexes live longer. It's not the Rolex: it's that only rich people who have money to take care of themselves well can afford a Rolex.

Being quiet to not irritate the 39.2% of their customers is plausible, but in the case of Musk and Kalanick they didn't stay quiet. They left, and stated publicly the reasons why they left. I'm still inclined to believe that if the council was nothing more than a photo-op for Trump, Musk and Kalanick would've said that when they left. It would've made them look even better than they do now to that 39.2% ("I want to give my advice but the council is just a photo-op" is better to that segment than "I'm not giving my valuable advice because it's no longer a net-positive for my career/company").

That's not the right comparison, statistically. You'd want to compare the number of police encounters vs the number of police encounters that result in death, broken down by race. The statistic that you quoted would skew if one race has less encounters with police than the other group (which if I recall is the case here. I think NYT and WSJ both ran articles several months ago about this.)

Not that this changes the rough idea here which is that someone changing a license plate on a car shouldn't have a gun pointed at her and have to depend more on her de-escalation skills than the officer's.

Obviously, people who leave these groups have decided that the liabilities of endorsing Trump outweigh all potential benefits.

Obviously. The point of my OP was that there shouldn't be liabilities to advising the president (liabilities for endorsement are another matter).

You're repeating yourself needlessly.

Because the central point of our disagreement is whether being on the economic council is an endorsement or not. Musk and Kalanick both being on the council and loudly leaving it, but not telling any of the public that the advisory council is an empty photo-op seems unlikely to me. So I wanted to get your explanation for why that would happen, but you twice didn't respond to the question.

If the meetings are done for optics and not productivity, why have Musk and Kalanick not mentioned that? Musk said he left on principle, and Kalanick said being on the council was getting in the way of his goal.

A dichotomy:

- executive power should be wielded (WITH | WITHOUT) input from leaders of the economy

I'm not arguing that we should elect Trump. It's done. Now that he wields exec power, you think that "WITHOUT" is the better choice above? Why?

The last bullet I could've better stated as "work together as much as possible to do what both parties believe is best for the country". I'm not saying the opposition party should support all the policies of pres, but they should support the ones that they believe are good. It is good for the admin to have input from leaders of economy, and the dems believe that.

If that's true, then why didn't Kalanick or Musk say that when they left? None of them said anything about it being for show/endorsement/photos.

Saying you're 'fully against policy X' while cooperating with someone who is implementing policy X is a self-contradictory position.

No it's not. The president has an enormous jurisdiction, and you can cooperate on some issues and abstain on others. And you can advise on all of them.

there is some objectively good direction for the the economy as a whole which is clear to all

It is clear to all that the economy is best off if the titans of our economy give their thoughts to those making policy and decision. I'm not saying everyone has to help the pres do whatever he wants, but withholding advise from the president in the area of economy because you disagree with his stance on immigration is nothing but spite that harms the country.

He sits at the table with Musk etc to work with them.

It's cutting off your nose to spite your face. No one is better off by sabotaging our economy except those who want to further their political careers by saying "I told you so" at the end of his term. It's politicking of the worst kind and damages the democracy.

Good democracy:

- fierce competition in the election

- choose winner

- work together as much as possible to do what's best for the country

Replacing step 3 with "do as much as possible to obstruct the winner and hurt the country until we win again" is stupid. It slows us down and weakens the functioning of the democracy.

Nothing wrong with anyone saying "We are fully against policy X". There is something wrong with "We are fully against policy X, so we will harm unrelated things: Y and Z (the economy in this case)".

These meetings should not have any cost to their reputation and for the most part they don't. No matter what you think of the President, it is unquestionably good for America for our savvy CEOs to be advising him.

People trying to punish the CEOs who advise him are harmful to our country, and worse than the politicians that make decisions to further their own careers instead of do what's best for their country/state/county.

Not sure if LTV for blue apron is in their IPO docs or not, but to put that number into perspective: their cheapest plan is $60 per week, so if they hold onto a customer for 6 months, that $1560. 20% profit margin would mean $312. No idea if those numbers are anywhere close to correct.

