fat_pikachu

Upwork

You buy security X for $1000 and sell it for $100. You immediately repurchase security X for $100 and sell it for $1100.

You made a net profit of $100 but are taxed on $1000 because you can't write off the $900 loss.

Why is “data driven” policing bad when we’re pretty much striving for “data driven” everything else in government?

The EFF argues that the methods here are pseudo scientific, but they seem more rigorous than many of the other “data driven” methods governments are implementing in other contexts.

Ah yes, this sense still eludes me.

Her: I had a huge crush on you in high school/college and dropped hints all the time.

Me: But you told me you had a boyfriend/were a lesbian/hated my guts.

Related HN thread that the other commenter was referencing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556

This does the opposite actually, it forced the federal government to de-prioritize areas with worse service in favor of areas with good but not as good as 100/100 service.

There are parts of the US that don't even have access to 15/3. This reclassification would put them in the same group as people with 75 up and down.

This did happen. Netflix was throttled a few years ago and they reached a "deal" with Comcast and a few months later, Netflix rates were increased.

1) This happened prior to net neutrality regulations.

2) This was a peering dispute, not throttling.

3) Net Neutrality did not regulate peering.

Energy prices have outpaced inflation in that time frame despite productivity gains.

This crisis in Texas is also a good argument for why price gouging during a shortage doesn’t work the way anti-regulatory advocates said it would.

There's no way to make that judgement until we see some actual metrics instead of anecdotes. It's possible this could have been worse without increased prices.

I'm not sure why it's difficult to believe. Universities are more than just faculty. In the past few decades, universities have become full service institutions that provide more than just education and have added an army of counselors and administrators.

see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinesimon/2017/09/05/bureau...

The things that have seen large price increases are things that aren't scalable i.e. they still require the same amount of human input labor to produce

Childcare is constrained by the fact that each childcare worker by law (for better or worse) can only look after so many children at once. This ratio varies by state but it's usually around 4 children per childcare worker. The result is that it has to be expensive because (short of having robot caretakers) it always takes 1/4 of a person's labor.

Education is similar, but has gotten worse in the past few decades w.r.t. labor requirements. While class sizes have remained relatively constant, there are more administrators, special needs educators, counselors, etc. servicing the same group of students.

This isn't to say they shouldn't be regulated, or that there isn't room for improvement. College tuition and textbooks could certainly use some downward pressure.

Your comment, at face value, seems to defend the status quo.

The comment is observational, not persuasive. Few people are happy with the current situation we find ourselves in. I'm certainly not.

The author alleges there was a deal made by Clinton to allow M&As in the defense industry - he says that politicians and financial industry are both to blame. Can you provide an alternate explanation?

The author's argument is that the lack of competition in military suppliers is due to relaxed regulatory scrutiny. I don't find this convincing. Even if U.S. regulatory bodies had aggresively enforced antitrust, many of these companies would have gone bankrupt sooner or later because demand for military assets collapsed after the cold war. This, combined with the fact that newer competitors aren't entering the market, means we'd still be in a similar position due to attrition.

It's silly to blame the financial industry because they're reacting to the incentives that the government created. It isn't the investment bank's fault iRobot is worth more as a tech company than a defense company. This is akin to blaming an engineer choosing to work for a tech company rather than a defense contractor because the tech company pays more.

The author clearly argues that this is due to anti competitive business practices that forced Boeing to withdraw from the bid. Northrup purchased a key supplier, now refuses to sell to Boeing.

That's a fair point, but I think it's trivial in the larger picture. There were other SRM manufacturers lost in the decades prior to the Orbital acquisition. The fact that we allowed the the number of suppliers to decrease to two and didn't encourage any new suppliers is indicative of a much larger problem. We can't expect to place these companies in stasis for decades until we decide we're ready to buy from them again. People and companies move on without the proper incentives.

The "loopholes" are there for a reason. They allow the government to indirectly further their policy goals without much effort e.g. tax avoidance programs for real estate investors to encourage the building of more housing, tax credits for parents to encourage people to have more children, credits for electric vehicles to encourage the development of renewables, etc.

This is misguided criticism that lays the blame on financial entities for a decades-long trend in shifting government priorities.

Who else remembers Obama's quip in the 2012 debates equivocating buying naval warships with purchasing horses and bayonets? Politicians have used the concept of a "modern 21st century military" as the rationale for decreasing naval investment in new submarines and now those same politicians are surprised that there are fewer companies that make submarines. Similarly, w.r.t. modernizing the nuclear arsenal, how can you expect a healthy competitive marketplace to exist for a product that no one has purchased in 50 years?

The logic is wrong here. Assuming bitcoin is a deflationary asset I.e. constantly goes up, the value of any bitcoin will be worth more than the energy used to mine it.

For example, mining the first bitcoin didn’t create $50K in carbon costs.

No, GME stock had a higher capitalization requirement than cash.

That's irrelevant here. We have the counterfactual study (i.e. what would have happened if the SC decided the other way) that concluded that Bush would have widened his lead. Stating that Gore likely would have won is factually incorrect.

we now know, Gore would likely have won had it continued.

This is not correct.

At which side of the setup? To get the data from the neighborhood hub to my computer? To get the data from the start of the ISP's network to the neighborhood? To get the data from you to my ISP's network?

And are you meaning actually from Netflix or from a CDN or from a Netflix node in an ISP's location or what?

Netflix has a proxy node on your ISP's network, or at least somewhere closer to it than where my computer sits. The video makes a smaller trip to your computer.

That's one optimization, among others, utilized by CPs.

I pay my ISP for bandwidth. WHAT I choose to download with that bandwidth has no impact on their bottom line

This isn't true in reality. For example, it's significantly more expensive to deliver video traffic from say, my computer to yours, than it would be to deliver from Netflix to your computer.

LIFO. Thanks, corrected it.

It isn't uncommon to find yourself on the losing end of the union contract negotiation with little you can do about it. You give up your agency. The only things that matter are the interests of the existing majority which will often be prioritized at the expense of the minority (e.g. LIFO layoff practices).

I made one tenth the salary as professor while teaching as an adjunct in grad school despite having a similar course load. My uncle's union negotiated lay-offs of his division over another one. A lot of us have stories like this that left a bad taste in our mouths about unionization. Corporations can also be guilty of favoritism but they aren't supposed to be on your side of the negotiating table.

I'm going to be the contrarian here and agree with this definition. I think it's more important that the government prioritizes making access to 25/3 available to everyone before making 100/15 (or whatever the new standard is suppose to be) available to the people who already have 25/3.

She's using it as a pretext for when they eventually ban or regulate crypto to death, not to genuinely inform anyone.

Shootings are up 100% in NYC but murders were only up 40%.

Any idea why the difference?

I’m seeing a lot of people posting conspiracy theories here and on social media. I wonder what makes this instance exceptional...

The fact that we've managed to strangle ourselves in our own bureaucracy has come back to bite us in the ass so many times throughout this pandemic. Everyone is paralyzed in fear over potential fines and lawsuits.

Unfortunately, I see this problem getting worse in the future.

Janus was public sector unions only.

Take a look at some of the rules surrounding emergency approval of the early COVID-19 tests. They weren’t even 20 years old and we’re already outdated.

As I recall, one group was denied approval because they were required to ship a hard drive with their data.

Explicit call for violence. Foments distrust in civil authority.

Textbook incitement of violent insurrection.