The magnitude of CAC and LTV are only meaningful together. A ferrari dealership might have a $5000 cost to acquire a customer and that would be a bargain, because their LTV is $250k+.

Self-driving is an engineering problem so I think a good guess is that a strong engineering company will get it to market first: Google. If that happens, wouldn't Google just start their own ride-sharing service, and drop it right into google maps so customers never even try uber?

Ironically the sister-post to your parent post complains about a vampire being killed in the 19th century, when it's the same mindset that caused that and that wants to crucify Kalanick.

The five-minutes-of-hate culture and public lynching culture is dangerous and has to end. In a year some contrarian will post an article on Medium with the title "Kalanick was unfairly ousted" and it'll be posted on reddit/r/TIL and the tide will turn as all the people whose opinions are an expression of whatever made it to the frontpage of their favorite aggregators reverse their opinion to fit the status quo.

The difference between Tesla and Google is that Tesla actually has to ship these cars to customers right now. Wouldn't LIDAR double the cost of a Tesla right now?

They prefer to leave them behind and focus on maximizing the good parts. That's normal, expected, generally healthy, and also not what the parent comment was saying.

The "4chan parable" is saying that though.

You make a good point, but his argument then quickly boils down to anarchist style stuff which isn't worth a debate in my opinion. If you removed all these power structures somehow, they would just be replaced by other (probably identical) power structures.

The nation-state arose as a protective force to ensure that violence occurred only within well-defined wars at the edges of their territories, and citizens could basically count on peace when not at war. It basically succeeded at that, but it succeeded so well that the "battlegrounds" now have nothing to do with physical location and often little to do with physical force.

This is an interesting idea, so suppose the nation state is eliminated. Wouldn't there just be a new equivalent of the nation state that arises that is based not around physical borders but around digital borders in some way? People are always going to disagree about fundamental ideas, and they're going to band together to protect their ability to live according to those ideas. Which brings us back to the article's point #1: "Nation states, true to their name, tend to emphasize the interests of a particular nation above others.". We'll just end up with that again but instead of the US sanctioning Russia, we're going to have 4chan, reddit, and instagram launching DDoS attacks against each others' users.

A Predator drone dropping 100lb bombs on an embassy in London?

Obviously that wouldn't happen, but there's more discreet ways of killing someone than that. Obama has an enormous amount of people assassinated without trial, including American citizens. It's more than just a thought experiment.

I wouldn't trust the sources on that Like I said, I think there's no good source for it. That the highest levels of the US govt considered the idea of assassinating Assange because he is damaging to the image of America is plausible though.

I think the specific psycho phenomenon is that if there were 5 good things and 5 bad things about dating in the 50s, we generally remember the good things and talk about the good things. Now with tindr there's also 5 good and 5 bad and we say "wow all these bad things suck, back then it was just [the 5 good things that they remember]".

Remembering the good vs the bad probably aligns with someone being naturally upbeat or sad (glass full vs half-full personality).

Also I'm skeptical of that Democrats and Repubs line. In the good old days they got into fist fights on the congress floor.

It has nothing to do with other nation's being an effective check on U.S. power.

The example proves you wrong. Without another gov't protecting him, Assange would absolutely be in a US jail right now, or dead. I didn't say that the Ecuadorian military kept him safe. It is the nation states playing against each other that has kept him safe. Whether that play is social or economic or militaristic is just a minor footnote.

He might as well be holed up in a private citizen's condo in California, if he could find a private citizen who was willing to take him.

Not an acceptable alternative. Gov't would find him. Very unlikely he would make it out of the airport. You have to have the power of the nation state to play against the other nation state. Ecuador provides that in this case. It doesn't always work (US rolls over nations in middle east all the time), but it does work most of the time most of the people (for some definition of "most of the people" which would be people who live in nations that play the nation state game).

He wasn't saying to go back to 1200s, his point was that, ,=since then, those states fused into countries which was good, therefore we should keep fusing into (presumable) the inevitable one-world government.